HistWar
HistWar (English zone) => General discussions => Mensaje iniciado por: von Döbeln en 05 Diciembre 2009, 16:10:20 pm
-
Playing the Montobello battle with Montobello armies.
If artillery deploys as they do in the demo in the finished game something should be done about it IMHO. My artillery units deploy anywhere from 100 to 600(!) meters (measured using the "Distance" tool under F9) in front of the rest of the corps on a regular basis, wether they are advancing or defending, and are thus extremely vulnerable to enemy cavalry charges etc. Whenever I give a deployment order to a corps the artillery units rush forward, and while the corps halts for "Artillery deployment" (or whatever the info box says) the artillery tends to continue advancing several hundreds of meters before deploying. I can't imagine this is intended?
LvD
-
I tend to agree, the artillery does get a bit too far ahead of it's Corps troops. The cannons are difficult to attack, so it's maybe not too bad, but I would prefer to see the cannons a little closer to the troops, not stuck out so far ahead of them.
-
50-100 meters might be ok, but 600 meters? A tad bit much IMO. :lol: And no it wasn't horse artillery - it was plain old foot artillery. ;)
LvD
-
50-100 meters might be ok
I think this would be about correct......it is quite hard to get a feel for the distances involved on the 3d map....sometimes what looks like a 100 yards is 3 times that far when measured out, this is why there are not so many fire fight with Infantry units, they are further away than you may first think.
If the distances the arty is deploying in the deno are "correct" then fair enough, did cannons really deploy that far ahead of the Infantry ?, I thought it was like 100 yards or so. If this is a demo "bug" or a "mistake" it would be great to see it corrected for the full game.
-
Artillery was deployed further than infantry, so that the enemy would receive cannonballs much longer. If the ennemy cavalry is too close, the artillery moves back before being seriously threatened. That strategy was used by the Grande Armée and the Coalition.
-
I wouldn't expect this is the main release. I think it's a symptom of the paired-back demo.
-
the artillery seems also (at least to me) a bit overpowered, not really in killing but in morale hit. I have yet to see an infantry/cavalry charge against artillery that doesn't end with the first unit in rout. A single artillery unit can destroy a corp...
-
You mean a battery of 6 cannons may rout an entire corps ? Yes, if the corps has no artillery.
It is difficult to imagine what impact had artillery on infantry, but for sure, it was called in french « le Brutal » (the Brutal) for a clear reason : it really hurts. :mrgreen:
As almost everything in napoleonic wars, cohesion is a determinant factor of victory - in cavalry and infantry fights - and cannonballs used to sweep the rabble from Earth with a terrifying efficiency. A unit with « holes » is overexposed to charges, and fear spreads in the ranks.
If the infantry/cavalry unit is very close to artillery, it uses grapeshot and then it is the debacle...
Therefore, I don't think artillery is too powerful, it is historical : great batteries were quite invincible (in Wagram : about 100 cannons commanded by Drouot).
« God is on the side with the best artillery » said Napoléon. ;)
-
Artillery was the king of the battlefield so far as I can make at, the killing power was tremenduos from all accounts I've read......to even try and imagine advancing into all that over an open field is scary enough......but of course, if artillery in LG does win all the battles, well, then there may be a case for saying it's too powerfull, to early to know yet.
-
You cannot attack a strong battery in frontal assault. If there is a battery of six canons deployed and you try to attack it head on, be prepared to lose at least 6 units. Batteries are flanked or attacked from the rear. Another option is counter artillery fire. you might be able to get close to a battery and take it out when it is inactive waiting for the smoke to clear.
VC
-
I think I'd rather have artillery deploy well in front of the infantry lines so that advancing enemy artillery wouldn't get close enough to fire on my troops. Sometimes you lose a few guns. That's to be expected.
I gave a cavalry unit orders to support the artillery, and it did, moving to a couple hundred meters behind the artillery. I don't know what happens if the artillery unit is threatened, as it didn't happen in this case. But it's something to try. In another case where I did this the cavalry unit got shot up by enemy artillery. This is probably why you don't want your artillery deploying too close to your troops.
Hook
-
This is probably why you don't want your artillery deploying too close to your troops.
Good point, but what is "too close" ?.
Many 100s of yards in front sounds excessive to me......in the "Waterloo Companion" which has some very detailed battle maps, artillery is shown mainly within about 100-200 yards ahead of the Infantry, if not INBETWEEN Infantry formations, like :
____ A _____ A _____ (page 157/158/161).
with a big exception of the French grand battery which was pushed out about 500 yards in front of their Infantry.
-
with a big exception of the French grand battery which was pushed out about 500 yards in front of their Infantry.
I rest my case. :)
Hook
-
I gave a cavalry unit orders to support the artillery, and it did, moving to a couple hundred meters behind the artillery. I don't know what happens if the artillery unit is threatened, as it didn't happen in this case.
If the artillery is threatened, then the cav will charge. Unfortunately, it's mostly the enemy artillery that threatens your own, resulting in your cav charging the enemy arty. Or if your arty is threatened by cav, your cav will ride out, into range of enemy arty and enemy cav.
I haven't found a way to solve this.
When the cav units are in direct support they will charge the artillery. When not in direct support the corps commander will send them piecemeal to enemy line.
Same with infantry, regiments don't really support each other.
Sometimes it does happen, though and those moments make me hope that the final game won't have those mistakes.
-
Thanks, Ras.
It's interesting to watch cavalry attacking artillery. They'll stay off at a short distance, hopefully not directly in front of the guns, and send a few troopers to each gun to attack it.
Hook
-
I lost the best part of two Corps attacking an artillery poistion of six or eight guns and didn't shift them! One Corps was mostly infantry one completely cavalry. The infantry seem to break, route and then come back, often only to break again. The cavalry stood off in front of the guns and waited there until they broke. I would have to say that artillery is too powerful! Reading the links above I should perhaps have made more of an effort to flank the position but there is always more artillery scattered accross the battlefield either side.
This problem can be interesting, but too much of it leads to things bogging down into one big artillery duel. What concerns me most is it stops the infantry getting into the fight, frustrating me with constant routs/rally/rout?? At least its affect on infantry could be 'cooled' somewhat...
-
I think it's fair to say the artillery have to be subdued before any hope of a winning attack can be made. There is always the danger that artillery can dominate the game to much, but I guess it did 200 years ago, the problem is finding a reasonable comprimise to keep it that way in game play terms WITHOUT it being totally unbeatable, because it was not for real, otherwise neither side would ever have closed to contact each other on the battlefield.
-
Single question: Did you have some ART units within your corps.
AI Corps must halt the Corps and deploys its artillery if necessary... I read some ART units continue the movement and it's wrong.
So it's a huge problem for your army and I have to fix this issue up before modifying other parameters.
That said, a normal battle begins with ART and it's not really interesting to send your troops before weakening the ART enemy.
JMM
-
Yes I'm talking about artillery units in a corps. When you deploy the corps the artillery units usually deploys well in front of the rest of the corps - often 100-200 meters in front which to me seems a bit much.
I have seen it deploy as much as 600 meters in front but that was a one time thing and it might have been the time where Poniatowski's corps was marching the wrong way - check the replay I sent you JMM - so it was probably because of another bug.
If it is historically correct that artillery deployed 100-200 meters in front of the infantry then I'm ok with it, I'm just wondering if it's deliberate or not. :D
LvD
-
I think it's fair to say the artillery have to be subdued before any hope of a winning attack can be made. There is always the danger that artillery can dominate the game to much, but I guess it did 200 years ago, the problem is finding a reasonable comprimise to keep it that way in game play terms WITHOUT it being totally unbeatable, because it was not for real, otherwise neither side would ever have closed to contact each other on the battlefield.
Well, you cannot muzzle artillery because it is like it used to be in History. That would be a bad and childish behaviour... :mrgreen:
The fact is : artillery is very powerful.
Then, before getting back to TW, ask yourselves the right question :
- what can I do to beat a strong battery ?
