5.0 Battle Feedback

[lavez]

Here are my first impressions after a few hours of custom battles, both ground and naval.

Disclaimer: I didn't play earlier versions of the mod, and I did consult the changelog for 5.0, unit guides (somewhat outdated for 5.0) and the post about design changes for 5.0. I didn't start the campaign yet, so I cannot comment on how battle flow is impacted by unit recruitment rules and technology upgrades for units (my feedback about dragoons in particular could be considered null and void for campaign, if availability of other cavalry units is far more restricted in comparison).

1. Ground Battles

1a) Cohesion & Morale

There is a very good flow between cohesion and morale for infantry troops, units routed at the exact moment I've expected them to break due to outflanking, enemy local superiority, being under small arms and artillery fire, being engaged in melee and charged by cavalry. On the other hand, I could happily run my cavalry in my half of the battlefield, concentrated on the right flank to deter enemy cavalry and tangle up enemy foot skirmishers in the opening phase of the battle, without any loss of cohesion. Loss of cohesion and morale for cavalry engaged in combat or charged by the enemy is in the right place, even enemy AI benefits from it's cavalry routing when going gets tough, because it gets the unit back a minute or two later to strike or reinforce elsewhere.

Summary.

Loss of cohesion for cavalry that's running (galloping) doesn't feel impactful in actual gameplay - suggested adjustment. Everything else feels fine, and AI copes with it.

1b) Infantry Unit Types - Battlefield Performance

A) Light Infantry.

Extremely deadly, tied with field artillery for amount of kills. Can effortlessly screen the flanks and center (deployed in front of my line infantry, in light infantry mode), fire on the enemy infantry from flank or behind, quickly reposition from left to right flank of my entire infantry line. Limited potential to charge the enemy in the back, if engaged from the front with my line infantry or heavy cavalry. Uses up all ammunition towards the end of the battle, provided both sides field armies of similar strength. Perfect garrison unit for buildings, provided line infantry is stationed nearby to intercept any enemy trying to melee the building's occupants. Only real counter is cavalry, but enemy AI is preoccupied with player's cavalry, artillery and openings in infantry line, so they are rarely harassed.

For the amount of harm the unit can do, as well as how little damage it takes from small arms fire even when fired on from both sides (by own line infantry behind and enemy line infantry on the front), it moves too fast and deals too much damage. Unit balance possibly affected by the low priority assigned to AI in taking out player's light infantry units. In addition, AI utilises it's light infantry units poorly - it sends them as stand-alone units, too far away from own line infantry and cavalry to retreat back to or get reinforcements from. When given multiple light infantry units, AI doesn't send them together to fire on player's cavalry in case one of the units is engaged.

Possible adjustments:

- reduced running and turning speed
- slower reloading time
- higher ammunition pool
- higher range

Rationale: gives the unit more long-term presence on the battlefield that guerilla units are known for, through reduced damage output in battles of standard length but increased damage potential in lenghty battles against numerically superior enemies, whether used offensively or defensively. Higher range and reduced mobility keep the unit closer to main army, while giving it a bigger distance buffer in case of enemy aggression.

B) Line Infantry.

In the right place. The cornerstone of every battle strategy, they can take an artillery beating, repel cavalry with a square, charge with bayonets and exchange fire. They move at the correct speed, rout at predictable moments and return once or twice per battle, to form a second battle line together with reserves.

I haven't personally encountered a situation where they ran out of ammunition when deployed in standard, 3- or 4-row-deep formation, even when outnumbered on a hill with safe flanks, to ensure optimal shooting conditions. Usually they spend between 15 to 20 bullets out of 60, while light infantry go through their 60 bullets in record time when using light infantry tactics (possible bug? light infantry reloads at record speeds despite being supposed to reload far slower than line infantry).

I'm uncertain for the historical or gameplay rationale for carrying 60 bullets, I'm yet to see a battle where this would prove to be an advantage, unless deployed extremely thin or on the fort walls against overwhelming enemy numbers, which is a highly theoretical scenario, as well as strategy the AI is incapable of executing (AI never thins out it's line infantry lines).

C) Militia.

Predictably bad. Holding their own on chokepoints, walls and in buildings, easily routed and requiring local numerical superiority, reserves and general's presence to hold the line under artillery fire. To my understanding, working as intended.

