CA requests for next patch:

Greetings gents,
Aren´t we all having fun nowdays?! ETW is out and most people seems happy about it. However there are things that I, personally, can´t tolerate as it spoils the game totally. That´s why I start this request list. No flaming or ranting please. Let´s keep it objective and to the point. I´ll be editing this first post with yours so we´ll get a clean list of requests.

1. Reinforcements
PseRamesses: "What´s the point of being tactical when enemy reinforcements enters the battlefield where there´s no possible way they could have got to? Ex: I´ve had them show up behind me on rivercrossings and other choke-points in my own territories and even on a beach-landing they show up behind me on the beach, WTF! This has to be adressed in the next patch CA! Why bother being tactical on the campaign map taking passes, bridges or even high ground when the game throws this at you? What happened to tactical warfare?"
Monk: I'm also getting sick of the reinforcements the enemy gets, which should appear behind the enemy appear behind me. Also i'm sick of my own reinforcements doing the same!
NimitsTexan: Another thing I really, really hope that add in a future patch is the ability to put Reinforcement armies under AI control, so that when you have 2-3 full stacks, you can actually get them all on the battlefield, instead of having to wait until units route then watching the reinforcements trickle in. Why they removed this option for reinforcements, which was already present in M2

2. Sea transport/ invasion
Fisherking: "As to the Sea Transport and Invasions that are bound to make the list, a little thought. What the AI needs to do is be more willing to attack enemies where it finds them, and that will get it to move the troops. Right now if it isn’t on its border it just does not commit land units to the attack, but responds with naval forces. At least some of the factions (but definitely not all) should intervene with troops to help allies which are not reachable by land. The reinforcement issue is touchy and the AI may think it can handle armies in every province by recruiting…so reinforcing provinces by sea my not be something the AI looks at. England and France, and perhaps Spain and UP should be willing to attack across the Atlantic at least. No one undertook a sea invasion of India in this time period and I am not so sure we want everyone attacking everything by sea and spamming invasions world wide, especially by minor nations. It is something the player can do, but would be silly if every faction suddenly wanted to invade everything just because it can"
Monk: Currently, Brittan is no real threat in the European theater since they cannot strike at France with amphibious landings. All they can do is cut off trade and sink enemy ships. If you focus on land development in Western Europe it's as if GB isn't even there.

3. Multiplayer problems
yankeefan05: "CA needs to fix the problem where people get "Failed to join game - No response from host" like 80% of the time 1 of my clan mates tries to join my game or I try to do a Quick Land Battle"
tibilicus:Yes it's dreadful. I have disabled my firewall completely, this goes for both software and router firewall and I still get the message for about 90% of games I try and join.
CanCritter: "Ships need the player names in mp. Game is hard on eyes, units are small and hard to follow. No main lobby for chat...sucks"
Swoosh So: What i really want in the patch is the multiplayer campaign that was promised, ofc it would have to be a major patch so perhaps not the next patch but definately want to see this as promised, its going to completely change the way totalwar is played and will be excellent to play against a human opponent on the campaign map as well as the battle map.

4. Trade
Seireikhaan: Fix the bug where conquered territories do not seem to be developing trade routes from their ports, even when there is a commercial port there. Given how important trade can be, this is a big one, if you ask me.
Polemists: Most of all tho...I want my trade routes back that the last patch stole!

5. Diplomacy
Sisco Americanus: Some tweaks to the diplomacy AI would be nice. There are plenty of things that fall under this, but I think a really big one is that when you go to war with a nation and bring your allies with you, if you make peace with that enemy and force it to become your protectorate, your allies remain at war with that country. This in turn damages your relations with your allies because now you're allied with a country they're at war with. Of course, this leads to the larger issue of the AI factions never making peace with one another, leading to never-ending wars that are often inconsequential. I assume it stems from the long-standing problem in TW games of AI factions being too stubborn in negotiations. The AI factions are generally reluctant to make peace with you unless you give them something, preferably some of the territory you conquered from them. This is fine and is fairly historical, I think (the negotiated territorial borders generally didn't coincide with whereever the front was at the time of peace, I don't think), but the problem is that I don't think the AI faction that is winning is ever willing to give up provinces it has conquered, as it then considers those provinces their own. So since neither side is willing to yeild anything, the war usually just keeps on going until one of the factions is eliminated, which is silly. This is all speculation of course.
Tinxit: 6. For some reason Prussia asked me for a trade between my region Courland and East Prussia, giving me a lot of techs and money as well. I agree. Next turn they ask for the same thing, but reversed. Now they want East Prussia in exchange for Courland. Again, giving me a lot of money and techs as well. This repeats itself a couple of times, trading the same thing again and again, gaining a lot of techs and money as a result. This is not sane. This is insane. Truly insane. 8. Also. The mathematics behind the diplomacy is weird. I am refering to the numbers shown in the diplomacy screen where you can see what nations think of each other and why they do that. Apparently going to war against another nations good friend causes -25 or so... but thats okay, because giving the same nation a statue of a horse for 5,000 apparently gives you +140. 9. No force, how small it may be, ever gives up due to "force surrender/demand surrender".
PseRamesses: What about when the AI offers u trade and a small sum of money just to revoke the deal the very next turn just to offer u trade and cash again, again and again? Maybee same bug as the swapping of provinces? "Hey, u give me A and u get B! Next turn: Hey, give me B and I give u A"?

6. Units
Feanaro: Light Dragoons and reloading on horseback: Light Dragoons are perfectly capable of reloading on horseback... if they are shooting at an enemy. Either directed or with fire at will. Move them away from enemy units and nothing you do can will make them reload on horseback. They'll sit there the entire battle, twiddling thumbs, until an enemy comes into range. Then they start reloading their empty muskets. Get them on foot and they reload just fine. If they can't reload on horseback, fine. Don't let them reload ever. If they CAN reload while horsed up, they should do so when idle. Cannons and cease fire orders: I've ordered cannons to cease fire while they were reloading, with fire at will turned off, and they still fire off a shot once loaded. Sometimes into their own horses or my line infantry, sometimes just at the ground. I can understand some justification for a slight delay but these cannons were reloading. I've nearly lost a general to this already.
alh p: Horse-drawn artillery: Trying to limber up the arty sometimes freezes mid way through the maneuver. I've noticed this in two cases: 1, when the path of the horse drawn limber is blocked by an obstacle (eg wall) and 2, when the gunners have been involved in melee (with no casualties). Looks to me like the bug is to do with re-setting the arty's behaviour -probably related to buggy fire at will behaviour. Light infantry: 1, in "light infantry mode", deploying a unit by clicking and dragging to form the shape of their unit causes the unit to face the wrong way! I first thought i must be at fault (and deploying them back to front) but after checking with a unit of line inf, i confirmed i wasn't. Clicking to attack a particular unit or move to a given location does cajole the light infantry to face the right way and they will then fire at will as intended. 2, skirmish mode for light infantry units. This basicaly renders light infantry useless (or very short lived) when deployed as a screen in front of the main battle line. Light inf have a longer musket range than many other units and so should be able to fire on the enemy, especially their line infantry, whilst out of the range of returned musket fire (i assumed that this was the whole point of them). However, light inf actually don't seem to fall back untill threatened by melee/charge range of the enemy. This means that they have to be micro-d to intolerable degrees in order to achieve their purpose of drawing the enemy on whilst remaining out of the range of returned fire. I suggest that the fallback/ skirmish "trigger" should be coming into the firing range of a targeted or approaching unit -not an arbitrary distance of the enemy from the unit of light inf. Cover: I am wary of using cover in my games. I've found that units placed behind cover don't fire by rank and will not always fire at all either. This is obviously a major pain in the neck as you might expect your infantry, so deployed, to do some damage rather than absurdly sit behind the wall.
PseRamesses: This has been mentioned regarding dragoons but my Deli horsemen doesn´t seem to reload. Whats the point of having cavalry with rifles if they can´t reload or even fire while riding, huh!?