Some answers :
- flank it.
- concentrate a stronger battery in front of it.
- forget about going through it, and take advantage of many cannons being in that particular place to attack elsewhere.
Moreover, french artillery has already been muzzled by JMM because it was... invicible. The french 12Ł were unbeatable because it had the highest range. The compromise does exist between French and Coalition's artilleries.
But, artillery is still powerful. Reducing its power would be, in my opinion, pointless. :D
I lost the best part of two Corps attacking an artillery poistion of six or eight guns and didn't shift them! One Corps was mostly infantry one completely cavalry. The infantry seem to break, route and then come back, often only to break again. The cavalry stood off in front of the guns and waited there until they broke. I would have to say that artillery is too powerful! Reading the links above I should perhaps have made more of an effort to flank the position but there is always more artillery scattered accross the battlefield either side.
This problem can be interesting, but too much of it leads to things bogging down into one big artillery duel. What concerns me most is it stops the infantry getting into the fight, frustrating me with constant routs/rally/rout?? At least its affect on infantry could be 'cooled' somewhat...
Eight guns stopped your two corps. I'm completely ok with that, because you had no artillery. That's the reason why balanced corps with cavalry, infantry and artillery are stronger than only-infantry or cavalry corps, especially against batteries.
The impact on moral in the game seems to me an illustration faithful to reality.
Think about the charge of the light brigade at Balaclava (1854). Bravoury was quite useless against fifty guns.
Therefore, instead of crippling artillery we may deal with it.
For instance, during the battle of Montebello (in the demo) I beat three corps which had fifty guns, with two corps and thirty guns. I just ordered to my artillery to shell ennemy artillery in priority.
Good evening,
Pariente.
-
Pariente: You say you completely ok with a battery stopping two entire corps? I am not.
I am mostly well read on the battle of waterloo so I will use this as my reference-
Before the Battle Wellington gave orders for 'no counter battery fire'? (At odds with your tactics)
D-erlons attack reached the allied lines, crashed through the first line and was met with cavalry, which then went on to charge all the way up to the 'Grand Batterie'. (The Allies had artillery but this did not stop his advance and the Grand Batterie did not send the household brigade off packing, French Cavalry did).
Mercer, a British Horse Artillery Commander, talks of reaping terrible carnage on the french Cavalry before him. (But agagin and again those same cavalry went up the ridge to attack the squares of Infantry which also stood under hours of artillery attack, albeit indirect).
You also quote the 'charge of the light Brigade' (But they reached the enemy guns and sabered them before routing back up the valley. I don't see your point)
Very much artillery I think was powerful (especially on the nerves of the men under it). But one or two Batteries defeating two corps? (who did have some artillery of their own) - No.
-
« Waterloo ! Waterloo ! Waterloo ! Morne plaine !
Comme une onde qui bout dans une urne trop pleine ! » (L'Expiation, in Les Châtiments, Victor Hugo)
We shall hear about it for a loooong time. :mrgreen:
As there is no invincible system in war, I will talk about your experience, that is to say the failure of your two corps against eight guns. :mrgreen: You say you had artillery... was it used ? Did AI (or you) deploy it before sending cavalry or infantry ? What was your units' moral level ? Were the two corps merged (loss of cohesion) ? Have you sent your corps simultaneously ? Were there other ennemy units than guns ? If your units arrived one by one, it may explain why your corps were routed.
Numerous factors may account for this surprising result.
« Woe to the general who came to fight with a system. » (Napoléon)
Then, there is no rule : a great battery may be charged successfully by cavalry, but if cavalry charges straight at well prepared guns (even ten), there are many chances your cavalry goes back to Scotland. ;)
At Montebello (in the demo), for instance, ennemy artillery arrived gradually so that I outnumbered the Russians.
I keep saying I'm ok with the power of artillery. I understand your state of mind, but, in my opinion, artillery is not overestimated. ;)
Edit : I go to bed. Sweet dreams.
-
I'm guessing that when a corps stops and artillery advances 500 meters to open fire, it's because those are 4 pounder guns going against 12 pounders of the enemy. The infantry stops out of range while the regimental guns continue to advance into range of their smaller guns.
Of course, when I go to look for instances of this, I never see it. Guns deploy right in front of the halted infantry and sometimes even retreat a bit to get a better firing position.
D'Erlon's infantry did indeed get past the allied artillery to attack infantry on the ridge. What we're not told is how many battalions were routed by the artillery before they got past it, or how much of the artillery was destroyed one way or another. I suspect if we were gaming it in HWLG, the infantry would never get to the ridge.
Mercer was able to stop several cavalry charges, which would happen in HWLG. This part of the battle isn't well documented, so we don't know if the *same* cavalry kept advancing time after time, or if these were different units, or even exactly how many charges there were. Also, Mercer's battery took a lot of damage from a Prussian artillery unit firing on its flank. The squares Mercer was protecting took considerable damage as well, but didn't break. Some other squares were reported as breaking, maybe 3.
The biggest argument against reducing the effectiveness of artillery is that we can still win battles the way it is now. The biggest argument in favor of reducing it is that it's impossible to advance against it unless you have overwhelming numbers or a lot of artillery of your own. A decision to change it is not easily made. You have to have expert players testing it a lot. Most of us aren't to the "expert" point yet. I agree that it feels too powerful, but I'm nowhere near the point that I'd recommend any changes.
If it helps any, keep in mind that the artillery has a relatively narrow field of fire, and doesn't seem to wheel to meet threats coming from another direction. If you can get past the cone of fire, you're safe.
Hook
-
"Waterloo ! Your fields stand, desolate and grim.
Like water boiling in a pot filled to the rim -" ( i do not know the translator) Just a strange translation ...
In fact this one is more litteral translation but less beautiful ! "Waterloo! Waterloo! disastrous field!
Like a wave swelling in an urn brim-filled".
And for the fun another extract :smile:
"He fell; and God changed Europe's iron bands.
Far in the fog-bound seas a vile rock stands,
Belched up by old volcanoes. Destiny
Took nails and clamps and neck-irons, gleefully,
Seized him who stole the thunder, living, pale,
And dragged him to the grizzled peak, to nail
Him down, and with a mocking laugh to start
The vulture England gnawing at his heart."
-
Then, before getting back to TW, ask yourselves the right question :
Hmmm, odd comment to make....the TW games are well know to be very poor as far as historical accuracy is concerned, but they do provide some brillent MP games (which is all I'm interested in) and some of the mods are far superior to the in the box game, the TROM Empire mod has very powerfull artillery and "we" are well used to having serious problems over coming that, in several different way, anyway, if you read what I posted you will see I fully understand how strong artillery was, but if you get loads of people posting "arty is too strong" in the game you need to listen to that comment......I have no clue if it's too strong or not yet as the demo appears to have some problems with it.
Some answers :
- flank it.
- concentrate a stronger battery in front of it.
- forget about going through it, and take advantage of many cannons being in that particular place to attack elsewhere.
I would expect most people on this forum would agree with this, it's not rocket science.
As for Waterloo, well it did happen, it is also the most documented Napoleonic battle and the most written about.
-
Of course, when I go to look for instances of this, I never see it. Guns deploy right in front of the halted infantry and sometimes even retreat a bit to get a better firing position.
I assume that by "instances" here, you mean historical instances? If so, then this is a problem in the game.
D'Erlon's infantry did indeed get past the allied artillery to attack infantry on the ridge. What we're not told is how many battalions were routed by the artillery before they got past it, or how much of the artillery was destroyed one way or another. I suspect if we were gaming it in HWLG, the infantry would never get to the ridge.
Exactly, again a problem to be fixed.
Mercer was able to stop several cavalry charges, which would happen in HWLG. This part of the battle isn't well documented, so we don't know if the *same* cavalry kept advancing time after time, or if these were different units, or even exactly how many charges there were. Also, Mercer's battery took a lot of damage from a Prussian artillery unit firing on its flank. The squares Mercer was protecting took considerable damage as well, but didn't break. Some other squares were reported as breaking, maybe 3.
