CA requests for next patch:

**Grumfoss** · 03-20-2009, 12:36

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.

**Warhammer3025** · 03-20-2009, 20:39

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.

**Phog_of_War** · 03-21-2009, 01:07

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.

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** · 03-21-2009, 01:24

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

**Kulgan** · 03-22-2009, 14:27

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

**nafod** · 04-06-2009, 22:16

Originally Posted by Kulgan

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

**NimitsTexan** · 03-23-2009, 05:53

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.

**quadalpha** · 03-23-2009, 06:17

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** · 03-23-2009, 11:19

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.

**NimitsTexan** · 03-21-2009, 02:05

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.