CA requests for next patch:

[Phog_of_War]

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.

[Phog_of_War]

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.

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.

[antisocialmunky]

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

[NimitsTexan]

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.

[PseRamesses]

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.

[Kulgan]

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

[Jeroen Hill]

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.

[NimitsTexan]

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.

[quadalpha]

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.

[Incongruous]

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.

[Marquis of Roland]

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.

[Warhammer3025]

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?

[PseRamesses]

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!

[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.

[al Roumi]

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

Kudos to the OP for starting this thread...

[Fisherking]

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.

[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.

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

[Forward Observer]

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.

[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 and (I believe) Rome, is beyond me.

[Pinxit]

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".

[Suraknar]

Just make the game stable again...

[DisruptorX]

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.

This is a problem not so much because the inherent usefulness of guerrilla tactics, as you put it, but because the AI is awful at it. They send their army piecemail, often having units march perpendicular to your battlelines to reach cavalry at the flanks, resulting in absurdly high casualties.

[PseRamesses]

3 admirals for the price of 1:
This has happened three times now, twice as GB and once as France. I have a fleet in port, click on one of the ships and then the recruit admiral button to the right - wham! I get 3 admirals for the price of one?!!! Roughly the same age and stats though. Has this happened to anyone else?

[Pinxit]

3 admirals for the price of 1:
This has happened three times now, twice as GB and once as France. I have a fleet in port, click on one of the ships and then the recruit admiral button to the right - wham! I get 3 admirals for the price of one?!!! Roughly the same age and stats though. Has this happened to anyone else?

Yes, it has. Sort of. But when it happened to me I had accidently selected three units in my army prior to clicking the (it was a land army). So the fault was mine.

[PseRamesses]

It really bugs me that when I´m playing either one of the three, GB FRA or SPA, the other two unifies with their colonial protectorates without meeting the requirements for doing so and this even fairly quickly into the game. This takes away the possibility to declare war on their protectorates without getting into a massive war with all of their allies.

[Sheogorath]

Further, I'm not sure if this is a 'bug', but the 'feature' of enemy armies retreating INTO your lands is quite annoying. When you trounce an enemy, only to have a single unit of provincial cavalry run off and start burning down your farms it can be quite annoying, especially when you have to dispatch some of your own precious cavalry to chase them down...only to have some of them survive and retreat again (in extreme cases).
The obvious solution, of course, is to not let any enemies leave the battlefield alive, but it's not always possible to chase down every router, sad as it is to say

[Subotan]

It really bugs me that when I´m playing either one of the three, GB FRA or SPA, the other two unifies with their colonial protectorates without meeting the requirements for doing so and this even fairly quickly into the game. This takes away the possibility to declare war on their protectorates without getting into a massive war with all of their allies.

THIS THIS THIS

Also, there's something wrong with the French/Iroquois border in America. In Upper Canada, along the Land in between Erie and Huron, the border on the Campaign map seems to have been drawn in the wrong place.

[Feanaro]

I'd like my sound to work. Like, have the sounds play when my units shoot, not seconds afterwards.

[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"?

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!?

[Maleficus]

It would certainly be nice for cavalry to reload, and to change an admiral's flagship more easily.

I'd also like to see the enemy more willing to get into proper shootouts, as befits the era's style of warfare.

Obviously, I want the stupid "territory swap" offers to be less frequent, less repetitive, and less rubbish.

Not to mention wanting to have more control over the development of royals / ministers and their acquisition of traits. After all, the faction leader is the closest thing the player has to an in-game character. It's a shame the player so often has to be represented by a crazy, evil, inbred moron.....

Most of all, though, I'd like the next patch to make more factions playable. Even if it's only Portugal, Denmark, The Iriqouis, The Mughals and The Cherokee.

CA's response in fixing this game's problems has been, I think, fairly impressive so far, but there's still a long way to go before this game's anywhere near what it should be. I gather that lots of players are still having technical issues, which I've fortunately avoided most of. However if these bugs are still as rampant as many posts here and elsewhere would seem to suggest, then fixing those should of course continue to take priority.

There's no reason why CA shouldn't give us some more of the aesthetic goodies though.....

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

How about some new units?


Please?