D) Irregulars.

Not far behind professional light infantry units, sharing the same gameplay problems.

E) Elite Infantry - Guards, Grenadiers.

Too much value for money. Good shots, melee butchers, can take extreme artillery pounding, 200 men per unit. Balance possibly affected by campaign availability.

Possible adjustments:

- less men per unit
- faster walking/running speed

Rationale: emphasises unit's placement in reserves to charge the centre of formation in case of enemy breakthrough. Emphasises unit's use as shock infantry on the stronger flank, by allowing it to envelop the enemy formation faster. Deemphasises unit's use an an impenetrable anchor on the weaker flank and as standard line infantry unit, by making it disproportianately weaker in a standard shootout (covers less ground with less men per unit, and bullets kill grenadiers and guards just as well as standard line infantry).

F) Dragoons.

Otherwise known as mounted infantry. Weak infantry, weak cavalry, easily routed, not particularly fast. They shine only against cavalry-deprived opponents, otherwise unreliable. Balance possibly affected by campaign availability.

Possible adjustments:

- higher cost
- more men per unit

Rationale: if they brought line infantry numbers to the battle, and performed the same as line infantry when dismounted, with square and all, they could vie for a spot with light cavalry, light infantry and line infantry units. Higher cost would offset their deployment and limit their campaign availability. From a gameplay standpoint, 60-men line infantry unit has no battlefield impact, and as far as cavalry is concerned, dragoons are unsuitable to fighting other cavalry and infantry - getting any other unit instead is preferable.

G) Light Cavalry, Uhlans, Lancers.

The reason they are bundled together is because they occupy the same battlefield role, despite their differences. They are fast, invaluable to rout enemy cavalry with superior numbers and flanking, charge enemy infantry from flank and rear and take out unsupported enemy artillery. For all intents and purposes Uhlans are premium light cavalry, whereas lancers are better than both given their staying power against other cavalry and offensive power when charging both cavalry and infantry.

For the amount of running around the map these units do, they don't lose cohesion in any significant way. Stat-wise they are fine, and cohesion has been addressed at the beginning of this post (an issue that affects all cavalry units). To my understanding superiority of Uhlans over light cavalry and lancers over both is intended, as is their gameplay role overlap, so I won't be listing that as issue here.

H) Heavy Cavalry.

The hammer. Even when losing a third of their men to enemy volley, they won't rout after frontal charge as long as they are immediately supported. They deal non-trivial damage to enemy infantry both during charge and prolonged melee, and hold their own against cavalry, including lancers. Working as intended.

I) Artillery.

Cannons. Heavy cannons. Horse cannons. What they all have in common, is how bland most cannons feel and perform. All cannons except for the heaviest 600-range model used by eastern factions, have 400-range whether they are a horse 1-pounder or 24-pounder. In terms of battle casualties in actual battlefield conditions, 4-pounders kill about as many men as 8-pounders and 12-pounders, the relative accuracy and reload speed differences not amounting to any visible gameplay impact (just my last game, 8-pounder killed 98 men and 12-pounder 102 men).

The difference between early sakers, middle-of-the-road cannons and late cannons is far greater than between different-caliber guns, and even then it's underwhelming. From my personal testing going for heaviest available 400-range cannons is optimal as a western nation, unless money is an issue so a low-caliber model will perform just as well for far lower cost. Using 600-range heavy cannons as easterners proved more advantageous than disadvantegous, similar killing power to lower calibre guns with unmatched range.

Howitzers. Their inaccuracy is heavily pronounced. Explosive round provides disappointing (about 33-50% more only over round shot) increase in killing potential. For a howitzer, their firing arc is extremely flat and non-adjustable, I've frequently experienced friendly fire when using canister over own troops unless deployed further back, where explosive rounds proved more lethal. In comparison, horse artillery deployed on enemy flank and firing canister has higher killing potential, with no risk to own troops. In most gameplay conditions, cannons deployed at the back kill twice the men with standard round shot. Howitzers are only competitive when sieging a fort, carefully placed, to fire explosive rounds over a breach into enemy infantry.

