Autocalc is NO guarantee of success- and...

[Humble Warrior]

Y`know how you`ve fought lots of battles against the Sassanids as the ERE and you come across that Autocalc which has like a 90% yellow bar ratio so you know you just can`t lose, so you autocalc to save time? Well, no, you can still lose. The autocalc can sometimes get it wrong. In fact i`ve had the autocalc get it wrong 3 times now on what was a certain victory.

I think it`s those pesky skirmishers that the Sassanids so love, they may not look like much, but their pesky `running away and shoot` routine must not be figured in the calculating - Or something.

On another point, when you group your General why does nearly every formation have the General on the far Left edge of the group in an exposed, flankable position? I find that really annoying as I prefer centre back, which previous TW games normally have. I move him, but it seems silly putting such an important and vulnerable unit there. Is this some historical thing or just `CA`s view of the ancient world` nonsense again? I`ve certainly never heard heard of sticking a General in such a silly position in reality.

[revan.be]

On another point, when you group your General why does nearly every formation have the General on the far Left edge of the group in an exposed, flankable position? I find that really annoying as I prefer centre back, which previous TW games normally have. I move him, but it seems silly putting such an important and vulnerable unit there. Is this some historical thing or just `CA`s view of the ancient world` nonsense again? I`ve certainly never heard heard of sticking a General in such a silly position in reality.

Well, the Ancient Greeks liked to have their general on the RIGHT flank , together with their elites i hear....

[the lightning legion]

Well, the Ancient Greeks liked to have their general on the RIGHT flank , together with their elites i hear....

not just exposed, many of them got stuck in too.

[DeliCiousTZM]

It was one of my first complains, that the autocalc didn't show %. But here is a tip Humby. Look at your army and look at your opponents army. If you outnumber him heavily on ranged units, go with defensive otherwise aggressive.

[Tora]

It was one of my first complains, that the autocalc didn't show %. But here is a tip Humby. Look at your army and look at your opponents army. If you outnumber him heavily on ranged units, go with defensive otherwise aggressive.

This certainly seems to work, and and the jist of it is already in the mouseover tips in the auto-calc options. Think it's a bit pointless though to try and link auto-calc behaviour to any attempt at rationally simulating a "real" battle.

After all, truth is the first casualty of war, and elephants are the first casualties of auto-calc...

[Causeless]

Y`know how you`ve fought lots of battles against the Sassanids as the ERE and you come across that Autocalc which has like a 90% yellow bar ratio so you know you just can`t lose, so you autocalc to save time? Well, no, you can still lose. The autocalc can sometimes get it wrong. In fact i`ve had the autocalc get it wrong 3 times now on what was a certain victory.

I think it`s those pesky skirmishers that the Sassanids so love, they may not look like much, but their pesky `running away and shoot` routine must not be figured in the calculating - Or something.

On another point, when you group your General why does nearly every formation have the General on the far Left edge of the group in an exposed, flankable position? I find that really annoying as I prefer centre back, which previous TW games normally have. I move him, but it seems silly putting such an important and vulnerable unit there. Is this some historical thing or just `CA`s view of the ancient world` nonsense again? I`ve certainly never heard heard of sticking a General in such a silly position in reality.

It was fairly common. Keeping the generals far away from the combat was something which mostly started during the Medieval age when instead of a fairly expendable general leading, it was usually a king.

It was better to keep the general closer to their best troops (typically on a flank - the Greeks did this so that their right would destroy the enemy's weaker left, then roll up the battle line) so they could give commands quicker and boost morale. In Total War, there's no simulation of the time it'd take for commands to be issued. A man on horseback would need to move take information from the general and give the command to the relevant troops, so clearly keeping the general near the action would allow for faster reaction times.

After all, it was preferable that their general would die over their whole army. Even if a general got wounded or killed form being so close to the action, it was worth it because of the increased chance of winning the battle.

Typically a general would always try and stay close to where the most fine-grained control and morale was needed. That's not always behind the middle of their army - if anything, that was the exception.

[Humble Warrior]

It was one of my first complains, that the autocalc didn't show %. But here is a tip Humby. Look at your army and look at your opponents army. If you outnumber him heavily on ranged units, go with defensive otherwise aggressive.

Damn it! So that`s what i was doing wrong. thanks. i`d Rep, but Rep priveleges have been banned. Nothing new there. Know you have a rep in spirit and a smilie.

It was fairly common. Keeping the generals far away from the combat was something which mostly started during the Medieval age when instead of a fairly expendable general leading, it was usually a king.

It was better to keep the general closer to their best troops (typically on a flank - the Greeks did this so that their right would destroy the enemy's weaker left, then roll up the battle line) so they could give commands quicker and boost morale. In Total War, there's no simulation of the time it'd take for commands to be issued. A man on horseback would need to move take information from the general and give the command to the relevant troops, so clearly keeping the general near the action would allow for faster reaction times.

After all, it was preferable that their general would die over their whole army. Even if a general got wounded or killed form being so close to the action, it was worth it because of the increased chance of winning the battle.

Typically a general would always try and stay close to where the most fine-grained control and morale was needed. That's not always behind the middle of their army - if anything, that was the exception.

Well, considering I can`t be bothered to check the facts by reading my historical books on this bank holiday relaxed time, I`ll take your word for it. If it`s realistic, I will put up with it. Thanks.

[Bramborough]

I think it's because the "auto formation generator" or whatever, doesn't look at the unit as a commanding general, but simply considering the troops of the bodyguard unit, who are usually the most elite troops of the army. And for whatever reason, the game goes left-to-right in order of quality when assigning positions. I was resigned to this a limitation of the game (in R2 as well) and lived with it...until I finally figured out that Ctrl+G actually has two functions.

[DestinysGT]

I've had the auto calc tell me I had less then around 10% chance of winning at times. Yes I have lost a few of those LOW end battles but it was my fault. I won that one because i had a clear advantage.