Some more feedback

[Soar]

I've been continuing my previous Imjin War campaign as the Koreans in patch 1.28, so here's some suggestions and observations.

1. I haven't seen any more suicidal solo charges by AI units since 1.28, which is good, but the way the AI uses its army still seems a bit disorganized. It seems to often charge units towards a shooting line as a deep formation rather than a wide one, which results in the successive units in the column getting shot up piecemeal as they approach. It often places some of its foot units so far back in the rear, the battle is already all but lost by the time they make it to contact.

2. I'm playing in windowed mode (because in fullscreen mode, the game has a tendency to crash when alt-tabbing) and using a dual-monitor setup, with the game window on my main monitor. The camera control in battles works poorly in this configuration: using the mouse, the gap between the point where the mouse cursor has to be in order to begin scrolling the map the and the edge of the screen is very small, which makes hitting it without moving the mouse cursor over to the other monitor awkward. Increasing the size of the zone where the mouse cursor needs to be in order to scroll the map seems like the simplest way to fix this issue.

3. In battles, if a general's name is too long, the line of text that includes the name along with the general's rank, command and duel values won't fit on the unit info card. When this happens, the text will be cut off, leaving off the duel and command ratings. As far as I can tell, this is the only place in the UI that lists a general's duel rating, so it's impossible to determine the general's duel rating if they have a long name.

4. The information in the 'Split army' screen does not include the armaments of the units involved, and I'm finding it tricky to remember which armaments each Korean or Chinese unit name corresponds to. I'm frequently having to exit the Split Army screen to check the army screen to find out what unit does what, which is quite annoying. I suggest adding a mouseover tooltip that displays a description of each unit's armaments to the Split Army screen.

EDIT: A couple of sentences edited for clarity.

[GShock112]

I restarted the Tenka Fubu campaign instead and got trounced three times in a row at Daimyo level.
I know it takes time to adapt again to the Oda/Takeda set which is very different from the Hojo set but I hadn't expected the AI to have improved this much and me having gone down so bad... in part it's the unit types, but surely the AI has improved.

I am giving it for certain the AI is not cheating in combat so, the center is solid, units don't go wandering in the field without purpose anymore and it looks like the AI finds more easily the best matchup with its most direct opponent.

In this last battle, it was 13.000 vs 12.000 and it literally whipped me so bad and on a easy map... which is good, great patch so far.

[rbodleyscott]

No, the AI is not cheating. We really have improved the AI logic. No doubt there is room for further improvement in due course.

BTW are Soar and GShock both the same person?

Your (or Soar's) points in the first post very reasonable and noted for future action when time permits.

[Soar]

BTW are Soar and GShock both the same person?

No. I did wonder whether he accidentally posted in the wrong thread.

Your (or Soar's) points in the first post very reasonable and noted for future action when time permits.

Glad to hear it. It'll be nice to have the annoyances fixed, and I anticipate that the mechanics will make for wonderfully tense battles if the AI gets a further tune-up. So far, the tendency for bad situations to snowball has mostly worked against the AI, as sending its troops in piecemeal hasn't worked in its favor.

[GShock112]

There is basically still an "annoyance" with the teppo "retreating".
They retreat... to avoid autobreak (you said so)... but then they come back and as soon as they are in range they retreat again. This goes on in a loop.

That unit is basically out of action. It won't fight but won't rout either (unless you catch it) and it's a strange behavior that doesn't make sense. It was there before 1.28 and it's still here.
I'm playing right now the most challenging and entertaining campaign ever since I got the game, compliments again on a GREAT patch.

[cranston]

I would like to have an "undo" button for all those times when:
a) My unit moved when I only wanted to turn in place or check the AP usage.
b) My unit followed an unexpected path to its destination.
c) I'm trying to keep my unit hidden and I'm relying on trial and error to determine whether or not it's visible.

Actually, that last part's 'coz I'm struggling with the LoS mechanics.
For example, just yesterday, if my unit's in a forest square, and there's a forest square ahead and to the side, but clear on the diagonal, LoS is only 1 square diagonal.
The logic eludes me.
And trying to use high ground to hide is also difficult as I'm so uncertain of sight lines.
Would be helpful if we could select a given square and view LoS from there.

Another thing I'd like is to make the opposing sides more distinguishable.
Maybe by putting read and blue discs under units.
I've facepalmed a couple of times when the last unit I tried to move and anchor my line turned out to be the enemy.
Gave the AI beautiful views of my flank and rear.
Needless to say, AI never makes such mistakes.

[rbodleyscott]

I would like to have an "undo" button for all those times when:
a) My unit moved when I only wanted to turn in place or check the AP usage.
b) My unit followed an unexpected path to its destination.
c) I'm trying to keep my unit hidden and I'm relying on trial and error to determine whether or not it's visible.

I agree that an Undo button would be nice.

However, it does have issues that would render its availability patchy at best in this particular game.

This is because of reaction fire. When a unit moves, enemy units that are in range to shoot test to see if they reaction shoot - if the moving unit is at long range or half arc of fire they will hold their fire and await a better opportunity if they pass the test. This means that the Undo button would have not only to not work when the unit was reaction fired at, but also if it could have been reaction fired at but wasn't. Otherwise you could do a sort of Undo hokey-kokey until the enemy unit fails its test and reaction shoots inefficiently at long range and/or half-arc. You could thus eliminate 50-75% of the effectiveness of enemy reaction fire.

In the next game, we have added an Undo button, but in order to do so usefully, the gameplay has had to be significantly changed. In particular there is no reaction fire.

[cranston]

Otherwise you could do a sort of Undo hokey-kokey until the enemy unit fails its test and reaction shoots inefficiently at long range and/or half-arc. You could thus eliminate 50-75% of the effectiveness of enemy reaction fire.

You mean to say that a unit would move into long range, and if reaction fire is not triggered, undo and move back in until reaction fire occurs?
Maybe the test result can be saved so that the same result occurs no matter how many times a unit attempts to trigger reaction fire.

[rbodleyscott]

Otherwise you could do a sort of Undo hokey-kokey until the enemy unit fails its test and reaction shoots inefficiently at long range and/or half-arc. You could thus eliminate 50-75% of the effectiveness of enemy reaction fire.

You mean to say that a unit would move into long range, and if reaction fire is not triggered, undo and move back in until reaction fire occurs?

Yes

Maybe the test result can be saved so that the same result occurs no matter how many times a unit attempts to trigger reaction fire.

Good idea, that ought to be feasible.

Good thing that there are other reasons why we eliminated reaction fire in the next game, or I would be feeling like a complete idiot now.

[AlbertoC]

Even if the test result was saved, human players could still try to exploit the system. They'd march into reaction fire to see if they get many casualties - if the RNG favors them, they might decide to keep the move. If they see they are unlucky, they'd just undo the move and do something else instead (especially if a unit is Disrupted or Fragmented due to reaction fire).

[rbodleyscott]

Even if the test result was saved, human players could still try to exploit the system. They'd march into reaction fire to see if they get many casualties - if the RNG favors them, they might decide to keep the move. If they see they are unlucky, they'd just undo the move and do something else instead (especially if a unit is Disrupted or Fragmented due to reaction fire).

They would not be allowed to undo a move if they are actually reaction fired on (the same as they wouldn't if they fired themselves and did not like the result). The issue was either to stop them from undoing a move when they could have been reaction fired on but weren't, or to allow them to undo it but then make the react test result the same if they do it again.

[cranston]

I would use the following triggers for when undo is disabled:
a) reaction fire occurs
b) engage in battle
c) reveal previously out of LoS enemy

[rbodleyscott]

I would use the following triggers for when undo is disabled:
a) reaction fire occurs
b) engage in battle
c) reveal previously out of LoS enemy

Indeed, also when your own unit shoots.

That (apart from the reaction shooting which does not exist) is how we have implemented it for the next game. However, that will also have group moves and group move undos.

[pipfromslitherine]

But seeing that there isn't an enemy somewhere is also gaining info. It's why generally games where there is any form of hidden or unseen unit mechanic tend to not have undo.

Cheers

Pip

[rbodleyscott]

But seeing that there isn't an enemy somewhere is also gaining info. It's why generally games where there is any form of hidden or unseen unit mechanic tend to not have undo.

True, but in these games (P&S, SJ, FOG2) hidden units are probably not such a key thing that this issue would outweigh the benefits of undo.

[cranston]

Why can't my cavalry charge the indicated yari samurai?
I think that should only need a 90degree turn (8ap) + diagonal move (6ap) = 14ap.

[rbodleyscott]

Why can't my cavalry charge the indicated yari samurai?
I think that should only need a 90degree turn (8ap) + diagonal move (6ap) = 14ap.

It isn't simply a matter of AP. A charge cannot involve more than 45 degree change of direction from the unit's starting position.

[cranston]

Huh... I don't think that was in the manual. Thanks.

[rbodleyscott]

Huh... I don't think that was in the manual.

Section 10.5:

"Charges can be launched against units that are within 45 degrees
of straight ahead at the start of the move."

[cranston]

Another question about charges. Specifically about the automatic drop in cohesion.
There was this time that I charged 2 units into the flank and rear of an enemy unit in the same turn.
I noticed that there wasn't an automatic drop for the 2nd charger.
Is it supposed to be this way?