Hold the Line!

[Squid_UK]

I fired up SOWGB the other day and had a Corps vs Corps Sandbox on the Manassas map. What struck me was just how superior the AI was. I told my Division commanders where to head and set their stance and the adeptly and intelligently deployed their men in the face of the enemy.

This was a complete contrast to SOWWL, where I find myself having to curtial some pretty shocking decisions by by subcommanders.

Just look at this brigade, its formed up in a beautiful line in the face of the enemy (out of shot), its stance is attack and just after this SS was taken it engaged and held it. Sure there was some wheeling, but it advanced in good order.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/333 ... en0001.jpg[/img_size]

Why cant the AI in Waterloo do this anymore?

[Volunteer]

A very good question (hotly debated on the Matrix main forum). WL does have a very small dev team which is a limiting factor, but, troops. conga antics etc., is a real immersion breaker.

SoWWL should match GB as a minimum and improve on it, frankly.

I enjoy the game but expect the high price I paid for it to be justified by updates and innovations which justify a sense of 'investment' in a new product.

Vive L'Empereur?God Save old Hookey!

[mitra76]

>shocking decisions by by subcommanders.

This is what I define have a AI.

Is not a a question of AI "reasoning" what you describe, hold to the last freezes the AI reactions, it acts like the enemy was not present until musket range, a less invasive version of TC. With hold to the last the AI can march at 170 yards from the enemy in column march without react to him.

If the stance is set to hold to the last, no attack is done until no enemy unit is in musket range , this is the same of GB because values and logic has been leaved exactly like they were.

The difference was that in Gettysburg when you set the stance to the divisions commander the same stance is forced on all the brigades below him, in Waterloo no: brigade stance are acquired when engaged or when the division commander send to them the tactical orders (which doesn't happen if the division commander has hold to the last). So if your brigade has already acquired own stance before or has still not stance it will act according to stance related to this style and in average in Waterloo officers are more aggressive, frenchs and prussians in primis.

This is done because the actions\reactions the AI has to do has been multiplied: if it will not acquire alone a stance no square can be formed against a cavalry attack at example. At the same time our testers found the AI still to little aggressive a division level.

If you have doubts about a specific situations don't worry and send me a save, i'll look at it and check why it happens.

[Squid_UK]

Thanks for the reply mitra, I understand what you are saying about the differences between the two games, but the result of the changes are that the AI brigades in SOWWL quickly get themselves into a mess. In SOWGB the reverse was true, the AI could extract itself from a mess and form into order.

Your explanation at least tells me why, when I am attacking (or on any other stance than HAAC) my lovely (and deadly) lines quickly become disordered. The problem is that the AI was much more effective in combat in SOWGB due to the support bonuses and the lack of enfilade hits on the units in the line.

Are there any plans to improve this aspect? Indeed can it be improved without losing the ability for units to form square? I hope so because it can be rather frustrating seeing your careful deployments descend into anarchy as soon as you order an attack.

[mitra76]

Take present that the tactical base of GB is different, it was more linear warfare like: also if I set in Waterloo specific limits of angle and context advantage to the use of attack column melee mode, I had anyway to delete specific blocks which in GB stopped the path when near the enemy for permit infantry and cavalry advance to close combat; only create a more fluid cavalry actions requested to rewrite a good part of original code.

>Are there any plans to improve this aspect? Indeed can it be improved without losing the ability for units to form >square? I hope so because it can be rather frustrating seeing your careful deployments descend into anarchy as soon >as you order an attack.

I work every day on changes for the AI from a side for permit a more strict control with hold to the last, from the other to have more offensive actions when necessary, don't worry .

[Marching Thru Georgia]

This is done because the actions\reactions the AI has to do has been multiplied: if it will not acquire alone a stance no square can be formed against a cavalry attack at example.

I do not understand this. A battalion is not given a stance. It decides on its own whether to form a square. Why would a brigade stance have any effect on this?

[mitra76]

Because stance is the link between brigade officer AI and the subunits AI and so all the major actions or situations are customized\determined linking them to the variable values of table TableStance in xtables.inl and to the code of offcmds.cpp (from the volley reload, to the distance to charge a gun or enter in a fortress, to release or recall the skirmishers, to leave a fortress or not, etc). For the squares at example it determines the minimal distance from the enemy for form the square and the minimal number of men, but also all the decisions of what to do in alternative when is not possible form the square. Only when the brigade is under human control in order to avoid to give manually the order the routine is under the battalion control.

[Saddletank]

This is a curious thread. In my experience the AI in WL is greatly superior and intermingling of units, brigades and so on is much reduced. The horrible pathing issues of GB (regiments running down the gap between two opposing firing lines or marching to attack an enemy flank via your own baggage wagons) have been fixed as well.

After weeks of playing WL I played an MP game of GB a couple of days ago using a mod and was back in the crazy chaotic world of divisions, brigades and regiments all mixed up in an ungodly mess.

[Marching Thru Georgia]

Forming squares should not be based on a brigade commander's stance. It should be based on the threat danger of the cavalry. Even the Guard marched to the British lines in square and that was an all out attack.

What determines the brigade stance? What role does the division commander play if he does not determine what his brigades are to do?

[mitra76]

Forming squares should not be based on a brigade commander's stance. It should be based on the threat danger of the cavalry. Even the Guard marched to the British lines in square and that was an all out attack.

Is based on the cavalry danger but in order to act it has to have a stance: all out attack is a stance situation, only neutral or TC\player controlled officer are a no-stance situations.

What determines the brigade stance?

the stance-id value of TableTacOrders + the stance modifier of unitattributes.csv + a random value between -100 and 100.

>What role does the division commander play if he does not determine what his brigades are to do?

When not in a fight it determines the brigade destinations on the base of own proper objectives, when in fight it assigns the Play, so it assign them a place along the line and a Order (hold to the last, --- all out attack, which generates or change a stance) to every brigade.