The Mercer reference is an interesting one and referring to it for comparison's sake is a good idea. I'd be careful about what conclusions we draw from it though. Mercer reports that the cavalry to his front could advance no further, mainly because of the numerous dead horses that had accumulated there. That doesn't mean, however, that the entire charge was stopped. Also, I don't think the Prussian friendly fire could have occured at the same time, Plancenoit not having fallen yet while the cavalry attacks were in progress. As for squares breaking, can you provide references? I've always understood that not a single square broke during those charges.
The biggest argument against reducing the effectiveness of artillery is that we can still win battles the way it is now.
If JMM included tactical nuclear weapons, we could win battles with that too, but that wouldn't make it historically valid.
The biggest argument in favor of reducing it is that it's impossible to advance against it unless you have overwhelming numbers or a lot of artillery of your own. A decision to change it is not easily made.
If what we're seeing is plainly wrong, then the decision to change is very easy to make.
You have to have expert players testing it a lot.
We have that now. And many of them are reporting it to be a problem.
If it helps any, keep in mind that the artillery has a relatively narrow field of fire, and doesn't seem to wheel to meet threats coming from another direction. If you can get past the cone of fire, you're safe.
Agreed.
Holdit
-
If what we're seeing is plainly wrong, then the decision to change is very easy to make
This is all about game balance, as long as it's not a bug......the artillery could be "balanced" in many different (fractional) ways, stronger, or weaker, in the end we can all have different opinions on this, and will do, but when push comes to shove it's up to the game developer to make the call.
LG may be a new Nap game, it may be the best ever made, but there is a lot of value in experience in other games, and I would say MP games are of greater vaule than SP as far as "balance" is concerned, you will always get discussions about this, that, or the other, being to strong/weak, it's never ending.
Lets see what happens in the real game, and not in SP, but in the only real test of live MP games, if EVERY single battle is won by someone sitting behind a wall of artillery on a hill, then we know there's a problem, if not, there's not !.
-
I assume that by "instances" here, you mean historical instances? If so, then this is a problem in the game.
I meant instances IN THE GAME. I'd have though that was obvious. Rather than search through saved games, I've been playing new ones. As such, it doesn't appear to be a problem in the game at all.
Exactly, again a problem to be fixed.
We won't know until we game it.
The Mercer reference is an interesting one and referring to it for comparison's sake is a good idea. I'd be careful about what conclusions we draw from it though. Mercer reports that the cavalry to his front could advance no further, mainly because of the numerous dead horses that had accumulated there. That doesn't mean, however, that the entire charge was stopped. Also, I don't think the Prussian friendly fire could have occured at the same time, Plancenoit not having fallen yet while the cavalry attacks were in progress. As for squares breaking, can you provide references? I've always understood that not a single square broke during those charges.
If you rely on nothing but English language sources, you miss a lot of things like breaking squares. And how far the Prussians actually advanced that afternoon. The artillery attack on Mercer was after the charges had ended, I do believe, because Mercer doesn't mention being charged while under artillery attack, nor after it. As for the other, if you'd care to quote from Mercer's journal, I'd be happy to read it.
If JMM included tactical nuclear weapons, we could win battles with that too, but that wouldn't make it historically valid.
If you'd prefer to make a valid argument, I'd be happy to discuss it with you.
If what we're seeing is plainly wrong, then the decision to change is very easy to make.
That sentence begins with "IF". The argument has not been proven.
You have to have expert players testing it a lot.
We have that now.
Too bad we don't have multiplayer yet. We could test that very quickly.
I went through this whole process with Austerlitz: Napoleon's Greatest Victory and I was able to come up with a patch to make the artillery strength fall within reasonable limits, and my numbers were eventually incorporated into that game. I know very well that the gamers need to be happy with the effects. We knew that ANGV was a game, and that the balance needed to give a good playing experience. HWLG is a simulation, and the effects need to reflect reality as close as we can get it.
While I think the artillery is too strong myself, I'm not convinced that it's unrealistically strong. I'll need to do a lot more testing. If necessary, maybe we can convince JMM to give us an option to dumb down the artillery for those who need it. In the mean time, I'm looking for ways to deal with it the way it already is in the game.
Hook
-
Bravo Aguirre!
Mercer was shot up towards the end of the Battle by a Prussian Battery that he said were probably drunk (Although I expect most were drinking, I would be!). He said he had so many dead horses and dead and exhausted men that he could not join in with the general advance.
It is true, he did say he had built up many dead horses and Frenchmen to the front of his position and so was able to stay. (I read somewhere the French Cavalry may have advanced up onto the ridge as many as sixteen times, although I am unsure how true this is.)
Perhaps artillery is not too strong - maybe infantry break too easily in the game - therefore making an attack like D-erlons at Waterloo impossible in the game until you knock out almost all enemy Artillery that is able to fire on you.
(Although it has just occurred to me that perhaps because infantry don't 'come on together' each regiment gets the full firepower of all artillery. If they came on severel at a time this artillery would be 'diluted'? Just a thought.)
-
If you rely on nothing but English language sources, you miss a lot of things like breaking squares.
Fine, my experience of Napoleonics has been one of expanding my knowledge and understanding. I don't care if squares were broken or not. I do care what the truth is. So if you have references that confirm broken squares, I am very keen to read them.
And how far the Prussians actually advanced that afternoon. The artillery attack on Mercer was after the charges had ended, I do believe, because Mercer doesn't mention being charged while under artillery attack, nor after it. As for the other, if you'd care to quote from Mercer's journal, I'd be happy to read it.
You've missed my point. We're actually in agreement about this.
If you'd prefer to make a valid argument, I'd be happy to discuss it with you.
It is a valid argument. It's called reductio ad absurdum. The point being that if something is historically inaccurate, then it's historically inaccurate. That there may be a way of working around it doesn't magically remove the original inaccuracy.
Too bad we don't have multiplayer yet. We could test that very quickly.
I don't see what multiplayer has to do with it.
I went through this whole process with Austerlitz: Napoleon's Greatest Victory and I was able to come up with a patch to make the artillery strength fall within reasonable limits, and my numbers were eventually incorporated into that game. I know very well that the gamers need to be happy with the effects. We knew that ANGV was a game, and that the balance needed to give a good playing experience. HWLG is a simulation, and the effects need to reflect reality as close as we can get it.
Agreed 100%.
While I think the artillery is too strong myself, I'm not convinced that it's unrealistically strong.
I really don't understand what you're saying here - artillery is either too strong or it isn't. If you think it's too strong, then by definition, it must be unrealistically strong, since if it was realistically strong, you would hardly think it was too strong, would you?
If necessary, maybe we can convince JMM to give us an option to dumb down the artillery for those who need it.
For those who want it to be realistic, you mean.
In the mean time, I'm looking for ways to deal with it the way it already is in the game.
I think you've just nailed a fundamental difference in our philospohical approaches to te game. You seem happy to find a workaround to historical anomalies. I don't want to work around them - I want them fixed. Working round historical anomalies is what you do when you're playing the Total War series, or the HPS Napoleonic games. HLG sets the bar higher than this, but it won't achieve that admirable aspiration by accepting other ways to deal with historical issues. The minute you stop thinking like a Napoleonic commander and start thinking around the limitations of the game engine, the game has failed, and it does no service to the game or JMM to pretend that that doesn't matter.
Holdit
-
Holdit, I think that you've become so intent on winning your argument that you've forgotten why we're here. Until you figure out what we're doing here, it's not worthwhile to argue with you. One thing you have done: even though I think artillery is too strong FOR GAMING PURPOSES, I will resist making it weaker.
The only experts in playing HWLG are the long time beta testers, and the few experts in Napoleonic tactical warfare haven't said much. There are plenty of "gaming" experts, but experience in Tetris, TW or tic-tac-toe doesn't count.