7. CTD´s:
Marquis of Roland: One thing they HAVE to fix is the game crashing during grand campaign, from a variety of reasons, although the issue with naval crash is most poignant for me right now. I'm not a real technical computer person, I've heard speculations from memory dump, corrupted files, etc. 1. Hurons. Whether they declare war on you, or you on them, or you conquering their last regional capital, one of these will eventually happen and crash your game (as GB, since Hurons always declare war on GB). Bypassed this by not taking their last region.
2. Navy bugs. Lots of them. CTD can happen when you click on a military port (all other ports don't seem to crash your game), whether or not it has ships in it, troops, or nothing at all. clicking on your fleets also crashes your game. Apparently this happens randomly, so everytime I click on a fleet, its like playing Russian roulette, you never know if thats the next one that will crash your game. The bugged fleets cannot become "unbugged". It will stay bugged for the rest of the campaign, so it is essentially lost, but you still pay upkeep. I have at least 3 fleets of 10-12 ships of the line that is like this, thank god money is not an issue for GB. 3. Merging units. I usually never do this myself, but other people were saying it crashes the game so I tried it once and it did. Never tried it again.
Lord Ovaat: I'm not sure if CA realizes just how serious this problem is. If many of us (forum trolls) are gridlocked with freezes, BSOD's and CTD's, what about the thousands upon thousands of folks who've bought the game, can't play it, and will never be heard from because they ain't cyber dwellers? Only a relative few check our forums. Fixing anything--anything--else before stabilizing the game is meaningless. This issue is alienating a lot of CA's staunch supporters. I can only guess how the general public must feel about not being able to even play this game.
And I am tired of hearing peeps say its a hardware issue. I can't currently play ETW a full turn without a freeze requiring reboot, but once rebooted I can go right into MTW2 (SS) and play the campaign I was in while waiting for ETW release. And, I might add, I play at 1680X1050 with all settings maxed out. No lag on campaign map, and very little lag on strategic even with multiple stacks and "speed-ups." I only hope CA can get this corrected before it damages their credibility.

8. Misc.bugs:
ZIM!!: I found a bug in naval unit production. I was building 3rd and forth rate ships in the windward islands(dutch) and they all just froze at zero turns till creation queue so none of the ships ever spawned.
Susanna: I am not sure if this is a bug, but has anyone ever had sucess with the "Offer Surrender" option? So far the AI hasn't agreed to it once, even when being outnumberd horribly.
Superteale: Make it easier to delete save games
PseRamesses: When a agent gets available in one of your settlements I click on locate and get zoomed in to where he is. When I click his unit card in the settlement to move him out the garrisoned unit moves out instead??? This has happened on numerous occasions so it can´t be me. More: I came across a bug last night. I had 2 indiamen in a trade slot in Madagaskar but can not move more I.M into them and I can´t even move them out of there. I had to delete them to free up the space.

9. Alliances related:
PseRamesses: I just recently learned a very cheesy exploit that convinced me that I will NEVER ally with another faction: Form an alliace, march your armies in and park them besides all their cities, attack = faction destroyed! OMG Now, as a human player I can choose never to do this but can the AI do the same or can an ally of yours march right in and destroy you?
Dopp: The 'auto-eject' functionality is already in the game. I bought several provinces and all foreign armies were immediately moved to the border, even those that were garrisoned. Too bad they didn't think of extending it to declarations of war or military access breaking.
Polemists: Well technically once you break a military alliance the Ai cannot "Enter" your land without declaring war, however if the Ai's army is already marching through your land it just sits there, not sure what to do I guess. A auto eject would be nice. This only partially works, as if you buy a island, the army isn't sent out to sea or anything, they just sit on your island for the next 100 years. Not doing anything.

10. Protectorates:
Vlad Tzepes: 1. It's so easy to become a minor's faction protector. Just throw in some cash and you're done. 2. Now it looks like you have to be at peace with that faction to offer protectorate; couldn't find the "become protectorate" option with factions I was at war with. Different from MTW2. 3. Protectorates territories don't seem to count anymore in your province number count. As GB, I have Malta as an objective. Made the Knights there my protectorate, but the province isn't checked in my objective list (this is different from MTW2). Guess I'll have to destroy the poor Knights. Not nice. 4. I dunno if this is a bug or intended to be so, but military access to a protectorate does not include sea lanes. For instance, Morrocco has some ships parked at Gibraltar Straits. As GB, I own Gibraltar, Morrocco is my protectorate but I cannot move my fleets in the Mediterranean. Gonna have to stab those guys in the back, I hate it. (Note: I copied this from another thread, PseR)

11. Battle issues:
PseRamesses: When a unit routs, often, they scatterin several directions and my pursuing cav runs back and forward between multiple locations to eliminated one unit. Extremely frustrating since fatigue kicks in pretty fast in ETW.
Warhammer 3025: Anyone notice the bug where if you fight an AI army and he has some fixed artillery coming in as part of the reinforcement stack that you cant finish teh battle due the fixed arty not entering the field? I've had several battles where i kill everyone but the battle keeps running because i didnt "win" yet. The stupid fixed arty wont come in cuz they cant move and i lose the battle even though i control the field. Surprised no one else bitched about this one yet, it's pretty damn game breaking in teh early game. Oh yea, also, whenever i suffer this bug i just withdraw everyone and take the loss, but killing everyone i can get my hands on. However when i suffer the arty limber glitch and i cant pull those idiots out, when i manually end the battle via esc i suffer catastrophic casualties as if my entire was on the field even though i pulled 95% of my troops. They gotta fix this thing too, if i pull my army out in good order they shouldnt be obliterated... i mean hell, M2:TW did this just fine why the heck did we have such a step backward.
PseRamesses: I dream of the day the AI will keep formations. I think that would be both harder and more challenging to play. What really bugs me is the AI´s obsession with chasing cavalry around. Last night I had 1 cannon, 4 lines and 2 cavs and I was able to use my cavs as bait eventually routing the entire 17-18 units AI army.
Slaists: In the current state of the game, as far as fort wall defense is considered, the following holds: 1. the wooden fort is the BEST for wall defense; cannons are deadly so is rifle fire from the walls. 2. the gun fort is the second best, but worse than the wood fort; player units seem to start to fire when the enemy is at much closer range than in the case of the wood fort; accuracy is worse. 3. the star fort is the WORST for wall defense; player's units fire cannons only at point blank range with almost zero efficiency; rifle fire from the high walls almost always misses the enemy. So, this progression leads me to suspect, the walls as coded into the game now are too high for the current rifle range, which is pretty short... The vertical distance of the units from the top of those huge skyscraper walls almost matches the usual 'aiming distance' on flat ground.

