Battles: Low down and dirty

**Didz** · 12-31-2004, 16:11

In the last two battles of my Libyan campaign I have experimented with keeping the battlefield camera locked in maximum zoom so that I have been limited to a soldiers eye view of events.

I also managed to keep my finger off the pause button for the most part merely using the unit tabs to flick quickly form one unit to another to get an idea what was going on.

It certainly added a unique level of challenge where even small undulations in the ground or intervening troops could obscure your idea of what was going on.

I suppose the ultimate challenge would be to do the entire thing with the camera locked on the generals unit location and no minimap to give you a guide to whats going on.

**KyodaiSteeleye** · 12-31-2004, 16:47

yes, i think it would - and it would be bloody impossible! - esp' with more than a few units! If you feel the need to have this level of challenge, let me know how you get on!

**Didz** · 12-31-2004, 17:35

Originally Posted by KyodaiSteeleye

yes, i think it would - and it would be bloody impossible! - esp' with more than a few units! If you feel the need to have this level of challenge, let me know how you get on!

I have played historical wargames on that basis and it certainly makes a difference. However, to work effectively one needs a command structure capable of controlling local events. In RTW unfortunately if the player in charge doesn't order something to happen then nothing happens and so the AI would just swamp the human players army before they could react.

However, I have played Napoleon at Waterloo with a team of players taking command of the various Corps and Divisions and it is a real challenge. What doesn't come across in the history books is that even before the battlefield was hidden in clouds of gunpowder smoke Napoleon could see very little of the Allied position from where he stood. For instance he never ever got a glimpse of the chateau of Hougoumont and unless it was marked on his map he probably didn;t even know it was there.

I also played Napoleon during the Eylau Campaign trying to catch the Russian Army offguard and destroy it without having a clue where it was or where my own troops were half the time.

And I played the Russian General Dokhtorov in the 1812 campaign which was hilarious as the guy playing my superior Gen. Barclay kept sending me completely unintelligible orders and getting more and more irate when I didn't comply. But the thing is he was sat on a hill about a mile from the action, so he hadn't a clue what was happening and the orders he sent were about a hlaf-hour out of date before I even got them.

**Woreczko** · 12-31-2004, 17:37

I played MTW with max zoom - it was both realistic and manageable. However I can`t make it in RTW, it`s too fast and the zoom is too great...

**Shahed** · 12-31-2004, 17:56

Well I play with camera restricted, I think it's great. It adds the "confusion" that I think makes the game more playable. With the camera unrestricted the AI has pretty slim chances of winning most battles. With restricted camera I actually lose a lot more but the GAME is much more FUN. But to play with the carea only on general's unit is useless because there isnt enough control (and enough control bugs) options to make that effective.

**Red Harvest** · 12-31-2004, 18:22

I have always played with the camera restricted. However, I've never really tried the max zoom or general's view, for the reasons already given: the C&C system is not set up to make it workable.

**Sin Qua Non** · 01-01-2005, 17:37

For max-zoom and general only views to work at their greatest potential, the AI control function has to be more flexible and dynamic overall. Right now, if you hand over some of your units to AI assistance, you're basically writing them off in all but the most basic of engagements. I've never had luck with that feature.
But if you could group them and hand them over to AI assist, while giving them general orders, such as attack archers, keep to the woods, formations, objectives, etc., then it would be like a general trusting several lieutenants to different sections of the battle.

And all it would take is an AI with great flexibility and reasoning. No sweat, right?

**master of the puppets** · 01-02-2005, 19:34

doing this has got to be a challenge but it can't truly by like an ancient battle. usually unless its an ambush, the general will have a a stratigic plan laid out for his commanders and at least a little knoledge on the enemies numbers and types. in real battle the general would only have to do hard coordinating when thing went sour. remember hannibles greatest victories in most he was usually in the cavalry charge or at the back watching the battle unfold his commanders all knew what to do and when to do it he would just addapt to any unexpected quirks.

**AquaLurker** · 01-03-2005, 07:56

I tried it before, I it is fun to win the battles if your commander gets the high ground and over look the battle field from a distant were you can command your armies more efficiently(for max zoom games that is). The down side is you can't commit your commanders unless you are sure of victories and in most normal games, having the commander and his body guards doing the flank and rear charges can win you the game more easily. so I got to get another family member to do the job. But when your army gets bigger and you are forced to engage a battle in level ground it is really a pain. you simply don't have time to react fast enough to minimise casualties, which is usually horribly high!

I feel that the best way to command your armies on level ground is get your commander into the front and place him on either the extreme left or right end of the army battle line.

But I still do my deployments on normal view mode

This can cause serious shortage of man power when it comes to managing important the cities, you don't want lose your cities and town to some rich Computer diplomat.