I know where to find the real Napoleonic experts online, and when the demo is updated I'll be doing just that. If adjustments are needed to the game, they'll be able to tell us with some authority. From everything I've seen so far in the game, JMM is a Napoleonic expert.
Hook
-
If it is historically correct that artillery deployed 100-200 meters in front of the infantry then I'm ok with it, I'm just wondering if it's deliberate or not. :D
French artillery used to deploy 100-200 meters from infantry and sometimes more.
-
I don't find the artillery too powerful, indeed the power of artillery is well represented for the Napoleonic era and a front charge is suicidal.
My only grip is with cavalery who try to flank rarely the canons and prefer to make a suicidal charge.
-
Just to complicate things even more. Russian Infantry in square Horse Battery pulls up along side opens fire on enemy troops. I am not aware that gave any orders that would have caused this to happen but it is realistic. So do foot batteries go so far out & do horse guns have a great freedom of action?javascript:void(0);
-
My only grip is with cavalery who try to flank rarely the canons and prefer to make a suicidal charge.
Watch the cavalry when they're going to attack the artillery in 3D view in the replay. I've seen the cavalry move close to the guns, outside the artillery's arc of fire, and send small groups to attack each gun crew. It's pretty impressive. I guess sometimes the cavalry doesn't make it to safety when they approach the guns.
While I remember seeing instances of artillery advancing 500 yards during a Halt for Artillery Preparation, I've been looking through my saved games an haven't found any examples of it. Usually the guns deploy about 100 yards in front of the corps. It may just depend on the artillery commander.
Hook
-
I don't think we will get this answer untill we get MP under way, then you will know very soon if artillery is too strong or not, people will start to get as much artillery as possible into their Corps, if it's deemed to be too weak then they will soon select fewer cannons, if the balance is just right (as we all hope) then you will see a reasonable number of cannons.
I don't think we have enough info yet from the demo to be sure one way or the other, what I do see is artillery being used for many hours of battle time and the other side is not vaporised !.....so mabye there is no problem ?????????????.
-
I imagined great attack columns, firefights, kocking the enemy off a feature!
Do I have to wait until all the enemy Artillery are dead before I can do these things? :cry:
Would not Artillery be better if it 'weakened' strong regiments tipping the combat in one side or the others favour and routed already weak units preventing them from getting into action?
-
I am sure someone here will know the specifics... I read somewhere that during the retreat from Moscow one of the Imperial Guard Divisions/Corps (Young Guard perhaps?) got caught or cut off and although the Russians did not feel confident enough to take them on up close with their Infantry, they did stand off and bombard them. The Guard stood their ground and took it for hours. They did not rout after a few minutes?
I am more and convinced convinced that Artillery is too powerful.
-
I am sure someone here will know the specifics... I read somewhere that during the retreat from Moscow one of the Imperial Guard Divisions/Corps (Young Guard perhaps?) got caught or cut off and although the Russians did not feel confident enough to take them on up close with their Infantry, they did stand off and bombard them. The Guard stood their ground and took it for hours. They did not rout after a few minutes?
It was the Young Guard and it was destroyed that day.
-
Hours ? to be honest. Think about it m8. So the question is what kind of art was that? Or what kind of bombartment? To read something is one thing. To really know what happend is different.
Hours in the face of 12 or 8 pounders ? At what rate of fire? What force did pin them ? What formation did they use?
A lot info is needed to say anything about this action...
-
Each day I become more certain there are less "bugs" than some of us first thought.
I enjoy it more every time, it's such a "new" type of simulation we need some time to adjust to it.
I think the 4Ib horse artillery is the most guilty of racing off to far ahead, even if it's into trouble, perhaps that can be changed with the doctrin settings to keep them closer to safety.
I've been looking at this today, and I also checked this site : http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/artillery_tactics.htm#_moving_deploying_limbering_artillery
and it would appear artillery would need to be at LEAST 100 yards ahead of the line troops.
-
Gunner24, that's an excellent site. I think I've read almost everything there. Lots of good information.
If you've found that it is indeed the 4 pounders moving so far ahead of the troops, then it's probably because they have a short range and have to move forward to get into effective range to fire. The only reason I could think of for a 12 pounder to move far ahead of the troops is because there's a better firing position there.
Hook
-
If the artillery deploy in a historic manner (100+ seems to be historically correct) and the unit is not in too much peril then I'm satisfied with that. ;) But when a unit (probably horse artillery then) makes it's own solo "charge" against the enemy line leaving all support hundreds of meters behind and deploying closer to the enemy than to its own line it feels a bit over the top - but maybe it is all in order and I'm just overly cautious. :lol: I'll keep a lookout if it happens again and then I can e-mail you the save game JMM if you want to have a look at it. :)
LvD
-
'll keep a lookout if it happens again and then I can e-mail you the save game JMM if you want to have a look at it. :)
LvD
Yes.. Waiting for this abnormal behaviour :cry: ;)
JMM
PS : Could you add your alias on the email with a short comment about the issue.
-
Hmmm, odd comment to make....the TW games are well know to be very poor as far as historical accuracy is concerned, but they do provide some brillent MP games (which is all I'm interested in) and some of the mods are far superior to the in the box game, the TROM Empire mod has very powerfull artillery and "we" are well used to having serious problems over coming that, in several different way, anyway, if you read what I posted you will see I fully understand how strong artillery was, but if you get loads of people posting "arty is too strong" in the game you need to listen to that comment......I have no clue if it's too strong or not yet as the demo appears to have some problems with it.
I would expect most people on this forum would agree with this, it's not rocket science.
Good evening.
I maybe got too much feverish about artillery and respect to history. I apologize for this. But, I don't believe making artillery weaker would make battles more interesting. Artillery, cavalry and infantry may be more balanced, even if I think strenghts are faithful to history and gameplay does not suffer from this.
Actually, I wanted you to notice dealing with difficulties is the real challenge of a battle ; reducing all differences between units, nations... would lead HW to the Imperial Glory's unsuccess.
I'm not campaigning against making the game more reachable and improving the gameplay, I'm just worried about the lethal slope to arcade games.
I'm sure JMM will reach a good compromise between gameplay and respect to history (which has already determined numerous game's details).
Friendly,
Pariente.
-
I don't believe making artillery weaker would make battles more interesting
I agree, it is better for artillery to be to strong than to weak, as Napoleinic artillery was a feasome weapon and dominated the battlefield, I only worry about MP play when it arrives, we will have to wait and see what happens then.
I had another look today and I was on the French side with three artillery placed on the slopes, the emeny was unable to get anywhere near to my defensive line, although one or two attacks did get close to the artillery before breaking down.....a "human" player would NOT have attacked here, they would have moved further right to where there was only one artillery in there way.....this is why LG will be 100 times better as a MP game - if we can find the time to play it !.
-
It was the Young Guard and it was destroyed that day.
Mmm. Thats the trouble with argueing with such well informed people. ;)
Still the point I was trying to make was that they stood under it for some time. I think an infantry Regiment of two thousand or more should be able to take more than minutes of artillery fire. Attacks did advance successfully under it to attack a position? It is easy to say we don't want to 'dumb down' artillery but is it realistic to just stop every regiment in its tracks? I will be happy to be proved wrong. I would love someone to post a video of a successful co-ordinated infantry attack (four or more regiments) reaching the enemy line under artillery fire? Or even someone just telling me that they have done it?
-
I agree, it is better for artillery to be to strong than to weak, as Napoleinic artillery was a feasome weapon and dominated the battlefield, I only worry about MP play when it arrives, we will have to wait and see what happens then.
I had another look today and I was on the French side with three artillery placed on the slopes, the emeny was unable to get anywhere near to my defensive line, although one or two attacks did get close to the artillery before breaking down.....a "human" player would NOT have attacked here, they would have moved further right to where there was only one artillery in there way.....this is why LG will be 100 times better as a MP game - if we can find the time to play it !.
I fully agree with you : the real challenge is MP battles where we confront to other players and their deceit. :mrgreen:
Eager to see you on battlefields,
Pariente.