12. Pathfinding:
PseRamesses: Say you´re playing England. You build an Indiaman and want to move it from the port east of London through rhe channel towards Spain. If you have a fleet, your own, that blocks the channel the Indiaman tries to circumnavigate the whole brittish isles instead of the "path blocked" pops up instead. On the other hand I find it silly that my own troops can block the path of my own troops, don´t you? This behaviour applies to all unit types as well as agents.
Whats even worse is on the battlemap. If you order a unit across a bridge by clicking on the other side an there´s a ford on the map the unit runs all the way over to the ford instead of crossing at the bridge. To sucessfully cross a bridge you have to click on the bridge to move the unit on to it. Imagine this micro managemant in the middle of a battle with 20 units tha you have to nurse this way. Unacceptable!

13. Misc:
Monsineur Alphonse: You win a campaign by controlling enough regions in 1799. This means that even if you have captured enough regions in let say 1750 you still have to play until 1799 . Does CA really think that a human player who controls 50 regions is going to lose them during the rest of the game?

That seems fair enough, and a big one. I know in M2 they showed up dependant on the direction the arrived from.

As to the Sea Transport and Invasions that are bound to make the list, a little thought.

What the AI needs to do is be more willing to attack enemies where it finds them, and that will get it to move the troops. Right now if it isn’t on its border it just does not commit land units to the attack, but responds with naval forces.

At least some of the factions (but definitely not all) should intervene with troops to help allies which are not reachable by land. The reinforcement issue is touchy and the AI may think it can handle armies in every province by recruiting…so reinforcing provinces by sea my not be something the AI looks at.

England and France, and perhaps Spain and UP should be willing to attack across the Atlantic at least.
No one undertook a sea invasion of India in this time period and I am not so sure we want everyone attacking everything by sea and spamming invasions world wide, especially by minor nations.

It is something the player can do, but would be silly if every faction suddenly wanted to invade everything just because it can.

CA needs to fix the problem where people get "Failed to join game - No response from host" like 80% of the time 1 of my clan mates tries to join my game or I try to do a Quick Land Battle.

ships need the player names in mp
game is hard on eyes,,units are small and hard to follow
No main lobby for chat...sucks
:thumbsdown:

I never play MP so can anyone else confirm yankeefan05´s impression that people have trouble joining an MP-game? Seems like a serious host problem to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PseRamesses

I never play MP so can anyone else confirm yankeefan05´s impression that people have trouble joining an MP-game? Seems like a serious host problem to me.

---

Yes it's dreadful. I have disabled my firewall completely, this goes for both software and router firewall and I still get the message for about 90% of games I try and join.

Seconding 1 and 2.

Currently, Brittan is no real threat in the European theater since they cannot strike at France with amphibious landings. All they can do is cut off trade and sink enemy ships. If you focus on land development in Western Europe it's as if GB isn't even there.

I'm also getting sick of the reinforcements the enemy gets, which should appear behind the enemy appear behind me. Also i'm sick of my own reinforcements doing the same! I need my men to enter the field close to me, not so far away they end up dead before I can support them. :no:

I took care to advance with no enemy at my back, yet there they are. It's very frustrating.

Fix the bug where conquered territories do not seem to be developing trade routes from their ports, even when there is a commercial port there. Given how important trade can be, this is a big one, if you ask me.

Reinforcements, as others have stated.

The multi-player issue sounds serious as well. That seems rather base and shouldn't be very difficult to fix. Could be a Steam issue, though.

Ideally, starting small on the AI transporting land troops via navies. Better they not do it enough than go totally berzerk as a starting point.

sort out BSOD.

Sort out whatever they did in the last patch that means I can't get past the copyright screen?

id imagine that will be the BSOD striking again.

Definitely the reinforcement issue and the lack of naval invasions for me to. also another minor issue there needs to be more than two zoom settings for the radar map in land battles.

Some tweaks to the diplomacy AI would be nice. There are plenty of things that fall under this, but I think a really big one is that when you go to war with a nation and bring your allies with you, if you make peace with that enemy and force it to become your protectorate, your allies remain at war with that country. This in turn damages your relations with your allies because now you're allied with a country they're at war with.

Of course, this leads to the larger issue of the AI factions never making peace with one another, leading to never-ending wars that are often inconsequential. I assume it stems from the long-standing problem in TW games of AI factions being too stubborn in negotiations. The AI factions are generally reluctant to make peace with you unless you give them something, preferably some of the territory you conquered from them. This is fine and is fairly historical, I think (the negotiated territorial borders generally didn't coincide with whereever the front was at the time of peace, I don't think), but the problem is that I don't think the AI faction that is winning is ever willing to give up provinces it has conquered, as it then considers those provinces their own. So since neither side is willing to yeild anything, the war usually just keeps on going until one of the factions is eliminated, which is silly. This is all speculation of course.

Fix minor factions fighting suicide wars...possibly by making declining in relations less steep?

Quote:

---

leading to never-ending wars that are often inconsequential

---

This and the trade route bug are my two biggest. So wars are fine. For instance the Ottomans and Russians go at each other every game I've played and usually have a big naval war, fine, great, glorious.

Other nations though will have war declared when there is no way it means anything.


GB declared war somehow on Saxony in my game, and yet clearly no English army was in Saxony. I was the ally so it brought me into the war or I took a rep hit.


London is powerless and the other nations are powerless to attack england without any form of naval invasion by the AI.

Most of all tho...I want my trade routes back that the last patch stole :thumbsdown:

Besides what's been mentioned, here's a few minor ones that really get up my craw.

Light Dragoons and reloading on horseback.
Light Dragoons are perfectly capable of reloading on horseback... if they are shooting at an enemy. Either directed or with fire at will. Move them away from enemy units and nothing you do can will make them reload on horseback. They'll sit there the entire battle, twiddling thumbs, until an enemy comes into range. Then they start reloading their empty muskets. :dizzy2: Get them on foot and they reload just fine. If they can't reload on horseback, fine. Don't let them reload ever. If they CAN reload while horsed up, they should do so when idle.

Cannons and cease fire orders.
I've ordered cannons to cease fire while they were reloading, with fire at will turned off, and they still fire off a shot once loaded. Sometimes into their own horses or my line infantry, sometimes just at the ground. I can understand some justification for a slight delay but these cannons were reloading. :inquisitive: I've nearly lost a general to this already.

People seems to have problems with fort defences: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=114429
I haven´t played a fort defece myself. Still in training ;) around an hour or so in the evenings. What´s your experiences with this issue?

