long5hot

Ok, last playthrough of Cemetery on the final pre-release version. Comments on the images:- http://imgur.com/a/vsNQy#0 Edit: I said in my end summary that Baxter had been destroyed, when it wasn't (though near enough for all intents and purposes).

Yes, same. Also I previously recorded screenshots and video using MSI Afterburner, now am unable to, which implies the game's no longer using DirectX or OpenGL accelerated graphics.

And here's the result of the 2nd phase:- http://imgur.com/a/Ot6Bf#0 Very disorganized battle from Cunning. It sent no reinforcements to defend Seminary Ridge so that line was quickly smashed once my new brigades arrived. Indeed the objective point was defended at the outset by brigades I'd already routed in the 1st phase so it didn't take long to do so again. Then Cunning sent nearly all of its 5 brigade strong defensive force around the Cemetery, which could have assisted in the Seminary Ridge battle but didn't, north into the town on a wild goose chase after Doles and (I think) Iverson. It pushed those brigades out of the town, but that left the Cemetery completely exposed other than the rallying brigades I'd already broken. Culps was strongly held with 2 brigades, until Cunning sent one of them (Krzyz) over to Benners to attack O'Neal. My reinforcements arrived on that wing, and Krzyz did not withdraw but duked it out over on Benners until it routed. Then I was able to do the same with Smith who was now the sole defender on Culps. End result, Cemetery falls in the second phase. Even though the game tried to end the battle early and deny me the victory. I so hate that feature.

Ok, I held Herr & the two Oaks, but the next map I see isn't the one I've been testing. Rodes has not yet arrived, there's an objective point on McDonald's property south of the Seminary that's in Union hands, and indeed I start the phase with only 3 brigades and a sprinkling of artillery. Heth's Skirmishers and Archer, who finished the previous phase alive & well, are not present. Am happy to test this, but it isn't the same battle.

Ok, a top-down view of how a good AI would handle the flanking strategy I throw at it:- http://imgur.com/a/WCvHF#0 Could an AI do this? It'd have to know that its outnumbered and therefore rule out impulsive attacks across the board, no matter what. No more pushing Iron Brigade off the hill to attack whatever weak-looking enemy brigade that appears over Benners, no matter that the Iron Brigade's morale is so high. No more contesting the town at all. The AI would have to then look to where cover is around the objective points, and station troops there & where possible move artillery to vantage points that assist the troops, even if that places the artillery in the front line. Next, the AI needs to prioritize keeping a straight front line across the battlefield with no gaps or open ends that can be rolled up. Each brigade linked to one beside it without too great an angle differential in their facings. Where it cannot fill a gap, or where enemy troops are marching around the end of the line, it needs to either send reinforcements or fall back to shorten the line, keeping the objective points defended. The AI as its stands now is not close to accomplishing this. It holds a proper line in segments, then leaves the end hanging with big gaps until the next line segment. It creates double lines leaving the outer one weak and exposed. It doesn't respond to flanking attacks rolling up lines or to brigades being enfiladed - it leaves them in bad positions until they rout. It often seems to let each brigade decide its own facing with "interesting" results. And it marches units off objective points leaving them wide open, while being aggressive in areas that simply don't matter. It has little concept of cover & using it to advantage. There's a lot to do to improve this AI. Its pretty good, and I know how difficult AI programming is, and I don't expect it to be as brilliant as Napoleon or Wellington, but it does need to improve if its going to provide the game with decent replay value & longevity.

Good idea, I'll get onto it - although the last time I played this mission as Union I was able to hold all objectives by just letting the battle run & not clicking on anything. The AI will need to have significantly improved if its going to force me to have to defend properly. Edit: Ok, tried a mostly-no-click battle against Offensive. "Mostly" because I gave the reinforcement brigades simple movement orders (basically to march to the Cemetery) then left them alone. Here's the result:- http://i.imgur.com/N4Yr0Ok.jpg The AI had one strategy and one strategy only - frontal assault (I think this guy was in charge). There's no attempt to flank or maneuver as I do in this battle, it just makes repeated charges ... except for when it doesn't, and keeps troops motionless for some reason. At one point it had pushed my troops right off the Cemetery, had Pettigrew and Scales advancing in force straight towards the open objective point, then they stopped short and dithered for the rest of the battle. So playing against the AI I cannot replicate what could be done to stop the flanking attacks that I make when playing Confed. Perhaps I should find a top-down map of the battlefield and draw what the AI does versus what I would do (if that'd be helpful at all).