Siege mortars. Howitzer's big brother that can't move. Half the killing potential of howitzer in actual battlefield conditions, when deployed at the start of a battle can reach only half of enemy fort. In field battles it's role is provoking the AI into assaulting player's positions, a role just as easily achieved with eastern heavy cannon or a rocket. For most intents and purposes, not worth using over a standard howitzer - higher caliber in no way corresponds to more concussive force of round shot or higher radius of detonation when using explosive rounds.

Rockets. The better siege mortar. Accurate, 900-range, high killing potential almost comparable to explosive rounds howitzer, and unlike howitzer can be safely used just behind own troops without risk of friendly fire. Together with heaviest 400- and 600-range cannons, it's the best artillery piece in the game.

Possible adjustments:

- actual range differentiation between different calibre cannons in the current 400-range category ranging from sakers and horse 1-pounders to late 24-pounders, with possible factional differences (french cannons have 10% more range, british cannons reloading faster etc.)
- higher firing arc for howitzers, extreme attention paid to how canister behaves on howitzers compared to cannons, possibly lower range for round shot and explosive round (350 for instance), higher killing power of explosive rounds (so 2 howitzers reach 4 cannons in lethality, with cannons retaining range and accuracy advantage, and howitzers convenient arc of fire)
- higher killing power of round shot and explosive rounds for siege mortars, higher range (750 range allows siege mortar to attack entire fort, particularly important given how it cannot be undeployed and repositioned)
- lower accuracy and killing power of rockets (they are only available to 2 factions, have 900 range and extremely outperform, for an experimental artillery piece that was mostly used throughout the east to burn down buildings and cause panic in the event of a siege)

Rationale: giving the player a reason to use lower calibre guns not only to save money and exploit higher mobility, but to increase killing potential in close range, in addition to making howitzers welcome outside of sieges and making siege mortars worth using. Rocket nerf emphasises use of actual field artillery for netting battlefield casualties, but still retains it's 900-range baiting potential, to unnerve an entrenched opponent or provoke an attack.

2. Naval Battles.

The problems with naval battles are both general (all ships), and specific (certain ships).

The general problems:

- extremely fast sailing and turning speed (frigates move like motorboats, and ships of the line like frigates), especially when turning to board enemy ship (bug? hardcoded?)
- all guns have the same range, including carronades (gameplay limitation? avoiding AI bugs with naval formations? some other reason?)
- reloading speed differences between guns of different calibre and crews of different training don't feel impactful enough (especially the former, light guns on sloops and frigates reload painfully slow)
- extremely low hull damage taken from solid shot (a third rate that takes three broadsides in a boarding range from first rate should be in no sailing condition)
- redundant use of chain shot (mostly damages sails and deals very low damage to masts even when firing broadside across the T, but even reducing enemy ship's speed by 40% by 10 chain shot volleys is less effective than firing 10 round shot volleys to make the ship surrender instead, so from gameplay standpoint, chain shot plays no role)
- underperforming grape shot on anything but single-decker ships (intended? against double- and triple-decker ships I've almost lost two battles because I insisted on using grape shot at close range, instead of unloading standard solid shot and just killing enemy crew through splinters)

The specific problems:

- armed merchant ships and indiamen cause surprisingly low damage per shot that connects despite the calibre of their guns, and have surprisingly accurate fire for trade vessels that weren't particularly well balanced as firing platforms (nevermind the insufficient crew training)
- carronade sloops and frigates (the latter especially) perform just as well as 18 pounder frigate at extremely close range and maximum range, if anything I'd expect carronades to have half the range of 18 pounders and perform extremely well at boarding distance (this is a problem, because it makes carronade ships play the exact same way as 18 pounder frigate, while costing more and having less durable hull)

The things that work really well:

- the battle performance difference between coastal patrol units and oceangoing vessels (overall, despite isolated problems)
- how crew losses are tied to ship morale
- crew casualties caused by splinters from solid shot
- the cost of individual ships, closely tied to their performance
- difference of damage potential and accuracy between guns of different calibre (minus the carronades, and the advantage high calibre guns should have with higher range)

Suggested changes: this time I won't suggest anything, because some of the problems listed could cause AI bugs or simply be modding limitations. Preferably, I'd ask for an explanation into gameplay advantages of particular design choices, such as motorboats, current state of chain shot and grapeshot, uniform range for all guns and gameplay redundancy of using carronades over standard frigates.