-
I think an infantry Regiment of two thousand or more should be able to take more than minutes of artillery fire.
A fair point, depends on the range, at long range I think they will stand in LG, at close range, attacking into artillery they tend not to.
Attacks did advance successfully under it to attack a position?
I agree with this, but it comes down to where the main axis of attack is in relation to the cannons.
It is easy to say we don't want to 'dumb down' artillery but is it realistic to just stop every regiment in its tracks?
This is a big worry if we can only launch one regiment at a time, but I strongly suspect that multiply attacks are possible when we work out all the things that are possible with the orders system. Perhaps this bit might take some micro managing.
I will be happy to be proved wrong. I would love someone to post a video of a successful co-ordinated infantry attack (four or more regiments) reaching the enemy line under artillery fire? Or even someone just telling me that they have done it?
I will try this tomorrow and see if I can work it out - in theory it should be possible.
One thing I have done is keep an artillery battery busy with counter battery fire while sending a Cav Regt to the left rear flank, then ordered it to attack, it came in from the rear......sending off 90 men from the 800 odd to wipe out the cannons. Fine work men !
-
Artillery is supose to be very powerfull, acording to the waterloo companion, artillery easly did most of the kills, so artillery isn't just a moral thing, it actualy kills, the damige done by sword, bayonett and musketfire was something like 25% the rest beeing artillery
-
The trouble with the game atm is to stop your troops charging head long into the teeth of a battery.As soon as the AI gets a chance it throws your troops straight at the guns!!
-
One think to consider with artillery is how good is the field of fire. On an open battlefield it is easy enough for artillery to find good positions to deploy and have a clear field of fire. The Montebello battlefield is fairly clear terrain as was Waterloo (several authors describe the Allied position as like a glacis in front of a fortress). The Russians had good positions at Borodino.
Some battlefields were a lot more broken such as around Ratisbon in 1809 where artillery were less able to dominate the ground.
One issue mentioned in the Kriegspiel especially in the 1828 supplement is the importance of being able to judge the fall of shot and adjust the fire to achieve the required level of accuracy. I will look up some figures for casualty rates used in that classic work.
-
Holdit, I think that you've become so intent on winning your argument that you've forgotten why we're here.
This isn't about winning an argument at all - it's about getting the game right. But if I'm wrong, prove me wrong, don't just tell me I'm wrong.
I'm here because I believe that HLG has the potential to be the most historically accurate Napoleonic battlefield game created for the computer. Like anyone else who sees aspects of the game that fall below that standard, I point them out in the hope of seeing them addressed. I'm here because I really really want HLG to succeed, but if it fails in its aim, I don't want it to be because I failed to speak up with others in pointing out problems. If the problems I point out aren't really problems, then I'm happy to be corrected - but using real evidence and argument from a historical point of view - which makes the problem one of my perception and thus makes it go away. Lovely. I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is pretending that problems aren't really problems just because some people don't mind that they're problems, or because there is some gamey workaround. No game with the word "grognards" in its title should satisfy itself with this approach, if it is worthy of the name. I assume you're aware that "grognard" means "grumbler" and therefore I am proceeding in the finest grognardly tradition - but with the best of intentions.
Now tell me why you're here.
Until you figure out what we're doing here, it's not worthwhile to argue with you.
Why? Because I place a higher value on historicity over gameplay? If so, guilty as charged m'lud - and proud of it.
One thing you have done: even though I think artillery is too strong FOR GAMING PURPOSES, I will resist making it weaker.
What on earth does "FOR GAMING PURPOSES" mean? If it's wrong, it's wrong; if it's right, it's right.
The only experts in playing HWLG are the long time beta testers,
Agreed, but I don't see what difference that makes.
and the few experts in Napoleonic tactical warfare haven't said much.
And how have you identified these - is there a list?
There are plenty of "gaming" experts, but experience in Tetris, TW or tic-tac-toe doesn't count.
Coming from someone who is happy to leave artillery too powerful "FOR GAMEPLAY PURPOSES", I can't help but savour the irony in this jibe.
I know where to find the real Napoleonic experts online, and when the demo is updated I'll be doing just that. If adjustments are needed to the game, they'll be able to tell us with some authority.
So do I, but I'd say you have quite a few here already.
From everything I've seen so far in the game, JMM is a Napoleonic expert.
I would agree, and I enthusiastically salute his intentions with this game - and what he has acheieved so far, but that doesn't make him, his design or his code infallible and doesn't mean that the game can't be improved.
Holdit
-
The trouble with the game atm is to stop your troops charging head long into the teeth of a battery.As soon as the AI gets a chance it throws your troops straight at the guns!!
If you see a nasty looking battery up ahead that you don't want to take on from the front I think you need to make your orders to defend.....I'm not certain, but if they have a defend order, that (in theory) should stop anyone advancing into the cannons.
Need to confirm if a defend order does in fact stop the AI from attacking, should do, but does it ?.
-
I placed a defence line in front of one already in place today and it worked. My troops did not throw themselves forward because they were not told to deploy (attack). I had my most successful battle using this method. I have only tried it once though! :mrgreen:
-
I haven't followed this thread in detail but tonight I played a game in which my infantry very effectively destroyed several enemy artillery batteries.
Method: I detached a lot of batteries of my own and formed a "grand battery" out of them on the slope of a hill overlooking what appeared to be the largest enemy troop concentration. The enemy deployed several batteries to counter my own and for then next couple of hours of game time there was a monumental artillery dual in that sector of the map. As the enemy seemed to have tunnel vision by now engaging nothing but my own massive battery on the hillside, I sent a large infantry-heavy corps down to the left of the enemy guns (my left) and had them do a right-turn and take them in the flank. They rapidly rolled up the enemy gun line, destroying about 3 enemy batteries whilst taking hardly any casualties of their own. It was quite spectacular to watch!
-
I did place my troops on a defend line. but then moved the Corp to another position and told them to defend that line but when they started to move they went to mode attack and went well beyond the defend line.
Art is to strong , the Art power is getting close to ACW levels. In the time period we are playing 1800s
the infantry, cavalry and Art were all well balanced.
-
Still the point I was trying to make was that they stood under it for some time. I think an infantry Regiment of two thousand or more should be able to take more than minutes of artillery fire. Attacks did advance successfully under it to attack a position? It is easy to say we don't want to 'dumb down' artillery but is it realistic to just stop every regiment in its tracks? I will be happy to be proved wrong. I would love someone to post a video of a successful co-ordinated infantry attack (four or more regiments) reaching the enemy line under artillery fire? Or even someone just telling me that they have done it?
I'm not sure if I have a video (will check) but yesterday I took Constantine's six infantry units from the Montebello battle and let them walk up on one of Mortier's batteries. There were 8 8pnd and 2 Howitzers placed on a little hill on the french side of the river. The appraoching infantry took fire quite early, the cannons were well placed. Nonetheless they kept marching. The one unit that was directly fired on by the cannons did recoil once (from canister I suppose) but continued its march until the infantry had reached and destroyed the cannons. The one regiment of the six that was fired upon had lost 200 men max out of ca. 2600.
It was surprisingly easy and unbloody.
I have no idea what quality the cannon crew had. The infantry is line infantry with good skill. 1 or 2 of them are elite but were marching in the second row iirc.
-
I just realized why artillery sometimes advances far in front of the troops, and why I haven't seen it lately.
When you send cavalry out to scout, when they see enemy troops they will call for support from artillery. This artillery will advance into range of the enemy discovered by the scouting cavalry. This will be farther forward than if your corps halted for artillery preparation and sent the artillery in front of the corps.
I haven't been using cavalry scouts in my recent battles, so artillery stayed with the corps.
Hook
-
Right Sir Hook...
Support is a essential feature in the game for avoiding the micro-management.
Doctrine deeply modifies the units behaviour and I think the doctrine in the demo isn't the best to begin because a lot of support are enabled.
Another important feature is the initiative.. At high level, unit can take a lot of initiative; CinC (player) gives these parameters with the OoB editor before beginning the battle.
So, the units behaviour is deeply different when you change these parameters.
For the next demo, we have to adjust several parameters for a (unhistorical?) precise control by the CinC ;)
JMM
-
The above 3-4 posts contain a lot of very usefull information, I am keeping the Cav scouting to just ahead of my forces rather than going off to far, this helps.
So, the units behaviour is deeply different when you change these parameters.
This is the conclusion I have come to in the last few days.
It would seem we have a split between those who think artillery is too strong and those that don't, but it's become clear artillery can be beaten, the strenght in it seems to be more on moral than on "killing" power.
A couple of batteries close together, well placed, can help defend a large area of ground while your main Corps advances on a weak sector - this is going be a great MP game, time allowing.
-
Artillery can indeed be beaten. You'll never be able to send one regiment in a frontal assault against a battery, but if you send a reasonable number of units against a formation defended by artillery, some of them will get through.
There's a problem with weakening artillery. If you do, then an unsupported artillery unit will be unable to defend itself. Sure, you can overwhelm it as above, but you probably need your forces elsewhere.
We probably need to allow single guns on each end of a battery line to fire to the sides, as Mercer describes in his journal when he was hit by flanking artillery fire. Something for the wish list.
Hook
-
I think we can all agree that this horse artillery unit (on the left) has been a bit too bold. That is my main line defending on the right, and the enemy artillery unit marched right up to it and deployed in their face (and the infantry unit didn't fire for some reason). :shock: The closest other enemy unit is about 1000 from where this happened. The artillery unit did not survive for long.
If you want the save game I'll send it to you JMM.
(http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/9074/horseartyupclose.jpg)
LvD
-
Thats a Artillery Charge,..ha
-
The infantry unit in the picture looks like it was "under attack", perhaps that's why they never fired as they were not formed up, but in some kind of dis-order due to being hit by artillery ?????.
The horse artillery does appear to be a cause for concern in the demo, but I'm hoping it will be ok in the game when we can set the doctrine for their behaviour......they sure did come into very close range, even if 4 pounders.
-
Hmm I just lost an artillery unit (that was defending) because they didn't seem to fire a single time at the enemy unit that was closing in. There was no movement and no smoke and I could see no cannon balls flying and no impact smoke on the charging unit and I couldn't see a single loss. Once the artillery unit was overrun (as in enemy unit on all sides) they limbered up and started walking towards the rear and then they disappeared.
LvD
-
This needs to be carefully researched, I think. It might not matter if an unsupported artillery battery in the game can't defend itself if that's what tended to happen historically. Then the answer would be, "don't leave your batteries unsupported". If, on the other hand, the expectation would have been that a battery should have been able to defend itself against a regiment, then I can see why weakening it could present a problem, and lead to historically implausible results.
It might not even be a question of weakening or strengthening a battery's base firepower value, rather the answer might be tweaking its effect against certain types of target, if it was determined that artillery is too strong in, say, counterbattery fire only, as might possibly be the case.
Holdit
-
Hmm I just lost an artillery unit (that was defending) because they didn't seem to fire a single time at the enemy unit that was closing in. There was no movement and no smoke and I could see no cannon balls flying and no impact smoke on the charging unit and I couldn't see a single loss. Once the artillery unit was overrun (as in enemy unit on all sides) they limbered up and started walking towards the rear and then they disappeared.
LvD
Did they have any cannons left?
Sometimes artillery still has a crew but no guns left. Or they weren't even there any more, just a ghost unit.
Check the replay.
Could line of sight be an issue here and in the charge of the horse artillery?
-
It was a full battery with hardly any losses IIRC. I can take if they get overrun, but it is quite frustrating to see no action whatsoever in the 3d view - no firing, no reloading, no smoke, no losses in the attacking unit etc. It looked as they were just standing there.
LvD
-
Hmm I just lost an artillery unit (that was defending) because they didn't seem to fire a single time at the enemy unit that was closing in.
My first thought is to check their ammo. Did they have any cannonballs left? Look at the unit card in the replay, the amount of ammo is on the right side near the bottom.
If they had ammo, was anyone directly in front of them? How was their morale? Did they have any unusual status like "Unit disinclination"?
Hook
-
4 howitzers and 4 12pdr, plenty of ammo and men, the enemy marches right up to them and don't even fire from what I can see and from one frame in the replay to the nex they are totally gone - no firing at all from the guns from what I can see.
Here is a pic of the situation the frame before they vanish.
(http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/8075/vanishingarty.jpg)
If they had been out of ammo one would expect them to retreat and not stay well in front of their own lines with two enemy corps closing in on them. Yes? :D
LvD
-
One issue mentioned in the Kriegspiel especially in the 1828 supplement is the importance of being able to judge the fall of shot and adjust the fire to achieve the required level of accuracy. I will look up some figures for casualty rates used in that classic work.
From the v Reisswitz 1824 Kriegsspiel we get the following casualty rates from the dice tables for a TWO minute turn for an artillery battery of 6 guns and 2 howitzers at GOOD EFFECT (good visibility of target and fall of shot and firm ground)
Small Canister – close range – 20-60 casualties average 35
Large Canister – longer range 10-40 average 26
Elevation (ie normal roundshot) 6-18 average 9.5
Random (ricochet) 3-10 average 6.2
BAD EFFECT (wet ground, limited visibility, plunging shot etc.)
Small Canister 12-30 average 20
Large Canister 8-20 average 14
Elevation 4-8 average 5.5
Random 1-4 average 2.3
Howitzers are marginally less effective for canister and more effective at longer range.
Canister and elevation are three rounds per minute whereas Random (Ricochet) is two rounds per minute.
So for the battery firing under elevation for two minutes we have 16 rounds causing 6-18 casualties – average 9.5 for good effect (roughly 1.7 rounds per casualty) but average 5.5 or 3 rounds per casualty bad effect.
JMM, I would be interested to know how many rounds are required to cause a casualty based on your algorithms and results from playtests?
-
From the v Reisswitz 1824 Kriegsspiel we get the following casualty rates from the dice tables for a TWO minute turn for an artillery battery of 6 guns and 2 howitzers at GOOD EFFECT (good visibility of target and fall of shot and firm ground)
Small Canister – close range – 20-60 casualties average 35
Large Canister – longer range 10-40 average 26
Elevation (ie normal roundshot) 6-18 average 9.5
Random (ricochet) 3-10 average 6.2
BAD EFFECT (wet ground, limited visibility, plunging shot etc.)
Small Canister 12-30 average 20
Large Canister 8-20 average 14
Elevation 4-8 average 5.5
Random 1-4 average 2.3
Howitzers are marginally less effective for canister and more effective at longer range.
Canister and elevation are three rounds per minute whereas Random (Ricochet) is two rounds per minute.
So for the battery firing under elevation for two minutes we have 16 rounds causing 6-18 casualties – average 9.5 for good effect (roughly 1.7 rounds per casualty) but average 5.5 or 3 rounds per casualty bad effect.
JMM, I would be interested to know how many rounds are required to cause a casualty based on your algorithms and results from playtests?
Right.. I'll make a sheet giving the casualties during a temporal sequence... There are 3 steps
a) adjustments, several shot to hit the target (figure increases with the distance)
b) shots on the target
c) visibility becomes low, so the cannon must halt the fire
d) again a new sequence b) c)
However, the speed of the target is used to increase the a) process.
So, it's not really easy to compare.. but I think the model is not very bad...
JMM
-
From the v Reisswitz 1824 Kriegsspiel we get the following casualty rates from the dice tables for a TWO minute turn for an artillery battery of 6 guns and 2 howitzers at GOOD EFFECT (good visibility of target and fall of shot and firm ground)
(etc)
Excellent post.
Holdit
-
JMM I am sure the model is not bad.
Having a benchmark for effectiveness is always useful.
On a wargame table it is rare to admit less than perfect visibility unless there is a hill or trees in the way. Observing fall of shot (as I think you model in a) and b) and c) ) should make a difference.
-
c) visibility becomes low, so the cannon must halt the fire
Now that's a nice touch.
Holdit
-
Here is a pic of the situation the frame before they vanish.
Is it possible that this is a line-of-site issue? It's difficult to see exactly, but the battery looks to be behind a crest in front of it as well as deployed along a slope dipping from right to left. It's possible that the 3D engine does not perfectly represent what the units can actually see. I assume the AI positions batteries in optimal places, but did you set the deployment line yourself?
-
There should be no problem with LOS, and particularly the rightmost two gun crews are within spitting distance (almost) of the enemy with nothing between them.
LvD
-
but I think the model is not very bad
I would say it's very good, the reason I say this is if you look at the FINAL battle stats, all the numbers there look very reasonable for this size of battle, there is nothing there that looks "silly", it all makes a lot of sense, so I'm sure the battle calculations are very very good......the "problem" seems to be with the graphics not matching these behind the sceen calculations.
JMM from another topic :
The bugs are on the graphical engine... I have to fix that, no other comment
From what I've seen I would say this is correct, it's nothing to do with the game engine that resolves the combats, it's the graphics not matching the combats that are a little out of sequence.
-
Had my first experience with arty running off waaay ahead. First time I've decided to play in snow with low visibility.
I had tasked an infantry unit to support the arty (as per the tutorial) because I had sent the corps cavalry off on a raid. The rest of the corps was deploying en ligne & the arty happily wandered forward to be met by marauding enemy cavarly.
I actually took advantage of the enemys' arty doing exactly the same at the same moment - whilst they were about 1500m ahead of their corps my cavalry slaughtered them as my arty were likewise cut down. :roll: :o :)
I think in this instance the AI had decided to play it's own game of 'how crazy can I make arty units?'
Given the historical importance of guns, not to mention the cost, it would seem illgocial to deliberately advance well into unknown territory especially in snow with low visibility. Additionally, why did the infantry decide to stop instead of being in close support as they were in the tutorial?
I therefore think a tweak is needed as this seems abnormal AI behaviour.
-
We might need to support our artillery with cavalry if they're going to advance that far. I wouldn't trust that job to infantry alone.
I haven't thought too much about fighting in extremely low visibility. Anyone else have any ideas on how we'll need to do things differently? Not necessarily a change to the game logic, but what we need to do. Logic changes can come later if it's not possible for us to handle the problems.
Hook
-
Low visibility means stay close together.
Maybe use arty only in the second line cause they can´t hit anything anyway.but if you retreat the first line the arty finishes the work ;)
-
I'm thinking maybe not sending out cavalry to recon, but doing a recon in force with a small corps, possibly with a diversion order. At least the units in the corps will be able to support each other. Link a second corps in support of the first if you're worried about them getting overwhelmed. Or expect your first corps to expend themselves breaking up the enemy advance and send in a second corps after about an hour and a half. I've had good luck with this.
Half my battles I haven't sent out any cavalry scouts at the beginning, and things work out. Only send out cavalry scouts if you want to start an artillery bombardment early.
You can always advance one corps and send out the recon after it's in position, so the artillery won't be so far forward.
Hook
-
Because of corps' inertia, your cavalry corps on reconnaissance may have difficulty in going back. Moreover, sending an entire corps takes more time (about thirty minutes for an eight units cavalry corps to start moving) than sending a single regiment of hussars.
As reconnaissance is used to prevent your corps from jumping into the lion's den, I think sending an entire calvary corps - even a small one - may be counterproductive :
- it might come across a great battery.
- it might show your red-hot desire to take a position.
The battle in the demo is a quick battle as the two armies are not so far from each other. But on a larger battlefield, cavalry scouts may be very important to correctly deploy your forces. But I agree, in half my battles in the demo I have not sent any cavalry on reconnaissance too. :mrgreen:
Friendly,
Pariente.
-
I agree that on a larger map we're going to have to do some recon with cavalry. And the possibility of running into a grand battery would be pretty bad.
I wasn't talking about sending forward a cavalry corps, but a mixed corps of all arms. I think the only reason I'd form a cavalry corps is to keep a reserve, while attaching cavalry units to the other corps.
If you give an order to a corps before you start the clock, it does not suffer from order delays, but starts immediately unless you give it a delay or a time to execute. Calling them back would be difficult, so be prepared to support them or possibly lose them. If I lose them I figure they've already done their job, breaking up or weakening an attack, or weakening a defensive line.
Good info there, thanks.
Hook
-
I wasn't talking about sending forward a cavalry corps, but a mixed corps of all arms. I think the only reason I'd form a cavalry corps is to keep a reserve, while attaching cavalry units to the other corps.
If you give an order to a corps before you start the clock, it does not suffer from order delays, but starts immediately unless you give it a delay or a time to execute. Calling them back would be difficult, so be prepared to support them or possibly lose them. If I lose them I figure they've already done their job, breaking up or weakening an attack, or weakening a defensive line.
Good info there, thanks.
Hook
I fully agree with you : a cavalry corps is a reserve. ;)
You said it : calling back a corps is difficult because of inertia and movement initiating delays.
Well, I would not send a small mixed corps on reconnaissance because :
- it is too slow to be really efficient.
- scouting cavalry can see further than infantry and artillery, and as far as a corps commander, so why would you risk infantry, artillery and cavalry rather than just few hussars regiments ?
- creating a small corps implies other corps are bigger and slower (inertia).
- you « lose » a corps commander as he is not used elsewhere.
Actually, I prefer sending two cavalry regiments on reconnaissance - which is quick and unrisky - than a corps as a corps commander and scouting cavalry have the same field of vision.
If you send a small corps, it is like you have not scouted the field before. ;)
Then, you send either cavalry or a corps commander. But sending an entire corps, in my opinion, gathers all disadvantages and has no assets.
Fiendly,
Pariente.
P.S. : In my opinion, the three purposes of cavalry are in order :
1) Reconnaissance.
2) Rupture.
3) Pursuit.
Therefore, I always preserve my cavalry at the outset - lighting the most important places - and order few charges so that in the aftermath cavalry reveals its real power : indefatigable and merciless pursuit. ;)
-
Pariente, I haven't had a discussion this good about tactics in many years. Thanks!
The original problem was how to deal with low visibility and assumed that we already know that our army on the field isn't facing a much larger force, but an equal or smaller one.
If I don't know my enemy's strength or the composition of his forces, I'll send enough cavalry to find out before I commit myself to battle. In a campaign situation I may decide I don't want to do battle with that enemy in that location. Or I may decide I want to tease him into attacking my smaller force while I defend and wait for reinforcements. If I send my smaller force directly against his larger one, without knowing he's larger, he has achieved the element of surprise. The only reason I'd want to attack a larger force like this is if the enemy is trying to avoid battle and I want to fix him in place while I send a larger force to destroy him.
If I know my forces are at least equal to the enemy and that the enemy intends to give battle, which is the situation in the Montebello scenario, then I have no problem with opening the battle by sending one corps forward without initial recon. I have probably already given a second corps orders to advance an hour and a half after the first, and will commit additional reserves as necessary.
It is my intent to keep the initiative and force the enemy to react to my movements. I hope to force him to commit his reserves before I have committed mine. If my two corps meet the enemy's main thrust, then they have at least spoiled his attack, disrupted his formations, and if he continues he will meet a fresh defensive line with his weakened and scattered forces. Meanwhile I've sent another corps from my reserve to flank him.
One complaint I keep hearing about the Montebello battle is that there are too many forces on a map that's too small. I find that the concentration of forces is just right. You can't make a wide sweeping flanking movement, but at some point the enemy will advance beyond one of my corps who can attack the enemy's flank as they pass, or some of my forces will advance beyond the enemy's main lines and can flank his forces from there.
