In defence of CA?

I was reading about Frederick the Great and his theory on 18th Century Warfare. It was pretty interesting and when taken at a distance feels a lot like what CA is presenting.

We've discussed ad nauseum the historical scale and inadequacies of what we've already been presented. I would argue, like others, that a) we haven't seen it all yet and b) abstraction is a necessisty for the engine CA is using.

Now, however, I will propose the following idea and look for feedback on whether or not this interpretation makes sense.

Fredrick the Great's entire theory of battle centered around the idea that you worked to outmaneuver your enemies both geometrically, numerically, and politically. His aim, ultimately, was victory by any means other than warfare while remaining capable with the positioning of his forces.

Therefore his wars were not those of military destruction like in earlier periods of warfare. They were engagements of position that were calculated upon the total cost of the engagement to his state rather than his military aims alone.

Given CA's stated AI enhancement that gives the AI armies some guidance on how crucial their role is within the campaign map and world might this fit into Frederick the Great's theory of strategy?

As the 18th century drew to a close Napoleon then grew from Frederick's core strategy. His forces used this concept of fighting on inequal terms to their advantage and to his foe's destruction. Rather than fighting to avoid war, or using armies to position political gains Napoleon was enacting Clauswitz's theory that war is an extension of politics. Thereby, Napoleon acknowledged that war had come so fighting was to be done to dominate rather than get incremental gains.

The best example would be Napoleon's non-linear entrance to the battlefield on many occassions which forced enemy generals to re-adjust reserves to deal with a changing force frontage. Then Napoleon could scout and seize a section that was far inferior and lacking reserves.

Given CA's statement about having room to maneuver might this be a clue as to what they meant? If we have more mobile troops, with a longer "reach" with slightly larger maps, could we expect to see something more in line with this style of combat. So, while the engagements are smaller (Frederick the Great) the actual tactical combat would respect the annihilation of armies (Napoleon).

Perhaps this partially explains some of the design decisions. I'm curious to hear what others have to say on the matter.

hmm, sounds pretty cool although the groundwork for most of the TW games was slightly inflexible for the previous games, so I don't know how much change (fundamentally speaking) will be implemented.

I think you are both right; the idea is interesting, but I too wonder CA are going to tinker with the established formula, as they know it works.

Frederick's battles often utilised wide flanking marches covered by woods or hills, since he usually fought his battles at a numerical disadvantage, he had to bring numerical superiority to bare at some concentrated point. Thinking about it, the speed at which units can move in TW games, somewhat negates the effectiveness of large outflanking moves. You can reposition an outflanked army in less than a minute, usually well before the enemy makes contact. On balance you do loose your chosen positions, and the enemy attack is travelling much faster than it would in reality (the outflanking army would still have to form up out of its march columns for the attack in reality).

A way arround this would be preventing most infantry units from running; something which they very rarely did in reality as the disorder created would be too dangerous in the face of the enemy, or as I imgaine most people would prefer, allow them to run, but give them some sort of disorganisation penalty. Disorganisation too could be imposed on units that interpenetrate each other, currently its too easy for units to do this without much difficulty. These things might make the repositioning of an army more difficult and make flanking marches worthwhile. On the other hand most players would probably be resistant to the troops being more difficult to control. Gameplay-vs-History conundrum again.

What book are you reading on Frederick by the way?

Originally Posted by sparty

Fredrick the Great's entire theory of battle centered around the idea that you worked to outmaneuver your enemies both geometrically, numerically, and politically. His aim, ultimately, was victory by any means other than warfare while remaining capable with the positioning of his forces.

I'm a little unclear on what you are discussing here because you seem to be mixing the strategic with the tactical. To me, theory of battle means how he conducted himself on the actual battlefield. Once you toss in the political and include that last sentence you are discussing the strategic. You may have meant 'theory of warfare' perhaps, but even then the mixing makes the discussion difficult. I would say that if what you are describing were his strategic aims then he failed pretty badly as Prussia very nearly ceased to exist and his record on the diplomatic front is probably best described as 'spotty'. He marched and counter marched from battle to battle in an era when field battles were relatively rare. Risking battle wasn't something your average field commander sought to do and the fact that Frederick fought so many major battles (many of them vs an enemy in prepared defensive positions) should be an indication of how desperate his situation was and how unsavvy he was politically.

Therefore his wars were not those of military destruction like in earlier periods of warfare. They were engagements of position that were calculated upon the total cost of the engagement to his state rather than his military aims alone.

