First, let me say that I am enjoying the game immensely--having logged over 165 hour of game play in the last two weeks according to that stats on Steam. (I'm retired, so I can play all day if i wish) This version has both polish and superior immersion when compared to it's predecessor. Empire is fun, but it still crashed a lot after 5 patches, and I'm not sure I can return to a game that forces me to use GPU drivers that are at least a year old. Napoleon has not crashed once since I've had it.
However, here are just a few observations, that while not problems for me, raise interesting points for discussion.
First of all, I have yet to see the B.A.I use a structure in Napoleon.
This was pretty common in Empire although they toned it down a bit in one of the patches. I actually got a kick out of using my arty to take out those structures although I'm glad they reduced the frequency in the patch.
I also don't think I have ever seen the B.A.I. use breastworks in either game---only chevaux-de-frises for the infantry and gabions for the artillery
The biggest thing is that other than fort assaults I don't think I have ever seen the B.A.I. stage a pure defense either. In other words whether I am attacking or defending in a field battle or town assault without a fort, I am basically always defending. The enemy is generally going to head toward my lines regardless of whether they are vastly outnumbered and outgunned.
Other than forts, the one exception to this seems to have been when the enemy had superior or at least equal artillery power to mine in the field. In this case I have actually seen them hold their position as if to defend until I somehow upset that balance. Once I gained artillery superiority, they always attacked. Of course this simulates common sense that they would be foolish to simply set back and let my long range guns cut them to pieces while my army set back in safety. This mechanic may have started in Medieval II when everybody complained about the overly passive B.A.I. which disappeared in one of the early patches.
I'm not particularly complaining about this--just making the observation. I'm not sure I want to go back to those days of Shogun and Medieval 1 when even if I attacked an inferior force that had a great defensive position, I still had to figure out how to assault their static lines without losing half my army in the process---and attacking at a bridge was worst. Bridges have always been great for the defender, but problematic for an attacker. I got to where I almost dreaded them in Shogun if I was attacking.
In Napoleon, river defenses are a so easy that it allows me to defeat forces twice my size. I had one such battle south of Madrid where my French forces of 1289 men held off two Spanish armies totalling 3304 men. The Spanish took 2440 losses to my 123. However, because of the above mentioned game mechanic, I was defending because I had superior artillery including several howitzers. I'd hate the thought of attacking across the river against a B.A.I. that could defend it properly---much less trying it against a human opponent.
Your thoughts?
P.S. I am only referring to the main campaign battles and not any of the scripted battles
Bookmarks