The battle deployment logic is still an issue...

[Soar]

See the screenshot below. Instead of being deployed in the frontline where they could make use of their overwhelming attack power, the African war elephants and their [MODERATION: let's keep the language appropriate please] support value are replacing far superior archers in the support line. Likewise, cameliers (from Arabia Felix in case that matters) are being placed in the support line over the far superior archers.

[SteveD64]

Allowing the player to allocate would really be nice.

[Southern Hunter]

The allocation of elephants in particular is problematic. Ideally they would go on the flanks to stop cavalry...pretty much their intended and historical best use.

[Fieswurst]

In my current game with sparta the allocation of archers abd cavalry is not optimal. Often cavalry ist not on the flanks. Archers are often in 3rd rank behind provincial skirmishers or even helotes... good thing is that for the AI it is not optimal too so it is fair at least...

[elmo3]

Thinking of picking up the game on sale, and this would not stop me, but are the devs aware of it? Seems like something that should be fixed.

[jimwinsor]

The devs are aware, and the problem is a tricky one. Having the elephants go in the second row if not enough room in the first is, I think, kind of a nice bit of design-for-effect. There were battles were elephants stampeded and such, and made the battle worse for you, not better. So having them bump out a better support troop kinda simulates this, IF they don't get a front row position.

I never thought of allowing elephants in the cavalry boxes, that actually might not be a bad idea.

As far as the front row goes, currently phalanxes have priority over elephants (not sure about other HI). So yeah, elephants will clog up your support row UNLESS you carefully limit your HI + elephants to no greater than the infantry frontage of the region your army is going to be fighting in. And obviously, you'll want that army to be the attacker, so we would be taking about the frontage of an enemy region you are moving into.

So currently you have to micromanage a bit with elephants. You can't just throw them in any old 20+ HI doomstack, if you do you'll get burned every time.

[Pocus]

Yes, as Jim says. The logic to have things right at all time is almost impossible because the deployment is automated and the game can't read the intent behind your army composition.

For elephants for example, they are good offensive front liner but also have some ranged value, so it plays hell with the deployment logic.

[Geffalrus]

Maybe then the solution is to increase their support value to 2 instead of 1 so that the aggravation of displacing archers is lessened? While elephants - could - disrupt their own infantry line, the Diadochi regularly used them in the initial skirmish line in front of the infantry to support the skirmishers. If they had enough of the elephants to cover that large frontage, of course. The synergy was obvious, as the elephants could provide a lot of protection to the light infantry on an open battleground. This would support them having a decent support value.

If that needs balancing, then increasing their cost slightly would seem the logical step.

Increasing their support utility could make them an interesting swiss army knife unit with some flexibility that is balanced with a high cost relative to dedicated specialist units, and the low low low HP (last I checked).

[elmo3]

Can you just add a pre-battle step and let the players set up their forces? Easier said than done I'm sure but maybe it's possible.

[Pocus]

Maybe then the solution is to increase their support value to 2 instead of 1 so that the aggravation of displacing archers is lessened? While elephants - could - disrupt their own infantry line, the Diadochi regularly used them in the initial skirmish line in front of the infantry to support the skirmishers. If they had enough of the elephants to cover that large frontage, of course. The synergy was obvious, as the elephants could provide a lot of protection to the light infantry on an open battleground. This would support them having a decent support value.

If that needs balancing, then increasing their cost slightly would seem the logical step.

Increasing their support utility could make them an interesting swiss army knife unit with some flexibility that is balanced with a high cost relative to dedicated specialist units, and the low low low HP (last I checked).

This can be a good stop-gap measure until some time can be spent in improving the system.

[Soar]

The deployment logic values for Roman units could use a tweak. In the screenshot below, you can see weaker Alae deployed in the frontline over stronger Legions, with the Legions, again with a worse support value, placed in support over Velites. I took a look at the unit file, and this appears to be because Legions and Alae have an equal Distance To Center value in all terrain expect assaults, so they were deployed essentially at random, resulting in this dumpster fire of a formation. In general, I think it may be worthwhile to rethink the deployment logic to better take context into account, but this very particular scenario could be prevented simply by increasing the DTC values for Alae in open and rough terrain.

[lostangelonline]

[..]The logic to have things right at all time is almost impossible because [..] the game can't read the intent behind your army composition.[..]

This I understand. The game thinks there are 2 groups of situations (one when you want your best-support units in second row, and one when you do not) but considers to be in the wrong situation (and applies the wrong deployment). I just do not understand in what situation would you want a weaker-support unit in the 2nd row (instead of your max-support unit)?

[..]the solution is to increase their support value to 2 instead of 1 [..] then increasing their cost slightly [..]

This can be a good stop-gap measure until some time can be spent in improving the system.

I still do not understand. Why is this complicated change better than just always putting the max-support units in the second row? It always annoys me when support-1 elephants are put on the second row instead of my support-3 archers (all units with full stats). Not once was I glad. Does such a situation even exist? I do not think it exists. Please help me understand when would you want a weaker-support unit in the 2nd row (instead of your max-support unit). Thanks.

[Pocus]

Good remark Soar, on alae, I can do that.

lostangelonline:
Because the rules are done with a set of conditions, some nested into others. The first conditions to trigger is to fill up the frontline with front units. Then, the excess frontlines, as long as they have some support value, get priority and fill up the 2nd line (support).
Frontline without any support value are pushed directly to the reserve though.
And then, support fill the rest, if your frontline is not long enough, it will start filling up the front, and then will flood the support line.

Clearly, I can rewrite all that to account for more subtle cases. Right now, this is not my priority but as soon as time allows for it, I'll consider improving that, I know it can be frustrating.