Killed and wounded commanders

[RebBugler]

LP, you obviously didn't read the thread where I detailed what was broken to comply, basically, artillery now in SP play are 'sitting ducks' for capture.

[Little Powell]

LP, you obviously didn't read the thread where I detailed what was broken to comply, basically, artillery now in SP play are 'sitting ducks' for capture.

I guess I didn't. Although I don't know how arty are sitting ducks. If anything they are harder than ever to capture.. They actually limber up and Getaway if a regiment comes near and they are unsupported. I think that was put in 1.3 or 1.4, can't remember which.

[General P R Cleburne]

What a bleak outlook this is Reb.
I'm sure you cant really feel the need for separate game engines for separate methods of engagement.
The MP community might not be the largest of the SUB groups of this forum, however it is really the coders and playtester's work shop in reality.
The feedback generated by the continuous stream of activity and news from the MP community cant be a bad thing.After all like LP pointed out the team carefully considers what to add and what not to add.
I for one would dislike to see the community separated any further than it already is.We can achieve far more as a united group than as two different groups stood alone.....
I am not in the comfort of any inside knowledge on the matter so what i think may be way off the mark.

I may be even further off the mark than i thought , however , i fail to see of what use this software would be to a military academy of any kind with no MP available.
Surely there will be an argument that the AI is of competant quality to pose serious opposition at a training level....however i wonder how the chain of command aspect is portrayed in this manner?
Does the trainee communicate with friendly AI? or would it be preferable to be able to simulate a chain of command between inductee's that would require MP capability?
Just makes me wonder

[RebBugler]

LP, you obviously didn't read the thread where I detailed what was broken to comply, basically, artillery now in SP play are 'sitting ducks' for capture.

I guess I didn't. Although I don't know how arty are sitting ducks. If anything they are harder than ever to capture.. They actually limber up and Getaway if a regiment comes near and they are unsupported. I think that was put in 1.3 or 1.4, can't remember which.

Yeah, I thought the supported, unsupported fix would eliminate the sitting duck issue, but only helped some. The limbering 'vulnerable to capture' process just takes too long. An experienced player can wipe them out completely in no time, the AI has literally no chance to save it's guns. Believe me, with my designs I've tested it over and over, trying to come up with solutions to make the AI's guns more secure, and more difficult to capture. Evtdisttarg works, but only once as we both know. Plus, it is tedious as we both know, writing a series of scripts for each individual gun...then it's used up, making the guns literally 'sitting ducks' once in their retreat position.

Sure, the capture while limbering seemed harmless at the time, plus it's historic. But now for SP play, it makes easy gun capturing the norm, which is grossly ahistoric.

[Little Powell]

Well like everything, it's not perfect but I think it's better than it was. Just the other day I was testing a map in SB and spotted an enemy battery all by itself. I thought "easy pickings", but it limbered up and retreated when I got close.. By the time I got near it again, an enemy brigade was closing in on my flank.

Batteries can always be captured if you try hard enough, but expect to waste a regiment or two in the process. That's one thing that is often missed with this type of discussion. Were batteries captured like that historically? Not often, but it's because the men doing the capturing didn't always have the balls to charge a battery like that.. All of us armchair generals have endless courage.

Now lets try to steer this thing back on subject.

[Marching Thru Georgia]

Sure, the capture while limbering seemed harmless at the time, plus it's historic. But now for SP play, it makes easy gun capturing the norm, which is grossly ahistoric.

Getting unsupported guns to withdraw was a very good first step. But the guns should be withdrawn sooner as should the infantry when things start to go south. But as I've commented in other threads, the AI lacks a fear of doom. It will fight to the last man. Until the AI is given this quality, the artillery will always overstay its welcome.

If people are finding it easy to take the AI's guns, I suggest they try it from the saddle with couriers. The quickest way I know to destroy a brigade is to attack a supported battery, or two unsupported batteries working in tandem. As always, its just a question of perspective.

