Suggestions

[Garnier]

Well running around to the enemy flank in column is to be expected really. The mod does give a more severe fatigue penalty to running, making it less worthwhile. The only thing I wish could be different would be the casualties taken when running at close range right up to the enemy. Artillery does kill more, but muskets don't distinguish between formations. But that can't be modded.

Would it be possible to make the balancer even divide (when possible) the number of players requesting cavalry, so that we wouldn't end up with instances of 3 people wanting to use it, and they end up on the same side.

I don't like this because the team balancer would no longer be random.

[SouthernSteel]

Blast! Our cunning scheme to stack the teams has been sniffed out, Robinson. Notify the ringleader! Cronies, scatter to the wind!



Sorry, I'm bored and trying not to fall asleep at my desk.

[Turbotay]

Well then, how bout just give every unit type a weight or point value in the balancer (if you don't already do that). That way, if an odd number of people wanna play cav, they still could, but the other players would possibly bring more of their available infantry and artillery. Also, this could change how artillery is brought to battle. Currently, it tries to make the number of guns equal to both side, yes? What if you removed that, and with the idea I mentioned earlier, the side that happens to have fewer guns will bring more troops, since the point value for the armies will be equal. Did that make sense? A good baseline to work with would be to say 1 infantryman at exp level 1, is worth 1 point, at lvl 2 is worth 2 points, etc. So a regiment of 300 men at lvl 3 is worth 900 points. A lvl 1 cavalryman could be worth 2 or 3 points, and go up from there. For artillery, I would be willing to do some more testing on all gun types to come up with some data that would give us an idea on how to rate them.

[SouthernSteel]

Sounds like this may get too complicated too quickly to be feasible. I don't mind the thoughts, but I predict a balk.

We really ought to just get that strategic campaign going again if you want to play cav, Robinson.

[Garnier]

@Robinson
That's what it does essentially, but I balance infantry and artillery separately. I can only see problems emerging from having inconsistent ratios of infantry to artillery when it's done arbitrarily. One or other is going to be better in any given situation, just another balance concern.

[30th PVI]

I am new here on the message boards (1st Post), but have played MP several times. I don't know if this has been mentioned as an idea before, but if I can make a suggestion that could solve the issue with the Div leaders recon and the use of cavalry. Is it possible to give every player a CAV Brigade consisting of one small regiment to their Division? That way we can use the CAV to scout/screen the rest of the Division. The manning would be small enough (maybe 75-100) personel as to prevent them from being used in an overtly offensive role. Additionally, if the DIV Commanders (Player Sprites) were coded to move away from enemy troops, having the screening element would actually accomplish what it's intent would be.

Also, what is the purpose of balance? I think realisticly, if it was set up that you combine the carry-over ability with peoples leadership style, it would balance out. If you don't want to lose alot of troops and are cautious, you may have the largest Division on the game, but thier experience would be low since they are not seeing combat. But over zealous individuals wouldn't have the troops available to continuesly all out attack. So if 20,000 cautious troops are fighting 10,000 semi-aggressive troops with more experience, it would balance out.

I say all of this above without knowing to much about the coding in the game or MOD that may preclude this from occuring, but just some thoughts....

~Matt Rogers (the new Matt):)

[Garnier]

@Matt
For your first paragraph, we tried that, having small parties of cavalry in each division. It was pointless because there are still officers that are faster than cavalry for scouting, and also these cav parties could be used to draw auto-target artillery fire. With cav also, if they have enough men to man a cannon, they can be used for stealing batteries.

For balance, that's already what is done. If your side has less experienced troops, they'll have more troops overall. That's why some battles there will be a numbers difference of a thousand or more.

[SouthernSteel]

Yeah, the real problem, even with having cav, is that your view is locked on your primary officer, so even if you sent out a cavalry detachment to scout, once they reached a certain distance from your officer, you wouldn't be able to see them either. They might increase your Line of Sight, but unless you kept your officer with them, they wouldn't be of much use.

[Garnier]

Hence the best way for it to work would be for officers to not have LOS, which isn't possible; as far as I know there's no way to mod LOS of certain units or formations.

There's still the old solution of just having severely limited camera so if you leave your troops to go scouting, you will have trouble commanding them.

[SouthernSteel]

We're gradually working our way towards that, I think, but I think the attendant change will be that battles will, out of necessity, grow continually smaller. Even with 50 sight range playing a division will be very difficult. No matter how good the AI may be, I'm just not the type of person to trust it to run my troops when I can do it myself.