One thing they HAVE to fix is the game crashing during grand campaign, from a variety of reasons, although the issue with naval crash is most poignant for me right now. I'm not a real technical computer person, I've heard speculations from memory dump, corrupted files, etc. etc. etc. If it is a file problem please fix it soon! (hopefully before the weekend is over) :furious2:

Well, PseRamesses, my immediate wish list is as follows:

#1 STABILITY
#2 STABILITY
#3 STABILITY
#4 STABILITY
#5 STABILITY

I'm not sure if CA realizes just how serious this problem is. If many of us (forum trolls) are gridlocked with freezes, BSOD's and CTD's, what about the thousands upon thousands of folks who've bought the game, can't play it, and will never be heard from because they ain't cyber dwellers? Only a relative few check our forums. Fixing anything--anything--else before stabilizing the game is meaningless. This issue is alienating a lot of CA's staunch supporters. I can only guess how the general public must feel about not being able to even play this game.

And I am tired of hearing peeps say its a hardware issue. I can't currently play ETW a full turn without a freeze requiring reboot, but once rebooted I can go right into MTW2 (SS) and play the campaign I was in while waiting for ETW release. And, I might add, I play at 1680X1050 with all settings maxed out. No lag on campaign map, and very little lag on strategic even with multiple stacks and "speed-ups."

I only hope CA can get this corrected before it damages their credibility. My life would have no meaning with TW. OK, that's a little strong. How 'bout, ....................... Nah, on second thought, that's pretty accurate.

Some changes for comfort and history:

1. If I click on a unit in a battle it should be highlighted on the minimap. If I click a unit also the small flag (I find it impossible to play with the big unit flag symbols) should move up and down. The movement should be faster and more explicite than it is the case now.

2. It should be possible to speed up actions on the campaign map like in RTW and M2TW. One time I had to look more or less patiently to 6 stacks of one Mughal unit each crawling slowly one after the other over the map to try to sap a small town of mine, only to be caught up and annihilated by my 8-unit-stack near the town every time. I was near to bite into my tastatur.

3. Fortresses are really broken. The construction is silly and unhistorical and defence is worse the bigger the fortress is. Path finding is problematic for the defenders. The cannons of the forts are more or less useless because of the bold rashes of the attackers and their ninja like hooking and roping. Poor Vauban and Montalhembert, if they only had known the utter weakness of their silly creations... I plead for better defence for fortresses.

4. Tell the AI that walls are not always good. I once had a battle when I was caught up by the AI where only the reinforcements of the AI attacked (of course they appeared in my back) but the main stack was hiding in houses and behind walls shattered over a huge part of the map. I was able to destroy many of the AI units one after the other with howitzers and light infantry sniping without resistance. (Nevertheless I lost the battle to my great surprise, perhaps because too many AI units were still spread over the field when the timer extinguished? I was not very pleased.)

5. Please take rang firing away from the tech tree. It was an old fire mode even at the beginning of our period. Let all units be able to fire by rang. Make it less effective like it was in reality. Add perhaps instead the iron ramrod to have at least one of the real innovations of the period in the tech.

I just recently learned a very cheesy exploit that convinced me that I will NEVER ally with another faction: Form an alliace, march your armies in and park them besides all their cities, attack = faction destroyed! OMG:furious3: Now, as a human player I can choose never to do this but can the AI do the same or can an ally of yours march right in and destroy you?

Coalitions - Be able to form alliances and power blocks with factions against other coalitions; they were a big part of politics of the period, (E.g. Seven Years War, War of the Austrian Succesion, Napoleon.). They would have to be quite flexible though, as they had a habit of changing quite regularly.

Congresses - Wherin you can get two different coalitions to sit down at a big conference to make peace with each other, and borders are redefined. The person who called it (Not necessarily the AI) would make suggestions as to the drawing of the new borders, and these would either be approved/rejected into a final peace deal. Minor factions would be unable to protest the gobbling up of their lands, although major factions would be able to veto any cessations of their lands, probably trigging a war against the members of the congress who accepted the deal. (Note the difference between rejecting the call for a conference, resulting in a continuation of hostilities, the disapproval of a certain outcome of a congress, resulting in the proposals for the outcome of the congress being rethought [I suggest a 3/4 majority approval of a plan being submitted, for that to result in that proposal being the definite outcome of the congress, and an inability to submit that plan again, to stop any stupid AI behaviour] and rejection of the agreed outcome, resulting in a war between the other factions who accepted the outcome of that particular congress.) Features like bribes and double dealing would play an interesting part.

This is needed because although the diplomacy at the minute works fine when interacting with the player, it seems incapable of responding to threats from other factions, and co-ordinating it's response with friendly factions. Methods such as these could force the AI to work together.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geala

2. It should be possible to speed up actions on the campaign map like in RTW and M2TW. One time I had to look more or less patiently to 6 stacks of one Mughal unit each crawling slowly one after the other over the map to try to sap a small town of mine, only to be caught up and annihilated by my 8-unit-stack near the town every time. I was near to bite into my tastatur.

---

Have you tried pressing spacebar or did you mean faster than that?

I found a bug in naval unit production. I was building 3rd and forth rate ships in the windward islands(dutch) and they all just froze at zero turns till creation queue so none of the ships ever spawned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PseRamesses

I just recently learned a very cheesy exploit that convinced me that I will NEVER ally with another faction: Form an alliace, march your armies in and park them besides all their cities, attack = faction destroyed! OMG:furious3: Now, as a human player I can choose never to do this but can the AI do the same or can an ally of yours march right in and destroy you?

---

Can anyone confirm this?

Well it's true, it's been true since RTW and military access. If you get military access you can technically walk up to a capital and destroy a one nation faction. Though I've never seen the AI betray alliances much, compared to say MTW2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feanaro

Have you tried pressing spacebar or did you mean faster than that?

---

If spacebar would speed them up like right click in RTW, I haven't tried it yet. Thank you for the hint.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Polemists

Well it's true, it's been true since RTW and military access. If you get military access you can technically walk up to a capital and destroy a one nation faction. Though I've never seen the AI betray alliances much, compared to say MTW2.

---

In CIV3 terms this is called a 'Right-Of-Passage' Rape and its totally lame. In CIV4, they solved it by making a declaration of war auto-eject all units to the border. While its gamey, it definitely solves the problem.:beam:

Well technically once you break a military alliance the Ai cannot "Enter" your land without declaring war, however if the Ai's army is already marching through your land it just sits there, not sure what to do I guess. A auto eject would be nice.


But honestly CA please fix this trade thing, it annoys me to no end. I just took St.Petersburg last night as Russia and got 0 trade routes out of it. I mean common, the only thing I used to be good at was taking port towns. Don't doom us to land trade and starting naval trade only :(

(Apparently if you are given land by another nation you get the trade route, but if you conquer a factions city who owns a trade port, even with repairs the trade routes will not appear. It's vexing in the extreme."

The 'auto-eject' functionality is already in the game. I bought several provinces and all foreign armies were immediately moved to the border, even those that were garrisoned. Too bad they didn't think of extending it to declarations of war or military access breaking.