Yes, but they'd find it hard if not impossible to do this if under fire from infantry. Horses tend not to hang around being harnessed while being hit by minie balls.

Latest version - Confed v Cunning on the Cemetery phase, and no it still can't hold the Cemetery with all objectives lost. http://imgur.com/a/2uZO4#0 Points of note:- The AI still advances units in isolated fashion, allowing them to be routed piecemeal. Sometimes it creates two lines, holding a thin front line that's then routed easily after which the second line can be defeated in turn. There's no point keeping reserves back if they're not actually committed somewhere, when needed, and in a decisive & sensible manner. The line was not shortened in the center despite flanking both east and south, so once more the Union was short of troops. The alignment of brigades was sometimes headscratching. One point saw 3 brigades side-on to a powerful flanking advance, with another brigade at right angles to them & its side exposed to attack from elsewhere, and therefore exposing yet another brigade further up the line to crossfire (you'll see the pic for it). The AI still contested the town, just not as aggressively, and still moved the Iron Brigade forward. When its outnumbered in a defensive battle the AI needed to concentrate on falling back, keeping the line straight & short with units maximising cover, sending reserves to hold advances on the flanks. It still does not do so. Once again there was no movement of artillery, or of HQs. Notably an early end to the battle was declared in the strange "Battle Delayed" period, which I still don't understand, and it would have made me furious had I been playing a campaign as it allowed 2 completely surrounded Union Corps to escape certain and imminent destruction.

Ok, so ... no more testing then? How about the other shortcomings of the AI? Its scant regard for objectives or for cover? Its chasing unimportant units, especially skirmishers and sharpshooters, while elsewhere the battle is being lost for lack of troops? Its poor use of artillery and HQs? Its habit of charging any artillery that sets up too close, regardless of context? And the way it tries to charge over & over again with brigades that are demoralized, attacks that are doomed to failure & only ensure that the brigades rout & never recover? To me it seems there's a lot that needs fixing, but I do understand you need to get the game finalized. It'd just be a pity to see its primary selling point, its AI, going through to release with these issues.

Ok, 0.95 Cemetery test versus Cunning:- http://imgur.com/a/Lkapo#0 Things the AI does better than 0.94: Moving troops to respond to threats. It covered Culps after the Iron Brigade was drawn away.Things it does worse than 0.94: Cunning is more aggressive than ever, committing huge forces to attacking the town and immediately marching the Iron Brigade off the hill (which is why it had to move another brigade to defend it). Reserves are committed immediately. Bucktail was seen in the front-lines of the northern forces contesting the town, and Ames straightaway marched to help the left flank. Nothing held in reserve, in other words. Things it still does badly: The left (southern) flank received no additional help (it couldn't as all the troops were in the town) so it was still rolled up with ease. Culps was still taken, for the same reason, and because the Iron Brigade abandoned its post. The AI doesn't move artillery or HQs at all. Four brigades spent literally half the battle chasing my sharpshooters away. Culps could have fallen if they'd counter-attacked it instead, but no the sharps were more important. Stannard still stuck on his hill, no real effort to take the Ridge even though it wasn't strongly held. When the line needed to be shortened by pulling back from the town, the AI ... didn't. It still looked like General Jack Daniels was in charge of its battle-strategy planning. It doesn't like enemy artillery in the front-line and will charge it whenever possible regardless of the infantry support near said artillery. Other notes: A few artillery batteries in the Cemetery were incredibly difficult to move. They were unsupported by infantry, yet took little damage from ranged attacks and routed brigades that tried to charge them.In short, the AI behaves differently but has become overly aggressive. I felt like I was playing against Determined. It still lacks common sense and makes terrible head-scratching decisions that lead to disaster, and there's work to do with artillery & HQ usage. Edit: Just starting a game against Determined, and its throwing everything it has at me in a full-on attack from the outset.