:hmmm:I'm a little unclear on what you mean with this paragraph. The first sentence doesn't really make sense to me, but the second sentence is simple to describe. Prussia was a relatively poor nation that had manpower problems and was punching way over it's weight so it was more difficult for Frederick to replace casualties. This, of course, then highlights how desperate Frederick's situation was because in spite of the fragility of his army he had to keep seeking battle in order to keep from losing his realm (after conducting a shameless land grab ).

Given CA's stated AI enhancement that gives the AI armies some guidance on how crucial their role is within the campaign map and world might this fit into Frederick the Great's theory of strategy?

I'm not sure the AI really had a coherent strategy in prior titles, so you might be over thinking this a bit. Just giving the AI an overall strategy of any kind might be an improvement, let alone something specific like what you are describing.

Yeah the mix of the tactical and strategic was pretty central.

Basically since we know the maps are only going to be slightly larger and that we're still limited to 20 units per side my thought was that the positioning on the campaign map of your forces (i.e. splitting up your armies to create situations where an entire army would be flanked, etc.) could have an effect on how / when the AI decided to fight.

In effect you could use the campaign map as the extra territory everyone keeps talking about wanting.

To answer your question about Frederick the Great books. I'm not actually reading anything in particular about him. I'm more or less just finding stuff on the internet about 18th century warfare that looks interesting and reading that.

Interesting thread sparty. I suggested before that CA have the AI implement 18th-Century strategy and tactics in Empire, like the AI in Shogun made use of Sun Tzu's Art of War. A CA representative replied here that they may be doing that, so it's interesting.

Originally Posted by Steel of Fury

Interesting thread sparty. I suggested before that CA have the AI implement 18th-Century strategy and tactics in Empire, like the AI in Shogun made use of Sun Tzu's Art of War. A CA representative replied here that they may be doing that, so it's interesting.

I'm fairly sure that they're working on it right now.

Originally Posted by Lusted

Originally Posted by Razor

Great news! I do hope Lusted has good knowledge of 18th-19th century battlefield tactics otherwise things still might get weird. But I do have confidence in this tester-AI programmer meetings!

We have a lovely wide selection of books at the office.

link to battle AI Dev Diary topic: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...=173650&page=2

It's a little off-subject but...
Only 20 units has been confirmed?
Bugger that! I'm pretty sure there'll be no point in using artillery then.
I found that artillery was only ever effective in breaching walls in sieges in the TW games.
The only time that I've found artillery dangerous was using the Napoleonic mod, where they can fire cannister.
But even then, it was easy to swing cav units in from the flanks and take the guns. The only way you could prevent losing the guns was to guard the arti units with infantry. But then you're sacrificing well-needed musket-fire from your lines. If there really are only 20 units, that would suck just a little bit.

Originally Posted by ChaosLondon

It's a little off-subject but...
Only 20 units has been confirmed?
Bugger that! I'm pretty sure there'll be no point in using artillery then.
I found that artillery was only ever effective in breaching walls in sieges in the TW games.
The only time that I've found artillery dangerous was using the Napoleonic mod, where they can fire cannister.
But even then, it was easy to swing cav units in from the flanks and take the guns. The only way you could prevent losing the guns was to guard the arti units with infantry. But then you're sacrificing well-needed musket-fire from your lines. If there really are only 20 units, that would suck just a little bit.

Despite being off-topic, I completely agree with you. However, increasing the amount of units would also mean that battlefields need to be extended, which in turn would cause performance problems.
This subject is a bit of a problem if you ask me.

This concern has been addressed by Lusted.

The maps are larger to enable the mobility folks want, but the 20 unit limit is there to preserve smooth animations and gameplay.

Yea well I wished there was a way to make it smooth wit alot more troops sadly thats never possible.Suck big time that we humans are so limited on technoligy LoL

To be fair to CA.They may have a new game engine, however I think they are sticking to tried and trusted methods, when it comes to scripting the software. Some may say they are cutting corners, other's streamlining production .Yes it is a disapointment that there are only 20 units available. I hope that they allow a lot more leeway in unit number's to make up for the shortfall,or better game balance:hmmm:.regards magpie.

This is quickly getting off-topic and onto something that already has NUMEROUS other posts.

Let me pose this question to re-direct it:

Given what you know about 17th & 18th century warfare how do you think the information that CA has thusfar released supports (not contridicts) your understanding?