Fix the issue with the AI blocking up the entrance to the Med/Black Sea with raiding ships. It may be a minor thing, but I dont like having to go to war with the Ottomans or Morocco every time I want to sail into/out of those particular waters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Polemists

Well technically once you break a military alliance the Ai cannot "Enter" your land without declaring war, however if the Ai's army is already marching through your land it just sits there, not sure what to do I guess. A auto eject would be nice.


But honestly CA please fix this trade thing, it annoys me to no end. I just took St.Petersburg last night as Russia and got 0 trade routes out of it. I mean common, the only thing I used to be good at was taking port towns. Don't doom us to land trade and starting naval trade only :(

(Apparently if you are given land by another nation you get the trade route, but if you conquer a factions city who owns a trade port, even with repairs the trade routes will not appear. It's vexing in the extreme."

---

Hmm, I got some trade routes in conquered territory, at least I had the impression because of the green lines that appeared. It took some time however. Sometimes trade is just not possible because the harbours of all other nations are still occupied with other trade (so told me the diplomacy window).

I find that if you have a exsisting port and you conquer a city you get the port. However if you conquer the city and have to build a port it does not seem to present a trade route. Though I will check this in the trade window.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dopp

The 'auto-eject' functionality is already in the game. I bought several provinces and all foreign armies were immediately moved to the border, even those that were garrisoned. Too bad they didn't think of extending it to declarations of war or military access breaking.

---

That´s promising. Since it´s already in the game they only have to add it to DoW´s on allies. I´ll add it to the list.

This only partially works, as if you buy a island, the army isn't sent out to sea or anything, they just sit on your island for the next 100 years. Not doing anything.

i recently had a (badly depleted) stack stuck south of the alps with a long a daunting route home through europe when my travel argreement with Venice expired and they were transported all the way to dover, boy was i pleased.

As for the CTD, its got so bad with ports since the last patch i hardly dare upgrade them.

I also find a terrible lag when i click on ship stacks in the channel

That seems to be a reoccuring thing. If you click on certain units it just lags out for no good reason. I think it might be due to some of the weird Audio artifacts I've run into like Advisors not talking and stuff :-\

I am not sure if this is a bug, but has anyone ever had sucess with the "Offer Surrender" option?
So far the AI hasn't agreed to it once, even when being outnumberd horribly :embarassed:

Susanna/Calapine :pokemon:

I have to requests:
1. Make it easier to delete save games
2. Do something about fortresses/ sieges:
Suggestions:
1. Make it impossible to lay siege and attack in the same turn
(sieges need preparations)
2. Add difficult terrain to the bottom of the walls to simulate ditches and make the attacker spend more time in the "fire zone" when trying to scale the wall.
3. Restrict the use of Ninja- hooks and tactics to light infantry and only allow line infantry to enter the wall through breaches or captured gate houses
4. Sieges should give a bonus of some sort to the attacker to reflect a prepared assault

I have never had an army take the surrender option , even when heavily outnumbered AND they had a place to exit to, such as an adjacent province.

I killed France in France and was on the move in Louisiana. Though I had not conquered it or Montreal, I was besieging both towns and had garrisoned some units in different towns in the province. After the fall of France, two factions emerged and the game "kicked" my units out of the towns etc., in the "new" faction areas. After that, I could not end my turn as my units were "stuck" in those provinces and I was unable to move them out.


Why is it the map chosen for combat in the New world is always some indian village map? There are some town which do not allow you the option to place walls. This then defaults to some indian village even when you are defending a province that you had for 30-50 turns. One would think that the locals would have at least built a blockhouse or something. I have had this happen several times when I am defending.

I also encounter CTD sometimes when I manually attempt to merge units. This doesn't occur all the time, but allowing the game to merge units will sometimes cause a unit to lose chevrons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Superteale

3. Restrict the use of Ninja- hooks and tactics to light infantry and only allow line infantry to enter the wall through breaches or captured gate houses

---

Actually, that sort of role was generally given to HEAVY infantry, traditionally grenadiers, whose job was (originally) to get as close as was semi-safe and chuck those grenades at people. Of course, by ETW's time grenades were not very common, being one of the least safe weapons on the battlefield, as people and more or less stopped muskets and cannons blowing up in your face by this period.

What I'd suggest would be dropping grenades from the grenadiers and turning them into, essentially, line infantry with a big melee bonus. Which is basically what they were in this period.

I say melee bonus and not a ranged bonus because you can only get so accurate with a musket. But grenadiers were selected for height and strength, giving them an advantage over those of less stature and slighter build. They were, if you will, the 'brute squad'.

It was also typically their job to attack heavy fortifications which couldn't simply be demolished with cannons and which couldn't just be overwhelmed with infantry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joe4iz

I also encounter CTD sometimes when I manually attempt to merge units. This doesn't occur all the time, but allowing the game to merge units will sometimes cause a unit to lose chevrons.

---

Yes this was in all of the previous TW games and it makes sense. You are replacing losses with inexperianced troops. Thus the experiance chevtons go down. Makes total sense to me.

Although, I would like to see 'von Savoyens Grennadiers' get their 4th chevron amd still have 60 men. Ah well, I guess its time to storm the castle.

AI (diplomacy)
I was playing the Brits and was stinking rich, earning a zillion through trade and taxes. Every turn the Prussians offered me a trade deal in exchange of some money. That amount of money went up from 3600 gold to over 8500 gold twenty turns later. They were dirt poor and needed the trade, I didn't. More realistic would be (and in the interest of the AI) to lower that amount per turn of even offer the deal for free.

Winning conditions
You win a campaign by controlling enough regions in 1799. This means that even if you have captured enough regions in let say 1750 you still have to play until 1799 :oops:. Does CA really think that a human player who controls 50 regions is going to lose them during the rest of the game?

I must be in a minority as I am not happy about Empire. The game is not SLI friendly and crashes constantly. The guy at Sega customer service suggested that I removed a card from my rig to play the game!

Why wasn't this revealed to me as a buyer PRIOR to purchasing the product? THis is the last product I will ever buy from CA.

I just want them to get rid of CTD first. Other bugs may only make a great game good, whilst CTD can make it unplayable...

Yesterday I spent 50 mins in a battle and was seconds away from victory when I got CTDed. That annoyed me.. :furious3:

Well, there really are some things they have left out or not quite finished checking.

Here is one that needs to be patched.

Delete Save Game

Some how it got over looked…I don’t need to explain why its needed, do I?


:laugh4:

What i really want in the patch is the multiplayer campaign that was promised, ofc it would have to be a major patch so perhaps not the next patch but definately want to see this as promised, its going to completely change the way totalwar is played and will be excellent to play against a human opponent on the campaign map as well as the battle map.

It is absolute nonsense that if you have a special region of a nation on your Winning Conditions list you have to destroy the faction, because having them as a protectorate is not enough for the game.
Very dissapointing!
It should be enough to be the protector of this nation!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veresov

I must be in a minority as I am not happy about Empire. The game is not SLI friendly and crashes constantly. The guy at Sega customer service suggested that I removed a card from my rig to play the game!

Why wasn't this revealed to me as a buyer PRIOR to purchasing the product? THis is the last product I will ever buy from CA.