[RebBugler]

What a bleak outlook this is Reb.
I'm sure you cant really feel the need for separate game engines for separate methods of engagement.
The MP community might not be the largest of the SUB groups of this forum, however it is really the coders and playtester's work shop in reality.
The feedback generated by the continuous stream of activity and news from the MP community cant be a bad thing.After all like LP pointed out the team carefully considers what to add and what not to add.
I for one would dislike to see the community separated any further than it already is.We can achieve far more as a united group than as two different groups stood alone.....
I am not in the comfort of any inside knowledge on the matter so what i think may be way off the mark.

I may be even further off the mark than i thought , however , i fail to see of what use this software would be to a military academy of any kind with no MP available.
Surely there will be an argument that the AI is of competant quality to pose serious opposition at a training level....however i wonder how the chain of command aspect is portrayed in this manner?
Does the trainee communicate with friendly AI? or would it be preferable to be able to simulate a chain of command between inductee's that would require MP capability?
Just makes me wonder

I'm trying to address issues, and suggesting solutions for issues. In reality, I don't really see my comments as portraying gloom and doom, but if you guys do...oops, I'll shut up. That's obviously the path I need to consider foremost from now on.

[Little Powell]

If people are finding it easy to take the AI's guns, I suggest they try it from the saddle with couriers. The quickest way I know to destroy a brigade is to attack a supported battery, or two unsupported batteries working in tandem. As always, its just a question of perspective.

You've got that right.. When I was testing a map in SB the other day, I saw one of the OBJ's far to the south of the fighting had turned to the enemy on my mini map. I detached a brigade down there to investigate, and saw they held the objective with one small infantry brigade and two batteries in the rear. I was actually very impressed the AI setup like this.. Anyway, I sent another brigade there thinking I could take them with twice their strength.. Those two supported batteries tore both of my brigades to shreds!

[Saddletank]

If unsupported batteries are too vulnerable, why isn't the AI supporting them with infantry? The lack of artillery-infantry co-operation is nothing to do with changes brought about following MP community requests but should be a function of the AI to begin with, surely?

Many unsupported batteries were and in-game should be vulnerable to a rapid infantry attack. While I'd be pleased to see the battery retreat option put back (but with a variable delay such as the unlimber time, the 'insta-escape' deal was worse than the situation now IMHO), having the AI function so that no battery is unsupported in the first place should be the way to go.

Geting back on topic, garyknowz - I was abstracting even more than you. To me the general figure riding out ahead doesn't represent him at all. Not him, not his staff, nor his escort. It represnets a generic scouting ability of the army and no general should be at risk doing this.

[General P R Cleburne]

What a bleak outlook this is Reb.
I'm sure you cant really feel the need for separate game engines for separate methods of engagement.
The MP community might not be the largest of the SUB groups of this forum, however it is really the coders and playtester's work shop in reality.
The feedback generated by the continuous stream of activity and news from the MP community cant be a bad thing.After all like LP pointed out the team carefully considers what to add and what not to add.
I for one would dislike to see the community separated any further than it already is.We can achieve far more as a united group than as two different groups stood alone.....
I am not in the comfort of any inside knowledge on the matter so what i think may be way off the mark.

I may be even further off the mark than i thought , however , i fail to see of what use this software would be to a military academy of any kind with no MP available.
Surely there will be an argument that the AI is of competant quality to pose serious opposition at a training level....however i wonder how the chain of command aspect is portrayed in this manner?
Does the trainee communicate with friendly AI? or would it be preferable to be able to simulate a chain of command between inductee's that would require MP capability?
Just makes me wonder

I'm trying to address issues, and suggesting solutions for issues. In reality, I don't really see my comments as portraying gloom and doom, but if you guys do...oops, I'll shut up. That's obviously the path I need to consider foremost from now on.

If that post holds nothing of interest to you Reb please ignore it.I however feel strongly about keeping SP and MP within the same engine .It appears you do not.If im out of line in stating this im sorry and certainly wouldnt dream of telling or asking you to shut up......