CA requests for next patch:

[nafod]

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

One also needs to consider that the Age of the Rifle did not truly begin until the latter parts of the Napoleonic Wars. Although the smoothbore musket was the bread and butter of standard armies of the time round munitions were not as accurate as more standard "bullet" shaped munitions (The minie ball comes to mind), the ability to mass produce rifled barrels, and cartridged munitions systems. During the timeperiod depicted (1700-1799) engagements were still decided with cold steel, be that a calvary man's sabre, or a line of bayonets.

Armies of the time period depicting in ETW depended on mass fire for any effect, and needed to react to, or partake in, the eventual charge.

The Age of Rifles refers to a time period which began with the invention of the minie ball and ended with the Russo-Japanese war. It's referred to as the age of rifles because at the time a mass of armed men firing downfield was the centerpiece of the battlefield, the bayonet charge and the use of calvary declined considerably as the accuracy of said fire was considerably improved over the technologies in use 100-150 years ago.

Additionally I think the melee messes that result in gameplay are accurately depicted.

Naf

[Pinxit]

Wow. Simply wow.

I now know something that must be fixed. I was playing as Sweden and built a fortification in Texas. I got attacked by enemies several times, them trying to take my fort. The fort was that of an artillery type. Hardly movable. But still. Every time I entered the battlefield to fend of the invaders, wouldnt you guess it, the terrain never looked the same. Some times my fort was up on a hill, other times it was in the midst of a forrest. The fort got moved around quite a lot. Apparently. NOT FUNNY TO ME.

[Subotan]

Maybe it's like Howl's Moving Castle. Except Swedish. And in Texas.

[mmk]

Agree to the points mentioned so far.

Two things that I find especially "funny":

Diplomacy: Sometimes very weird, especially when to Moguls ask you repeatedly to trade East Prussia for technology.

Battles: Native American warriors fighting in rank and file and outgunning British infantry in open battle.

[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.

[Fisherking]

I am sure it has gotten a mention but unloading troops and agents in ports is not working properly.

I have never gotten it to work. They never get of the darn boats. You get the screen. You can get them onto ships but you can’t get them off unless you already have troops in the port.

[Maleficus]

You have to click on the 'disembark' button....

[PseRamesses]

It seems that the problems with froozen Indiamen is temporary. Yesterday I found out that waiting a couple of turns will "unfreeze" them. I played some 30 years and this happened 5 or 6 times so it can´t be permanent.

[Fisherking]

You have to click on the 'disembark' button....

At least on my machine this doesn’t work!

I get the screen and they are already shown as disembarked when I do, but when you go back to the map they are still on the ship.

Like I have said it may work for armies if there are unloaded troops already in the port, but otherwise they just stay loaded.


As to the trade ships, I have seen that too. But you still don’t get the problem if you always move off the pip when ever you do something to the fleet.

I move off and back on even if I just click them to have a look.

[Incitatus]

I get the screen and they are already shown as disembarked when I do, but when you go back to the map they are still on the ship.

When the disembark screen comes up you have to move the troops to the other side of the screen - even if it has ships. This will make the army move into the port. Screwy, I know, but thats how it works.

[Fisherking]

I will give it a try, but that is not working properly if it is the case.

Also the Land Battles Failing to Load completely!

I have noticed that it has been Location Specific on a couple of occasions. I can’t fight here, but I can fight over there.

I don’t know why! I don’t think it is a weakness of my system! I just would like to know it was addressed!

[PseRamesses]

When the disembark screen comes up you have to move the troops to the other side of the screen - even if it has ships. This will make the army move into the port. Screwy, I know, but thats how it works.

To clarify further, u have to mark all units and then click on the arrows in between the boxes and watch them all move from the left to the right box. Sometimes the easiest thing can get very difficult. Just last week I accedently learned that I could jump with my ships from any theater to anyone in the world. Before I went in order like: Europe, Ivory Coast and finally to my destination India. How stupid I felt when I realized I didn´t have to do that

[PseRamesses]

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.

Slaists posted this in another thread. PseR