---

Erm it was.

The specifications didn't list SLI compatiable. So it wasnt. Surely the mistake is on your side here.

I wouldn't think SLI compatibility with a new application would be an issue. I've had horrid problems with SLI and ETW, some of which have been reduced by disabling SLI. That said, all of my hardware IS SLI compatible, and I've yet to play a game that's given me a problem. In fact, I'm still playing MTW2 with no problems at all with SLI activated. I don't remember MTW2 not being advertised as compatible with SLI. This is a software issue that doesn't appear to be present in CA's earlier games. I only hope they correct it.

Has anyone had a problem with ATI's Crossfire, or is this specific only to Nvidia's multi-card setup? That would be funny if SLI is the only one, after all, Nvidia's add is in the load screens. "The way it's meant to be played", lol.

Well after a few irrecoverable GB campaigns because of CTD, there are a few things that has crashed my campaign everytime:

1. Hurons. Whether they declare war on you, or you on them, or you conquering their last regional capital, one of these will eventually happen and crash your game (as GB, since Hurons always declare war on GB). Bypassed this by not taking their last region.

2. Navy bugs. Lots of them. CTD can happen when you click on a military port (all other ports don't seem to crash your game), whether or not it has ships in it, troops, or nothing at all. clicking on your fleets also crashes your game. Apparently this happens randomly, so everytime I click on a fleet, its like playing Russian roulette, you never know if thats the next one that will crash your game. The bugged fleets cannot become "unbugged". It will stay bugged for the rest of the campaign, so it is essentially lost, but you still pay upkeep. I have at least 3 fleets of 10-12 ships of the line that is like this, thank god money is not an issue for GB.

3. Merging units. I usually never do this myself, but other people were saying it crashes the game so I tried it once and it did. Never tried it again.

Other than those, the game experiences jst random crashes every couple turns or so. It doesn't happen much, and you can usually continue from your last savepoint past where it crashed, but its sorta affected how I play the game, since I'm afraid the game can crash at any moment, I play a lot more cautiously than I normally do, and I tend to avoid clicking on ships as much as possible (which, playing as GB, is TOTALLY wrong) :sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phog_of_War

Yes this was in all of the previous TW games and it makes sense. You are replacing losses with inexperianced troops. Thus the experiance chevtons go down. Makes total sense to me..

---

I may not have explained myself correctly. I am talking about manually grabbing a unit card to merge with other same type units. Most of the time this will work fine, however, sometmes it causes the game to crash to desktop. Secondly, merging same experience units with like-type same experience units should not result in a loss of chevrons (nor does it). When the game automerges your stacks, it places lower chevrons in with the higher chevron units , thereby causing a loss of a chevron. This is more of an annoyance so I started manually merging units, thus running into an intermittant problem.

I like the above ideas, and would also like to see:

1.)Admirals that can transfer flagships. I want my Admiral in my best ship, not some brig that he started his career in.

2.)More use for rakes. Compared to previous TW games rakes are worthless as spies. I'd like them to uncover some fog so that I know what type of troops that I am fighting against, without having to do missions that have low chances of sucess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monsieur Alphonse

AI (diplomacy)


Winning conditions
You win a campaign by controlling enough regions in 1799. This means that even if you have captured enough regions in let say 1750 you still have to play until 1799 :oops:. Does CA really think that a human player who controls 50 regions is going to lose them during the rest of the game?

---

To external threats, probably not . .. but there are always revolutions.

I would Like to see :-

1) The merging of troops working better, as my game always CTD's when trying to do this.
2) The Capturing of ships needs to be fixed, as at the moment it seems really random if you get the ships or not.
3) Cavalry and spikes. I have lost many a good cavalry troop walking to close to the end of spikes!
4) After a battle and returning to the campaign map, your general dieing an 'Heroic' death even though he didn't engage in combat.
5) Sorting out the statistics at the end of battle as they seem incorrect : i.e. your general getting credited with kills even though he didn't fight.

I'm sure there are many others but if they can fix some of these it would be great :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grumfoss

I would Like to see :-

1) The merging of troops working better, as my game always CTD's when trying to do this.
2) The Capturing of ships needs to be fixed, as at the moment it seems really random if you get the ships or not.
3) Cavalry and spikes. I have lost many a good cavalry troop walking to close to the end of spikes!
4) After a battle and returning to the campaign map, your general dieing an 'Heroic' death even though he didn't engage in combat.
5) Sorting out the statistics at the end of battle as they seem incorrect : i.e. your general getting credited with kills even though he didn't fight.

I'm sure there are many others but if they can fix some of these it would be great :2thumbsup:

---

You still have all those problems?

I only ever had 2 & 5 and they were both fixed by a patch fairly quickly. :2thumbsup:



The one thing I want sorted is that irritating-as-hell sound effect on the campaign map. I have no idea what it's supposed to be, but it sounds vaguely like something gently crashing into something else 3 times in quick succession. It plays on a loop about every 10 seconds or so and is so freaking annoying I now play the campaign with the sound off. :no:



SORT IT OUT CA


Honestly, it's the most annoying thing I've encountered in a game since FM09's ludicrous injury rates, and that got fixed pretty sharpish........

Nope the problem still exists with all parts for me.. I'm sure i'm all patched up as I let Steam do its stuff before I play. But I might be wrong.

Anyone notice the bug where if you fight an AI army and he has some fixed artillery coming in as part of the reinforcement stack that you cant finish teh battle due the fixed arty not entering the field? I've had several battles where i kill everyone but the battle keeps running because i didnt "win" yet. The stupid fixed arty wont come in cuz they cant move and i lose the battle even though i control the field. Surprised no one else bitched about this one yet, it's pretty damn game breaking in teh early game.

Oh yea, also, whenever i suffer this bug i just withdraw everyone and take the loss, but killing everyone i can get my hands on. However when i suffer the arty limber glitch and i cant pull those idiots out, when i manually end the battle via esc i suffer catastrophic casualties as if my entire was on the field even though i pulled 95% of my troops. They gotta fix this thing too, if i pull my army out in good order they shouldnt be obliterated... i mean hell, M2:TW did this just fine why the heck did we have such a step backward.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaiseric

I like the above ideas, and would also like to see:

1.)Admirals that can transfer flagships. I want my Admiral in my best ship, not some brig that he started his career in.

---

If you group your admiral's ship with the ship you want as the new flagship, then disband your admiral's ship, he'll transfer to the new ship.

Sometimes, it isn't worth it to disband a 2nd-rate just to move an admiral.

Yeah, it would be nice to have a Transfer Admiral or a promote Admiral button that moves him to the largest ship in your squadron.

Moving him into a Heavy First Rate from a Second or Third Rate requires you to disband the Second Rate. This is counter-intuitive as it stands, especially in the later stages of the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warhammer3025

Anyone notice the bug where if you fight an AI army and he has some fixed artillery coming in as part of the reinforcement stack that you cant finish teh battle due the fixed arty not entering the field? I've had several battles where i kill everyone but the battle keeps running because i didnt "win" yet. The stupid fixed arty wont come in cuz they cant move and i lose the battle even though i control the field. Surprised no one else bitched about this one yet, it's pretty damn game breaking in teh early game.

