Scourge of War Boards

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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?

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