Retreat to Cover

[born2see]

Are there any commands or a way to get units to fallback to a better defensive position? I'm familiar with the movefwd and moveformfwd commands but I think it would be nice to have the opposite happen.

As always, if this is a bad idea tactically and that's why it's not included please let me know. Whatever this game has done for me, it's certainly made me humble. :unsure:

Thanks

[Damned Black Hat]

This would be pretty awesome, as I always attempt to fall back to cover when getting beaten back. I just don't think the AI would share the same view of good cover that I do though.

[Davinci]

born2see – I can’t really answer your question, but I took a completely different approach to this problem, using the mapname.csv file, I gave the whole battlefield a defensive bonus.

Now, this might appear to be an illogical move on my part, but in my mind the whole field did have a defensive bonus when you add in the fact that smoke made it extremely hard to see the enemy.

And, smoke played such an important role in the fighting – that we still use this feature today, a hundred-forty-years-later.

I also don’t like the fact that I could \ can use the different terrain bonus features, but the AI would by-pass these features.

But, the main reason for this was the fact that I just cannot stand to lose thirty-thousand-men during a few hours of engagement. This just didn’t happen in the Civil-War.

I can now fight for hours upon hours and barely lose five-six thousand men, which gives me the option of moving \ maneuvering to a different part of the field.

If, I could have one more feature in this game, it would be a daytime \ nighttime cycle, where as the AI would not attack during this nighttime cycle.

The AI as of now just does not have any concept of falling-back and maneuvering to a different location of the map, and this is an important feature if the game ever moves towards a campaign-type-atmosphere.

davinci

[born2see]

Davinci wrote:

I took a completely different approach to this problem, using the mapname.csv file, I gave the whole battlefield a defensive bonus.

Where is the mapname.csv file? Couldn't find it.

[Little Powell]

Davinci wrote:

I took a completely different approach to this problem, using the mapname.csv file, I gave the whole battlefield a defensive bonus.

Where is the mapname.csv file? Couldn't find it.

It's in each scenarios folder.

[born2see]

There's a maplocations.csv file but not a mapname.csv one. Is that the one you mean?

[Davinci]

There's a maplocations.csv file but not a mapname.csv one. Is that the one you mean?

mapname equals whatever map that you are referring to, such as if we were discussing the GBurg Map - then that mapname.csv file.

Break the name into two - map and name.

Basically - it is a universal meaning for any maps name that you are speaking of at the time.

davinci

[born2see]

Aha!

Davinci wrote:

I took a completely different approach to this problem, using the mapname.csv file, I gave the whole battlefield a defensive bonus

So give me an example. Did you give every location the same or did you use a multiplier to keep the relative value of cover? For example, if you gave "Open" a defensive value of 20 would "Wall" be 85 given their current values of 0,65 respectively?

[Davinci]

So give me an example. Did you give every location the same or did you use a multiplier to keep the relative value of cover? For example, if you gave "Open" a defensive value of 20 would "Wall" be 85 given their current values of 0,65 respectively?

This is sort of a multiple editing setup that I am running, using the rifles.csv file, and the mapname.csv file.

The Mods \ mod Name \ Maps – GBurg.csv file was edited to have a defensive bonus of 92 for everything, including the roads, and open.

The rifles.csv file was also edited such as ROF 25, and MROF 200.

All of my rifles \ muskets have the exact same values – so I don’t have to worry about which weapon is better for which troops, they are all equal.

I don’t mess with the internal \ default – settings for the flank, or the elevations. So if a unit is on higher ground they still have a better terrain advantage over the lower-elevated enemy troops.

I think that my Hit \ Miss ratio for the men are roughly 400-500 rounds per casualties.

The picture below is one regiment of a Brigade, facing two enemy Brigades that are situated on higher terrain. Their Hit \ Miss ratio is roughly 600 rounds per casualties.

Basically – this will extend the amount of time that the armies will stand in battle-line and fight it out. I have absolutely no melee fighting in any of my battles.

Just two long extended battle-lines exchanging musket fire.

davinci