Oh yea, also, whenever i suffer this bug i just withdraw everyone and take the loss, but killing everyone i can get my hands on. However when i suffer the arty limber glitch and i cant pull those idiots out, when i manually end the battle via esc i suffer catastrophic casualties as if my entire was on the field even though i pulled 95% of my troops. They gotta fix this thing too, if i pull my army out in good order they shouldnt be obliterated... i mean hell, M2:TW did this just fine why the heck did we have such a step backward.

---

:yes:Agreed. While I have not experienced that particular bug I DO agree that if you withdraw in good order you should not suffer 75 to 80 and sometimes 90% casualties. The casualties you take in just a standard line company vs. line company firefight are heavy enough. In fact I think casualty are a too high across the board.


Oftentimes, when a general realized that his position was untenable or victory was not possible, he would withdraw his remaning forces to save his men and fight another day. Most of the time the winning army would let them leave. Chivalry was not a dead concept on the battlefield yet.

That's why the British were so upset, when we Americans were rude enough to take potshots at the English from the cover of trees. Have no problem shooting officers at the begining of engagements/ambush. And, most of the time, just refused to line up like proper gentlemen in an open field and blast away at each other.

Here's my question, why didn't they just have line infantry lie down and reload on their backs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warhammer3025

Oh yea, also, whenever i suffer this bug i just withdraw everyone and take the loss, but killing everyone i can get my hands on. However when i suffer the arty limber glitch and i cant pull those idiots out, when i manually end the battle via esc i suffer catastrophic casualties as if my entire was on the field even though i pulled 95% of my troops. They gotta fix this thing too, if i pull my army out in good order they shouldnt be obliterated... i mean hell, M2:TW did this just fine why the heck did we have such a step backward.

---

I have mentioned this multiple times, both in regard to my own and AI enemy armies. Most people have responded that it is a feature to prevent AI from running half dead cavalry stacks all over, which is all fine and good. But of course we are talking, in these cases, about enemy armies that are more or less intact still being destroyed. Instead of recovering casulties, as armies seemed to to in M2TW and RTW, it seems there is a severe post-battle casualty penalty for losing a fight.

Battlefield issue: When a unit routs, often, they scatterin several directions and my pursuing cav runs back and forward between multiple locations to eliminated one unit. Extremely frustrating since fatigue kicks in pretty fast in ETW.
Campaign map: When a agent gets available in one of your settlements I click on locate and get zoomed in to where he is. When I click his unit card in the settlement to move him out the garrisoned unit moves out instead??? This has happened on numerous occasions so it can´t be me.:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

Here's my question, why didn't they just have line infantry lie down and reload on their backs?

---

That's a good question, the full answer would probably be a book 7000 pages thick. I will try to do it in a few lines and will give several reasons why lying down was hardly used:

* In the time period lying down to avoid enemy fire would be regarded as a weakness, real soldiers would stand up and properly return fire

* The common soldier was not that smart and not easy to handly, thus leaving a regiment standing was simply easier.

* Lying down soldiers are a really easy target for enemy cavalry. In order to take a charge without getting whiped out you would have to make a Bayonet wall and stand firm in tight ranks, this is much easier accomplished when you're already standing up rather then lying down.

* The fire by rank type of warfare would is also much easier when everyone is standing rather then lying down

* If you would want to do a bayonet charge, again it would be much easier and faster if the regiment is standing instead of lying down. The same goes for general movement across the battlefield.

* You must not think in modern warfare and then look at the 18th century when thinking about taking cover. Nowadays if you don't take cover you're dead in a split second, back then the accuracy and amount of fire was so low it would not make a huge difference in casualties wether you are taking cover or not. Thus the general's of the time traded this higher death rate among their own troops for a ton of factors described above. it's quite logical if you think about it :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PseRamesses

Greetings gents,
1. Reinforcements
PseRamesses: "What´s the point of being tactical when enemy reinforcements enters the battlefield where there´s no possible way they could have got to? Ex: I´ve had them show up behind me on rivercrossings and other choke-points in my own territories and even on a beach-landing they show up behind me on the beach, WTF! This has to be adressed in the next patch CA! Why bother being tactical on the campaign map taking passes, bridges or even high ground when the game throws this at you? What happened to tactical warfare?"
Monk: I'm also getting sick of the reinforcements the enemy gets, which should appear behind the enemy appear behind me. Also i'm sick of my own reinforcements doing the same!

---

I actually think the AI abuses this bug...

Spain had a full stack army in Brussels, no loose units around. My Great Britain full stack sits near the border with United Provinces. When I clicked next turn, Spain splits up the full stack into 2, 1 smaller and 1 larger, than attacks me. Makes me really feel that the AI knows how the reinforcement system works.:wall:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

Here's my question, why didn't they just have line infantry lie down and reload on their backs?

---

In addition to what was said above, you also lower the rate of fire, weaken your control over your troops (in as much as, once troops go to ground, it is often hard to get them moving again . . . the US Army in WWII noticed this phenomenon in the European Theater), and make them less responsive to a situation requiring quick movement or redeployment.

That said, there were cases of commanders having their troops lie down under fire, but it was the exception, rather than the rule.

Regarding the native villages: you might have to demolish the original government building and build you own for "European" houses to show on the battle map.

Regarding the question about reloading on one's back, well can you imagine how hard that would be? Dissorientation would cause men to fail the reload or simply not being able to do it after a few volleys. The smoke and the noise was already to hard for some men, having to turn over would be a disiater for them.

The unit would loose cohesion far quicker than if it were standing up, the loss of cohesion was a major issue throughout the time period, rarely after the first few volleys was an officer truly able to replicate the timed fire drills of the barracks.

Also, as someone has already said, it would leave the line open to devestating charges from both infantry and cavalry.

Custom battle changes:

1. Get rid of money limitation. On large you still don't have enough cash to make a decent vanilla 20 unit army. Naval battles, can't build more than 12-14 vanilla ships of the line. If you're gonna let people put 20 units in, at least include the enough money so I can put 20 non-outrageous, no experience, vanilla units in my army/fleet.

2. Should be able to play early and late troops in the same battle. I understand that some units get their tech upgrades in late, fine, just put a early line infantry/late line infantry (etc.) in the unit selection. Some early troops not being available in late and vice versa is not a necessary limitation IMO.

3. There should be an option that allows the defender side to build fortifications. Right now I believe both armies start as attackers.

4. Currently you can only have 1 vs. 1 and 2 vs. 2 games. There is no 1 vs. 2/2 vs. 1 option. Also, maps are limited to whether they're 1v1 or 2v2 maps; each map should be able to play all combinations.

5. Add fog (light/heavy) as one of the weather effects. This is a weather effect in the campaign battles, why not make it a selectable feature in custom?

6. Add more maps. At least add 1 river/bridge map, there is none right now.

Does researching platoon fire disable fire by rank? I've started to notice that my line inf isnt firing by rank anymore after platoon fire tech was researched. While my elite infantry seem to be doing fine, my line infantry's firepower has been severely reduced due this development? Has this bug been hitting anyone else as well?