You're right, its 0.94. Interestingly though I replayed the All-out attack at Seminary Ridge (July 2 Afternoon) vs Cunning. In my previous play-through the AI did not move any reserves and basically fought like General Jack Daniels was in charge. In this one, the infantry reserves were committed (the artillery were not, they stayed motionless) and it generally put up a better fight, though it left the south flank exposed which was its undoing. Might be worth checking out in case there's something you haven't noticed/fixed yet:- http://imgur.com/a/rDsZk#0

Nick, I played versus Cunning and again took the Cemetery and the other objectives, this time inflicting over 16000 casualties on the Union and obliterating 8 brigades after I had them surrounded north of the Cemetery. http://i.imgur.com/ggXjDMB.jpg Unfortunately none of the screenshots I took during the battle were saved. The Union really didn't do much wrong, its the initial setup that places them so firmly on the back foot. The only way the Union can counter a strong attack on its left flank is to pull right back to the Cemetery, straighten its line and thus free up reserves that it can send south. It does not do this, and I'd argue that it probably shouldn't as such a maneuver would be worthy of Napoleon. The Union starts out defending a bulge, with only one brigade holding Culps and a hanging left flank that's so easy to roll up, and only one brigade (Bucktail) in reserve. That's a recipe for disaster. The battle in brief - I took the town and pressured the northern brigades. I advanced Avery to the foot of Benners, upon which the Iron Brigade advanced a little and began to trade volleys, then marched the Tigers and Smith around behind onto Culps and attacking the Iron Brigade from both sides. This along with the artillery from Benners forced it to rout and I had Culps. Bucktail was committed to help and this time did not charge at my sharpshooters but engaged Smith, but it wasn't enough (2 brigades with 1 routed versus 4). In the south I rolled up the flank with ease as per usual, routing brigade after brigade. I sent 3 fresh brigades deep south to take the Ridge & hold it against the reinforcements, and to chase down brigades trying to rally. The rest surrounded the town and obliterated every brigade within the noose - none escaped alive. I've practiced this 7 times now and I've become very efficient at it. A skirmisher unit escaped through my lines un-noticed and took Seminary Ridge near the end of the battle, but I had a couple of recovering brigades near enough to run them off before the battle ended. All in all I really didn't notice any difference between this version and the previous one. Also the victory was achieved purely through infantry movements - artillery were in a supporting role. I didn't use panzer formations (although I certainly could have). I'll run the "All-out attack at Seminary Ridge" scenario again, as that revealed some poor AI behaviour in the last version including lousy line formations and terrible use of the abundant reserves the Union has at its disposal. If this patch does indeed improve the AI, this will be the battle that shows it.

David, your comment seems to have a personal edge to it, I'm not sure why. I'm all in favour of an accurate approach (rather than the totally fictional artillery we have now) and I happily concede that your knowledge of the history is far deeper than mine. If I inadvertently suggest something that's wrong then I'm happy to be corrected - case in point, thanks for pointing out the passability of the streams in the area. Harnis, re vulnerability to infantry fire, I agree but that would also have to work in with your former suggestion about "digging in". As most artillery units wouldn't be moved that frequently, particularly for the army that's defending, they'd be far more protected than a unit caught out in the open. The horses too would be kept safe behind the lines until there's a need to limber, so they'd only be in danger if the artillery came under fire/melee in a limbered state. Lastly if artillery is closely supported by infantry, the attacking infantry wouldn't have the luxury (as they do in UGG) of concentrating their fire on artillery crews & ignoring the enemy infantry, plus if the battery's in serious danger of being overrun the crews can run back from their guns behind the shelter of the infantry. Also agree with the comments regarding the casualties inflicted by artillery historically. As I understand it, they did however have a potent psychological effect both on nearby friendly troops and enemies. Infantry did not like coming under artillery fire - those cannons inspired fear.

I agree with everything you said Harnis, but add to limber/unlimber the speed a horse-drawn artillery should have but also force it to cross streams at bridges. That would make things very interesting indeed. If anything just feels wrong about the game right now its how artillery behave.

Agree with what the others are saying about tilt-shift. Looks cool, but isn't really playable in its current form.