ANTONYO wrote:This puts in the manual page 87.
"Elements belonging to a single Unit always target elements of a single
enemy Unit, favoring weightier targets. Artillery elements always target the eligible
enemy elements on the field with the most hits remaining. This means large Units
concentrate more fire on their target, and are able to absorb more damage from the
enemy".
He understood that they were more easily eligible for units being attacked with more hits remaining, which is the logical, but it seems that this is not true
Does not have any utility that an army marche at the sound of the guns if not then involved in the battle. Something doesn't work
Ace wrote:I agree with you. It would be an improvement if your suggestions were implemented.
I would only ask Antonyo was the MTSG stack an Army stack. Army stack does not get targeted in combat, only its corps. That is why people generally put only artillery in the Army stack, or only the lone Army commander.
Jarkko wrote:You are confusing the terms "Unit" and "Target", partly because the manual isn't exactly clear. A "Unit" is a division or a brigade or a regiment. A "Target" can be a Unit or an element in a unit, depending on wether the targeter is a unit or an element. Ie a unit selects a target, then elements in that unit selects target elements in the target unit.
Also notice that a Unit who is selected as a target has a very high chance to remain the target until it routs. Notice that if the width of the front is filled already, then fresh troops won't make it to the front until the fighting units at front retreat.
Jarkko wrote:
4) The fight continues, with again the "locked" units fighting their targets etc. The initial lone corps has suffered too much, many units rout. If the reinforcing army wasn't considerably bigger than the initial corps, this very likely leads to the whole force retreating off the field, even though the reinforcing troops still are relatively unscratched.
Ace wrote:I would only ask Antonyo was the MTSG stack an Army stack. Army stack does not get targeted in combat, only its corps. That is why people generally put only artillery in the Army stack, or only the lone Army commander.
Jarkko wrote:Let me put it like this: There is a reason why you can choose to have MTSG "on" or not. The decission is *not* a no-brainer, like many people seem to think. You should always mentally compare the "for" and "against" of the decission wether to have MTSG on or not.
Jarkko wrote:Let me put it like this: There is a reason why you can choose to have MTSG "on" or not. The decission is *not* a no-brainer, like many people seem to think. You should always mentally compare the "for" and "against" of the decission wether to have MTSG on or not.
veji1 wrote:S
In a battle where a corps or divisions get mangled, they should extricate themselves before being destroy, and this should be virtually guaranteed whenever there are MTSGing forces to plug the line.
Jarkko wrote: I don't think this thread belongs to "Help improve CW2", it belongs to general discussion and the thread title should be "Why do my troops fight to death when I choose a red stance?".
Jarkko wrote:Also notice that a Unit who is selected as a target has a very high chance to remain the target until it routs. Notice that if the width of the front is filled already, then fresh troops won't make it to the front until the fighting units at front retreat.
Jarkko wrote:Not very difficult to figure out, is it? Anyway, I don't think this thread belongs to "Help improve CW2", it belongs to general discussion and the thread title should be "Why do my troops fight to death when I choose a red stance?".
ANTONYO wrote:No one doubts that the game functions according to is designed. But I do not think that is correct that if a Corps goes as reinforcements to a battle you cannot enter combat until the initial Corps has been completely defeated. It is not difficult to understand.
loki100 wrote: Equally its quite likely the new forces will not enter combat until the second hour (at the earliest) and may drop out of combat in a future round (much more likely if they are crossing a river)..
loki100 wrote:As Jarkko says, MttSG is not a 'I win' solution, its a tool that needs to be used with some care. And that over a long game will blow up in your face at least once due to the random elements that come into play. It allows you to cover a wide front and to use small tripwire forces as part of your defensive strategy - both of which are good. It has the potential to fail you badly.
ANTONYO wrote:Please read my initial post.
The battle has four rounds, reinforcements arrive in the second round (There is no river).
Second round: not enter combat
Third round: not enter combat
Fourth round: not enter combat and initial Corps completely annihilated.
No one says, Mtsg is a "I win" solution, but it should get results more credible..
loki100 wrote:I did read your post. The point I made is that in all AGE games, MttSG relies on random aspects. So it doesn't always work and thus if you really can't risk it failing then you should find a different solution to your problem. Second as also in this thread issues such as frontage come into play. A force may march into a region where it cannot deploy into combat.
Now its never, and especially not in this era, easy to break combat when facing a superior enemy so in that case the original corps is stuck in the front regardless of units elsewhere in a large province.
Jarkko wrote:Guys, if you do not want to have army marching to the sound of guns, you don't park the army so that it will attempt MTSG. Essentially, if you put your army next to your corps, have MTSG "on", otherwise not. If you need to hold two provinces next to each other but don't want to MTSG, then do not place corps from same army in the province (if an independent corps isn't good enough, then use corps from two different armies).
Not very difficult to figure out, is it? Anyway, I don't think this thread belongs to "Help improve CW2", it belongs to general discussion and the thread title should be "Why do my troops fight to death when I choose a red stance?".
veji1 wrote:Regarding the other thing you are saying "beware of MTSG, it can result in you losing your starting positions, so it isn't always a positive" your are 100% correct, and indeed this is a very good feature : a "bad"MTSG can suddenly make a well dug in 3 province wide front disappear, as it should.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests