Slitherine

First of all let me say that I was very excited when I heard about this game. I played very little of the first, and am only an armchair fan of the tabletop game (like many here I love Osprey books to a fault). I have browsed several of the TT supplements, played Battle Academy and Pike and Shot (some).
I have played a couple of tutorial battles on my friend's computer, but I run into some problems that I also had with Pike and Shot.
1. I want to keep my battle lines short and closed, but it seems like they always end up in jumbled knots the moment I get into melee range. Someone retreats, some enemy is pushed back, and my line looks like a failed Tetris level. Once I get to this point executing a coherent strategy is almost impossible, and I'm reduced to opportunistic scrabbling for local advantage.
2. 7/10 times my cavalry never get used for anything really productive, they're either in endless melee with the enemy cavalry half a mile past the main battle, or it takes them so long to wheel into position that I can't get the appropriate range and position for a flanking charge.
I sometimes have a tactical plan going into a battle but it doesn't survive contact with the enemy. This is understandable IRL, but since I'm effectively an omniscient time traveler in this game it seems like I should have a bit more cohesion than history might.
Pretty good game, though, I intend to pick up a copy for myself. I can only hope that it will have lots of army supplements. I want my Byzantine v. Babylon wars!

Cheimison wrote:1. I want to keep my battle lines short and closed, but it seems like they always end up in jumbled knots the moment I get into melee range. Someone retreats, some enemy is pushed back, and my line looks like a failed Tetris level. Once I get to this point executing a coherent strategy is almost impossible, and I'm reduced to opportunistic scrabbling for local advantage.

War is chaos. In the chaos lies the opportunities. I love your line about a failed Tetris level - and I too try to keep a sense of order. But there's a knack of timing, of knowing when the chaos is going to bend in one direction or another, to anticipate an opportunity to follow through. That's not to say I can do it - but the great generals could.

"No plan survives contact with the enemy" - so I guess we make a new plan

hjc wrote:

Cheimison wrote:1. I want to keep my battle lines short and closed, but it seems like they always end up in jumbled knots the moment I get into melee range. Someone retreats, some enemy is pushed back, and my line looks like a failed Tetris level. Once I get to this point executing a coherent strategy is almost impossible, and I'm reduced to opportunistic scrabbling for local advantage.

War is chaos. In the chaos lies the opportunities. I love your line about a failed Tetris level - and I too try to keep a sense of order. But there's a knack of timing, of knowing when the chaos is going to bend in one direction or another, to anticipate an opportunity to follow through. That's not to say I can do it - but the great generals could.

"No plan survives contact with the enemy" - so I guess we make a new plan

I'm more used to playing strategy than tactical games (EU3/4 especially) and its usually VERY predictable how war will go on those games, at least to an experienced player. In P&S Campaigns half my battles make vague sense, other times the enemy cavalry does something idiotic like charge skirmishers at the center of my line and gets enveloped. I win or lose about equally well in both scenarios, which is itself strange.

I'm sometimes very happy with not charging my main Phalanx line. Apparently though, the AI should attack it, but does bot dare to. This fixes the enemy and you take very little casualties.

base principle of being good general is to understand the economy of force. You should not try to match the enemy in 50:50 duels across the battlefield.. thats recipe for disaster. Instead, you should occupy enemy with smaller force and use your superior force on another flank to decisively overwhelm him... and once he finally deals with that small force, it would be too late to come back and save his now falling flank... this game portray this quite well.. you can win battle even with smaller force if you use terrain properly and overwhelm part of enemy army in right way... then, its like a domino effect and battle is done.

JaM2013 wrote:base principle of being good general is to understand the economy of force. You should not try to match the enemy in 50:50 duels across the battlefield.. thats recipe for disaster. Instead, you should occupy enemy with smaller force and use your superior force on another flank to decisively overwhelm him... and once he finally deals with that small force, it would be too late to come back and save his now falling flank... this game portray this quite well.. you can win battle even with smaller force if you use terrain properly and overwhelm part of enemy army in right way... then, its like a domino effect and battle is done.

Excellent advice.