I sort of assumed that as the Brigade is the lowest level in the command chain. Uncle Billy wrote:At the brigade level, the battalions have no strategy. So, you constantly see historians claiming the tactic's employed were identical or similar. Unfortunately, we live in an age where the USA is seeking excuses to vindicate the actions of its past and so there is a constant pressure to blame the influence of Prussian Drill methods on the death toll inflicted on the battlefields of North America. I remember the Avalon Hill Magazine publishing an excellent article on ACW tactical behaviour and it differed from European warfare, even the nature of the terrain over which the battles were fought varied considerably and influenced the tactic's considerably. I've never played SOWG so I can't compare directly, but you can see similarities in unit behaviour to tactical descriptions of the ACW, and as you say it doesn't look quite right sometimes for European warfare.
#SCOURGE OF WAR WATERLOO CAVALRY CHARGE CODE#
So, I suspect that the code which was tested for Gettysburg is going to create issues for Waterloo. Not least because of the preponderance of rifled weapons and the tendency for soldiers to actually aim at each other. I suspected that the Waterloo AI code would have been borrowed and modified from the Gettysburg game, and as you rightly say that will have created a number of issues, as contrary to the current propaganda published by US historians the ACW was not an extension of European Warfare and tactic's, and unit behaviour under fire was completely different. It will keep reserves and send them to unit(s) requesting help.
It will also give them a general destination when attacking the enemy.Īt the army level, the corps AI will give the divisions a stance, and destination. The brigade AI will also give the battalions destinations when advancing towards the enemy.Īt the corps level, the division at will give stances to the brigade commanders, decide on how many should be in reserve, decide when to use those reserves, if at all, and where to send them. This will activate them such that they will turn as a unit and face an approaching, flanking enemy, engage the enemy when they reach varying distances, determine which formation to use while fighting, how many skirmish units to send out and how many battalions to leave in reserve. They will respond to threats, but they rely on the player to give them locations to move to, formations to assume, etc.Īt the division level, brigades must be given a stance if they are to do anything useful. It depends on the level that the player chooses to command.Īt the brigade level, the battalions have no strategy.
The AI is then bound by that instruction to try and move to that destination. So, basically the 'Move to' command issued via the Command Map, Mouse Pointer or Courier Message. The only Tactic available to the player is the ability to set a 'Tactical Destination'. If anyone is interested in helping me unravel these mysteries please post below. I assume that Aggressive commanders are more likely to select aggressive tactical schema's. Mitra's refers to the later as Schema's, or Tactical Schema's, and the AI appears to select for the 60 schema's available according to the Stance selected by the player, or the AI commander, and the 'Style' of the commander (which I think means his personality). However, the real guts of the AI system seems to be driven by the Stance Table and the Divisional Strategy options that are linked to it. Although, there may still be some involvement of the AI in a units close combat reactions and so there may be some detail to explore as to what impact 'Take Command' has at battalion Regiment and Battery level. Likewise 'Take Command' is described by Mitra as turning the AI Off, so as far as I can see it's just an On/Off switch, and once it's off the AI plays no further part in a units behaviour. 'Tactic's' and 'Take Command' seem pretty clear as Mitra says that the only Tactic available to the player is the ability to set a 'Tactical Destination'. Mitra has already defined the four key components of the AI system as: What I'm looking for are people who are interested in gaining a better understanding of how the current AI system works, and/or, have the skills necessary to decipher some of the coding used by the game to manage the AI behaviour. What I'm hoping to do is add a bit more understanding of how the AI system in SOWWL works to the. This is an extension of a debate which has been raging for some time on the Steam Forum, without really making a lot of progress.
0 kommentar(er)