This will be very interesting in multiplayer against a human opponent. I will be adjusting my tactics as necessary. But if my opponent prefers to wait for a cavalry recon before he orders an advance while my corps starts moving immediately, with or without recon, I have at least stolen an hour's march on him and given myself more room to maneuver the rest of my forces. That initial corps isn't there to do recon, he's there to fight. The fact that he's also gathering intelligence is a bonus. If I find myself surprised too often, you may assume I'll be changing my tactics. :)
Hook
-
This will be very interesting in multiplayer against a human opponent
Much more so than against the AI in SP mode.
All the grand planning can sometimes go horribly wrong, because the other "human" player has the same grand plans you have - or better ones !.
-
Pariente, I haven't had a discussion this good about tactics in many years. Thanks!
You're welcome, I enjoy talking about tactics too. :smile:
If I don't know my enemy's strength or the composition of his forces, I'll send enough cavalry to find out before I commit myself to battle.
So I will. ;)
If I know my forces are at least equal to the enemy and that the enemy intends to give battle, which is the situation in the Montebello scenario, then I have no problem with opening the battle by sending one corps forward without initial recon. I have probably already given a second corps orders to advance an hour and a half after the first, and will commit additional reserves as necessary.
It is my intent to keep the initiative and force the enemy to react to my movements. I hope to force him to commit his reserves before I have committed mine. If my two corps meet the enemy's main thrust, then they have at least spoiled his attack, disrupted his formations, and if he continues he will meet a fresh defensive line with his weakened and scattered forces. Meanwhile I've sent another corps from my reserve to flank him.
Absolutely. My « rupture mass » - about four corps - has always been sent without reconnaissance as I know my forces are stronger.
I would be very cautious with the « keeping initiative » doctrine. Indeed, this strategy might lead you to a systematic offensive while leading the ennemy army into a « trap » - feigning to be weak on a wing, for instance, and sending huge reserves after the ennemy is engaged - may be less risky.
One complaint I keep hearing about the Montebello battle is that there are too many forces on a map that's too small. I find that the concentration of forces is just right. You can't make a wide sweeping flanking movement, but at some point the enemy will advance beyond one of my corps who can attack the enemy's flank as they pass, or some of my forces will advance beyond the enemy's main lines and can flank his forces from there.
This will be very interesting in multiplayer against a human opponent. I will be adjusting my tactics as necessary. But if my opponent prefers to wait for a cavalry recon before he orders an advance while my corps starts moving immediately, with or without recon, I have at least stolen an hour's march on him and given myself more room to maneuver the rest of my forces. That initial corps isn't there to do recon, he's there to fight. The fact that he's also gathering intelligence is a bonus. If I find myself surprised too often, you may assume I'll be changing my tactics. :)
I agree, we are forced to order frontal attacks in the demo... Changing tactics implies you accomodate well to various situations, I'm eager to meet you on a battlefield, never mind the side. :mrgreen: Multiplayer will be the real challenge, in my opinion : real opponents, real nasty sneaky human beings. :mrgreen:
-
Very interesting thread.
One the one hand I think they are okay as they are representing 40 odd guns assigned as Corps artillery, Divisional artillery and maybe even some Brigade artillery thrown in. So a unit of 8 guns in the game I assumed to be actually 40 tubes. So a single regiment of cav charging 40 tubes will have trouble. If this is wrong, then where are all my Divisional batteries?
On the other side, they can be too strong. At Waterloo the Union and Household cav charged straight up and into the French Grand Battery some of which was Old Guard Heavies and survived long enough to be taken out by French Cavalry sent to deal with them. Napoleon would not have sent the Lancers in if he thought the gunners could fend for themselves. And later when the French Cav charged the squares, most of the artillery fired and retired or tried (very unsuccessfully to defend their guns).
Just a couple of observations I have.
Also, I have not yet seen gunners retire to infantry formations if close enough yet. Very common occurence from my own research.
I have seen my artillery go off into the wilderness but mostly that was for what was mentioned earlier with cav scouting ahead. Other times I think it was because they were close enough to engage, so they did.
=> Gunfreak, why am I not surprised to see you on here? Good to see.
-
Also, I have not yet seen gunners retire to infantry formations if close enough yet. Very common occurence from my own research.
More often than not, the crews would not return to man the guns they served. A few British batteries at Waterloo did, but the majority (Allied and French) left the field once charged. Maybe this could be figured into that casualty ratios for artillery guns disrupted by charging cavalry/infantry? Maybe a small percentage could be re-crewed.
-
As far as I know, there is no divisional artillery in the game. We do have regimental artillery, but none of the regiments in the demo have them on either side. The game models each gun separately, so a battery of 6 guns actually shows 6 guns when fully deployed.
At Waterloo, D'Erlon's corps actually made it to the ridge, driving off at least some of the defenders. They were advancing against 3 batteries, two on their left and one on their right, none in the center. When the British cavalry attacked, they were pursuing elements of D'Erlon's corps all the way back to the French lines. The French grand battery probably didn't have clear shots because of the retreating French troops. I think in the game the artillery would go ahead and shoot anyway.
Mercer's journal mentions being charged several times and he disobeyed the orders to retreat the gunners into the nearby squares. The cavalry never got close enough to attack the artillery.
I think artillery crews taking shelter in nearby squares will be part of the British AI that has not yet been written.
Hook
-
The French grand battery probably didn't have clear shots because of the retreating French troops
According to French reports, that's the reason why British cavarly reached the grand battery.
Also, I have not yet seen gunners retire to infantry formations if close enough yet. Very common occurence from my own research
This may be a British gunners use.
It's strictly forbidden to Russian gunners to leave their guns, and doing it was often punished by death.
In French army, the gunners, in case of cavalry charge, are ordered to lay down under their guns and caissons, in order to defend them by musket fire, bayonets or else and to restore fire as soon as the charged is finished.
-
Also, I have not yet seen gunners retire to infantry formations if close enough yet. Very common occurence from my own research
This may be a British gunners use.
I'm not even sure if it's that. We know Wellington ordered it at Waterloo, but do we have any reports of this being done at any other battle by anyone?
Hook
-
I'm not sure too.
It has to be checked in reports from Pinsula campaign. Did this see in Ligny ?
-
I've never read of such a behaviour in the Peninsular campaign...not under Wellington...
-
It's strictly forbidden to Russian gunners to leave their guns, and doing it was often punished by death.
Hello.
Is Araktcheďev's merciless command's fear taken in account in HW:LG ?
-
Hello.
Is Araktcheďev's merciless command's fear taken in account in HW:LG ?
it would be simulate by increasing the capacity of Russian gunners to take losses.
-
Two points:
1. In addition to flanking a battery, skirmishers could take down a battery by killing crew.
2. I recollect Napoleon wrote that a battery of 10 - 12 guns could not be taken frontally. I think the context was that fewer guns than that could be taken from the front and so needed supporting infantry. Can anyone refresh my recollection on the source of this?
Waldo
-
I know there are are many discussions about artillery going on, I want to write about a strange behaviour I noticed while playing Austerlitz as solo game. I deployed Bernadotte's Corp quite close to a Russian Corp, the Russian Corp deploying at the same time in
front of mine, then a Russian artillery unit in "attacking mode" moved almost in contact with my artillery, stood there without any support by friendly unit and finally was destroyed by my fire. I kindly ask JMM about the changes in program in order to correct artillery behaviour, I only want to sum my voice to those who think artillery deployment problem is important
thank you very much JMM
-
I only want to sum my voice to those who think artillery deployment problem is important
As far as I'm concerned the artillery "problem" is the single most important thing that needs further attention, after the last 2e patch there are still some serious "silly" things happening at times.....
After a few more MP games NBC will be sending some files off to HW to try and help find what is casuing the artillery to "circle around" and not deploy correctly.
My idea of what should happen is that they should EITHER ;
1. Deploy, even if under fire, and return fire
2. Pull back to safety and then deploy, or at least get out of enemy fire and await further orders.
I prefer option 1.
-
I'll try to definitively fix the ART problem in the next patch.
By, now, it's the first priority in my list.
JMM
-
Many thanks.