Suggestion

[Aryaman]

Hi
Now in the game it is better to buy 2 units of raw infantry than one veteran unit, not only it is generally cheaper, igt is more effective, with a larger number of units you have more chances of get a flanking attack and your firepower increase because of the better fire positions you can get, massing firepower on single enemy units. In cavalry things are more even since melee are quicker and a superior cavalry tend to prevail quickly most of the times. However it is clear that large armies of crap minfantry have an edge over smaller armies of superior infantry. I think this could be corrected with a command structure system. Nothing complicated that could impair the AI, but instead something that limited effective movement. Units could be grouped into brigades, but with a limited number of leaders (they could be not a different unit, just placed inside a combat unit) and a limited radius of command that would make larger armies more difficult to manouver, as it should be.

[rbodleyscott]

True, but it could also be corrected by tweaking the points system.

Part of the problem is that Raw troops in P&S are not rated as low as Poor troops in FOGR, yet the points cost is the same. This was because Poor troops in FOGR were so bad that nobody took them - so they must have been overpriced. However, it seems that Raw troops in P&S may be (slightly) underpriced.

[KiwiWarlord]

maybe also a little more difficult to rally ??

[jomni]

Notice this too in my Japanese mod. AI would buy lots of troops, together with Purchase Points boost, they have masses of cheap units. I got used to it already and would buy cheap troops myself or do auto purchase. Being tempted to buy all elite troops is actually suicide. But too much Raw troops is also bad because they fall like a house of cards. One unit breaks, the units close by becomes disrupted. Then the % rout is easily achieved. It all boils down to tactics and luck.

But is it not natural and realistic that a lot of poor troops can defeat a single veteran unit?

[jomni]

That said, maybe automatically giving each poor unit less movement / actions points in squads.csv can simulate poor command.

Then they get normal AP with the range (e.g. 4 boxes) of a good order non-poor unit (as suggested above).

The AI won't be able to take advantage of this rule on purpose. But interesting in Player vs Player matches.

[KiwiWarlord]

yes good suggestion re movement. How about Raw Troops expend more movement points on turns ? Means that they are OK going forward or stationary & shooting, but no fancy manoeuvres ?

[TheGrayMouser]

Interesting discussion, although I havnt seen this being a problem, except perhaps for the Coventer Scots lists.

Looking at the movement bsf ?(cant recall what file its in), it probably wouldnt be too hard to limit the maneuverability of infantry, perhaps taking away the "free turn" of troops < certain quality levels?

[Philippeatbay]

Not sure if this is the right thread to post this in, but here goes.

It may just be the inept way that I try to play this game, but what I find myself wishing for is a button that will take me to the next unit that hasn't fired, as opposed to the next unit that hasn't moved.

[rbodleyscott]

Not sure if this is the right thread to post this in, but here goes.

It may just be the inept way that I try to play this game, but what I find myself wishing for is a button that will take me to the next unit that hasn't fired, as opposed to the next unit that hasn't moved.

If you use the Unit List (accessible from the Tools men in the top right of the screen, or, on the PC, by pressing the L key) all units that can currently fire have it shown in yellow.

Personally I find the Unit List far more useful than the Next Unmoved button.

[Philippeatbay]

Thanks. I knew I was doing something wrong. The Unit List is much more useful.