Seeing Two New problems.

[Edgy]

I'm seeing the AI 'ball up' it's units a lot more (by this I mean his units are bunching together) which is turning a lot of scenario's into little more than ganking sessions. The cause of this seems to be the officers command radius, your AI does not care about lines or history, it only cares about winning, and to win it's keeping all it's units within the radius of it's commander.

 

VP locations are still a problem, once again the AI only cares about winning points, and will do ridiculous things in order to plant a unit onto a VP location, a 'front line' means nothing to the AI at all.

 

The command system, in my opinion, is flawed. You need division commanders at least. Example - A.P. Hill can barely command two Brigades as things stand, and 'wrapping' all the Division commanders up into Hills one unit in no way reflects how good/bad Hills Corps was, it just is not enough.

 

A possible solution to the VP location problem could be to make them 'progressive'. So when VP locations fall behind the flow of battle they vanish, when the battle flows that way again they re-appear.

[Alex13F]

I also would like to see division commanders. This could make maneuvering and formations easier too, if we could easily have corps grouped by division with battle line / column formations for simple movement across the battlefield. In the future you could get "fancier" by having one or two basic stock battle formations (all in a line as one or with a brigade in support as another). Implement with a hotkey maybe or onscreen button when selecting the division commander in order to group them.

 

Could do the same with a "detach" button when selecting individual brigades if you want to move them outside of the division and wish them to be independent going forward.

[Husserl]

I'm seeing the AI 'ball up' it's units a lot more (by this I mean his units are bunching together) which is turning a lot of scenario's into little more than ganking sessions.

 

Does it happen with a specific AI?