Pathfinding:
Say you´re playing England. You build an Indiaman and want to move it from the port east of London through rhe channel towards Spain. If you have a fleet, your own, that blocks the channel the Indiaman tries to circumnavigate the whole brittish isles instead of the "path blocked" pops up instead. On the other hand I find it silly that my own troops can block the path of my own troops, don´t you? This behaviour applies to all unit types as well as agents.
Whats even worse is on the battlemap. If you order a unit across a bridge by clicking on the other side an there´s a ford on the map the unit runs all the way over to the ford instead of crossing at the bridge. To sucessfully cross a bridge you have to click on the bridge to move the unit on to it. Imagine this micro managemant in the middle of a battle with 20 units tha you have to nurse this way. Unacceptable!

I came across a bug last night. I had 2 indiamen in a trade slot in Madagaskar but can not move more I.M into them and I can´t even move them out of there. I had to delete them to free up the space.

A few unit bugs not already on the list:

Horse-drawn artillery: Trying to limber up the arty sometimes freezes mid way through the maneuver. I've noticed this in two cases: 1, when the path of the horse drawn limber is blocked by an obstacle (eg wall) and 2, when the gunners have been involved in melee (with no casualties). Looks to me like the bug is to do with re-setting the arty's behaviour -probably related to buggy fire at will behaviour.

Light infantry:
1, in "light infantry mode", deploying a unit by clicking and dragging to form the shape of their unit causes the unit to face the wrong way! I first thought i must be at fault (and deploying them back to front) but after checking with a unit of line inf, i confirmed i wasn't. Clicking to attack a particular unit or move to a given location does cajole the light infantry to face the right way and they will then fire at will as intended.
2, skirmish mode for light infantry units. This basicaly renders light infantry useless (or very short lived) when deployed as a screen in front of the main battle line. Light inf have a longer musket range than many other units and so should be able to fire on the enemy, especially their line infantry, whilst out of the range of returned musket fire (i assumed that this was the whole point of them). However, light inf actually don't seem to fall back untill threatened by melee/charge range of the enemy. This means that they have to be micro-d to intolerable degrees in order to achieve their purpose of drawing the enemy on whilst remaining out of the range of returned fire. I suggest that the fallback/skirmish "trigger" should be coming into the firing range of a targeted or approaching unit -not an arbitrary distance of the enemy from the unit of light inf.

Cover:
I am wary of using cover in my games. I've found that units placed behind cover don't fire by rank and will not always fire at all either. This is obviously a major pain in the neck as you might expect your infantry, so deployed, to do some damage rather than absurdly sit behind the wall.

COME ON CA :whip:

Kudos to the OP for starting this thread...:balloon2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PseRamesses

I came across a bug last night. I had 2 indiamen in a trade slot in Madagaskar but can not move more I.M into them and I can´t even move them out of there. I had to delete them to free up the space.

---

That one is well know. See if it is the same with the new patch! But save before you do it. If you look in the bug thread you will find a post I made on a shot avoidance of that bug. It should be on the last page at this time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PseRamesses

When a agent gets available in one of your settlements I click on locate and get zoomed in to where he is. When I click his unit card in the settlement to move him out the garrisoned unit moves out instead??? This has happened on numerous occasions so it can´t be me.:laugh4:

---

It seems that u can move an agent out by click´n´drag its icon to the campaign map.

Quote:

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
Here's my question, why didn't they just have line infantry lie down and reload on their backs? quote

Originally posted by NimitzTexan
In addition to what was said above, you also lower the rate of fire, weaken your control over your troops (in as much as, once troops go to ground, it is often hard to get them moving again . . . the US Army in WWII noticed this phenomenon in the European Theater), and make them less responsive to a situation requiring quick movement or redeployment.

That said, there were cases of commanders having their troops lie down under fire, but it was the exception, rather than the rule.
__________________

---

No one has mentioned the prime reason why an infantryman of the period could, or would, not go to a prone position, and I guess it is because none of you have ever fired a muzzle loading long arm, or if you have you have forgotten about one of it's major drawbacks for versatile styles of combat.

Muzzle loading long guns cannot be loaded practically from a prone position---meaning that if you started with a loaded weapon and went prone to fire it, you would have to stand up again to reload. The famous "Brown Bess" carried by the British army for all of the latter half of the 18th century was almost 5 feet in length. Think about trying to load such a weapon from the prone position

Sometimes people are mislead by the statement that the infantryman of the period had a cartridge box of ammunition. These "cartridges" were typically pre-measured loads of powder and ball wrapped in a paper casing. To utilize them, the soldier bit off one end of the paper wrapping and first used a bit of the powder to prime the firing pan.

The remainder of the charge was poured down the barrel directly from the paper cartridge, and to do so, the weapon almost had to be in a vertical position. Next the paper was used as wadding between the charge and the ball, which all had to be rammed home with the ramrod. Believe it or not, a well trained soldier could do this 3 to 4 times a minute in practice----Under fire, probably no more than 2 or 3.

The bottom line is that until the advent of practical breach loading weapons, firing continuously from a prone position was simply not an option for most military units in the 18th century.

I wish I still had my reproduction "Brown Bess", but I traded it off years ago for some other firearm that caught my fancy at the time.

Another thing I really, really hope that add in a future patch is the ability to put Reinforcement armies under AI control, so that when you have 2-3 full stacks, you can actually get them all on the battlefield, instead of having to wait until units route then watching the reinforcements trickle in. Why they removed this option for reinforcements, which was already present in M2 and (I believe) Rome, is beyond me.

Playing on H/H.

1. I want to be able to name not only my units but my generals as well.

2. A more aggressive AI. Not from a diplomatic point of view, pre war, but after war has been initiated I want the enemy to really make my life a living hell.

3. Balancing the power of the nations. I am playing as Sweden, and while it shouldnt be to much for me to take out Denmark-Norway, I did not like that my army was able to pound Russia like there was no tomorrow. Granted, they were engaged in battle against the Ottomans as well, but still. I took Moscow before I even saw their army.

4. A more dynamic taxes slider. Not just five steps, but a real slider.

5. Naval invasions. What the hell?

6. For some reason Prussia asked me for a trade between my region Courland and East Prussia, giving me a lot of techs and money as well. I agree. Next turn they ask for the same thing, but reversed. Now they want East Prussia in exchange for Courland. Again, giving me a lot of money and techs as well. This repeats itself a couple of times, trading the same thing again and again, gaining a lot of techs and money as a result. This is not sane. This is insane. Truly insane.

7. The AI always does some kind of guerilla tactics. They never attack me in a single line, a formation, they just split their forces in a lot of small forces and go guerilla on me. Thats not fun.

8. Also. The mathematics behind the diplomacy is weird. I am refering to the numbers shown in the diplomacy screen where you can see what nations think of each other and why they do that. Apparently going to war against another nations good friend causes -25 or so... but thats okay, because giving the same nation a statue of a horse for 5,000 apparently gives you +140.

9. No force, how small it may be, ever gives up due to "force surrender/demand surrender".