"...a realistic simulator with hardcore gameplay...."

[Fishey55]

It has been awhile since I visited the home page but on it the claim, "Take command in a realistic simulator with hardcore game play" A pretty bold statement but one I welcome and hope it will be backed up! I posted about land combat but was under the impression this was more of a fast paced RTS like the ultimate general series but with that sort of advertisement I have renewed hope!
I just started another campaign and land combat is still way off the realistic simulator, the Bunker Hill battle feels like a 1860's Calvary melee rather than a 1770's land battle. My gripe was units routing would run into and past enemy units, then reform and launch a coordinated attack, usually a flank attack. This is silly and did not happen, ever! Units that run away are either falling back AWAY from the enemy in a somewhat orderly fashion or they are broken/shattered and running away from the battle altogether. Units that are broken or shattered do not come back they are done for the day, They certainly would not return with the ability to mount an attack! Units that surrender in this period would enter into contract to not take up arms against there captor. The 1700's had some pretty strict rules of war which all European nations followed, that is but one of them. No one wanted to serve in the colonies or the Caribbean the troops were not the greatest quality, they would run from the sound of their own guns, seriously! The British did deploy good troops to the US and the US troops became very good fighters mainly because it was their land. Battles were slow and ponderous, movement was methodical and calculated. In the Bunker Hill battle the British AI attack in 1 and 2 units rout come back over and over. Overall it seems there is no advantage to holding the high ground, any unit can capture and use cannon friend or enemy and with equal efficiency and can all run like Kenyans! So many positive things are in place just need to get the mechanics worked out. Slow it down add group formations, add group orders. Unit morale is needed, routing units need to be gone from battle and not able to return until the next fight. Units that need to fall back should do just that fall BACK, if they fall forward into enemy units they are routed. I have screenshots of this happening.

Naval battles are also messy and could use formations and orders and where is the raking fire advantage? I'll stop at land for now, work time 😞

 

 

[WilliamTheIII]

What do you mean by unit morale? There is already a morale system for every available unit in game. Also, units that shatter do leave the battle and never come back. Are you asking for the shatter conditions made looser so more units shatter? For units routing into your lines, this is probably a bug still in the works as the ai is programmed to run away from the enemy. Something about how Bunker Hill is designed or something seems to be throwing them off.

I would seriously disagree with the idea that surrendered units shouldn't be able to be recaptured and used against you. The rts part of the game does not coincide well with the management part of the game and thus the only opportunity recaptured units will have to fight you again is to do it in the battle itself. The current system adds a layer of depth and caution where you need to protect your prisoners for the potential of a large boon. However, there is also a feature that allows you to "kill" the prisoners which can be role played to saying that these soldiers have "signed a contract" and won't fight you anymore. Assuming you don't care about the reward for having prisoners.

While I would agree that having a slow, methodical and calculated battle would be quite enjoyable and add a lot to the strategy element of the game, we must be careful of making things too methodical and too boring. Personally, I feel that most strategy elements and planning should happen on a redefined campaign map but that is a different discussion for a different game.

It is also very crucial that we don't get wrapped up in "this is what happened in real life argument" as games that put realism above good game play will often burn and fall. The very moment you fight bunker hill and win or the second you do so something A-historical, you are no longer following history either nor are you necessarily being realistic. Although, that is not to say that there is a lot of inspiration to be taken from history. Just that solely relying on will most likely prove a poor game decision.

[pandakraut]

To copy paste from an UGCW thread, here are the basics of how routing is handled in the game:

"When the AI routs it tries to find a path with no enemy units on it that leads to an area with the fewest enemy units. The AI has very little concept of which area of a battlefield they are supposed to be on. With some practice this becomes fairly easy to manage.

If you have a single line of units and engage in melee, the units get entangled and the shortest path to an area with no enemy units can be to retreat towards what the player perceives as their side of the map. This is easily avoided by keeping double lines using detached skirmishers or reserves.

AI retreat behavior can clearly be seen when surrounding an enemy unit on 3 sides with a solid line. Once the enemy unit routs, it will always try to run towards the opening, assuming the gap is large enough. If a unit is retreating towards an area you don't want it to, hitting fallback on the units being approached can convince the AI that it should go towards the gap instead. Not overly crowding AI units will help avoid this scenario.

Giving the AI sufficient space is especially necessary when the AI unit is against a flat board edge. AI units cannot retreat off the map so their pathing will force them along one board edge or the other and this will override the logic that tries to keep the AI from retreating through enemy units.

If you are going to charge enemy units to try to capture them, it is recommended to leave an outer ring of units to prevent AI units from thinking they can escape in a given direction while they are in melee."

Since AoS has a new engine, some of the specifics are a bit different, but the fundamental approach remains unchanged. There are definitely some new routing issues where units move in weird ways when routing near shore. I would recommend reporting these when you encounter them so that they can get fixed.

[Fishey55]

If the game is going to claim "Take command in a realistic simulator with hardcore game play" but does not have any intention to add realism then just remove the claim. If its going to live up to the sales pitch then land battles would need to slow down to a more realistic speed. The laws of combat from the day were practiced by all the nations included in AOS and could be applied to the game with little compromise on game play. By eliminating routed and captured units from the battle it would balance out the slower down game play. If there were group formations and orders the number of units breaking or surrendering would go down and when a rout did occur it would take most of the surrounding units with them.

I think the appeal is to a different type of player, look at the Total war series, a majority of the workshop Mods are focused around realism not speeding up the RTS game play. Giving each game in that series some decent longevity.

Look bottom line, I will play AOS the way its designed just own the decisions and don't sell it as something it has no intention of ever being.

[pandakraut]

Agreed, like total war there will almost certainly be mods for this game that slow it down and move it towards harsher realism.

If you could rewrite that line to match what you feel the game currently provides what would it be?

 

[Fishey55]

That's a really good question. As an RTS game it doesn't add anything ground breaking and is somewhat boring as a historical game it falls very short. But if I had to market it I would say something like:

"Take to adventure on the high seas with challenging game play using beautifully crafted ships from the 1700 & 1800's. Take to the land with detailed ground forces from Marines to Militia all lovingly rendered and capture key objectives"

Guess I would stay away from locking into a game genre (no one wants to be labeled even 0's and 1's!) and focus on the strong points like the graphics. Ships, land units and maps will certainly set some standards! Just hope Modding will be available if there is no change from a development side.