HistWar
HistWar (English zone) => General discussions => Discussion démarrée par: Uxbridge le 09 août 2010, 22:05:58 pm
-
AJLewisBrookes published a great picture of a bayonet charge in the ongoing "help this is terrible" thread (sorry I don't know how to insert a direct link to it). I saw my first such action the other day. Is this a feature of the latest patch or was it there all the time but not correctly rendered in 3D? If it has always been there, this would explain some of the odd things such as two infantry regiments facing each other, one firing away and the other not moving or firing at all. Is it that the passive regiment is really charging up and then recoiling from the musket volleys?
-
Hail oh one legged one!!!!! It's been there all the time but just as in real life, it rarely happened. Nobody likes being stabbed with a rusty bayonet so they usually had a mutual rout. I read somewhere on the forum (quite some time ago), that napoleons Personal battlefield physician said he had only seen a handfull of bayonet wounds.
I was just lucky with the screenshot
-
Very interesting. Even though the offficial doctrine of some armies (the Austrian, for example) was for bayonet in preference to musketry at short ranges, you are saying it rarely happened. Would it really be a mutual rout? Seems more likely that one side would back off (or run away) and rely on their second line to stop the enemy.
-
I read somewhere on the forum (quite some time ago), that napoleons Personal battlefield physician said he had only seen a handfull of bayonet wounds.
I have seen the figures in a book, it was a small % of total wounds seen, I forget the number, but it was small and I have seen many different forum members around the Community saying melee was a rare thing - not common at all.
-
Very interesting. Even though the offficial doctrine of some armies (the Austrian, for example) was for bayonet in preference to musketry at short ranges, you are saying it rarely happened.
That's exactly how it was. Every general wanted the bayonet charge but the troops would stop to fire instead, and it was almost impossible to get them moving again. It's possible that's one reason why the Old Guard was so effective, because they didn't stop to fire, but I haven't read anything about that.
Bayonet wounds were a very small percentage, around 2% or so. At least one general was quoted as saying he'd never seen a bayonet fight in an open field. They only happened when a "fortified" position was attacked.
In "Battle Studies", du Picq goes into the bayonet charge problem at length. It's a great read for anyone interested in the morale side of Napoleonic warfare.
Hook
-
"One legged One", had a dig around and found this topic on bayonet charges, don't know if you remember it but it proved to be informative.
http://www.histwar.org/forum/index.php/topic,4868.msg63087.html#msg63087
-
Anyway, the unit that charges and then stops, should return fire instead of remaining inactive taking fire. Either this or run away. So, there is probably a bug.
-
How did we get on the subject of bugs again?
-
I agree with Marquês de Alorna - the 3D view often shows a regiment apparently motionless with an enemy regiment firing at them from about 100m range. In reality what would be happening - would they be firing back, attempting perhaps to close with the bayonet or retreating? It would be very pleasing if Histwar depicted more clearly what the 2D engine has calculated.
-
It would be very pleasing if Histwar depicted more clearly what the 2D engine has calculated.
This is JMM's current project, I believe
-
These behaviours are a bit annoying because I am sure we checked 10, 100 times these kind of fight.
We had a grid with a several dozens of type INF vs INF fight (line, column, skirmisher, strength (<,=,>, 1 to 6 batallions).. and I can say all was very good...
I believe a thing is broken in the 3D engine and I didn't spend time to fix this issue. So, I have to re-do the tests in order to definitively fix these behaviours. Just a few patience...
JMM
-
Thanks JMM.
Good to know you are on the case. When I play I go from 2d to 3d and back all the time, trying to understand the strategic position in 2d then looking in 3d to see what is actually happening. I find the 3d view vital. For example, if a regiment forms square and stops advancing then I want to know what cavalry unit they can see that is worrying them. Not easy to do that on the 2d view.
-
This is bad news for me.
I have almost exclusively played only in 2d.
The example of square is interesting.(i hope that in the future also in 2d represents the square)
There are other important example where 3d is so important?
I would not continually switch 2d and 3d for all battle for to see if infantry is in square or not.This is micromanagement.
-
One thing I do when fighting predominantly in F2, is right click and hold on an individual unit. You get a top down view of the unit and it's formation. When things are going well, I do take 3D tours of the battlefield, enjoying firefights charges etc...
I also do a 3D tour of the Map before I make my battle plans, this is the only way to get a true feeling of the topography.
-
Thank Ajle , you are always generous with advice.
-
Alfiere you have misunderstood me. The key phrase in my message was "stops advancing". If I have ordered a Corps, or a regiment, to advance and they stop then I want to know if there is anything I can do about it. I do not micromanage how orders are carried out but I definitely want to understand what causes the orders to fail.
-
Sorry,sometimes with English do a bit of confusion.
I see that is better follow the actions also in 3d,but if is not essential, I'd rather stay in 2d.
Aid gave it to me Ajle, with right click over own icons.
Thank
-
Aid gave it to me Ajle, with right click over own icons.
Thank
A pleasure :D
-
When I play I go from 2d to 3d and back all the time, trying to understand the strategic position in 2d then looking in 3d to see what is actually happening. I find the 3d view vital. For example, if a regiment forms square and stops advancing then I want to know what cavalry unit they can see that is worrying them. Not easy to do that on the 2d view.
That's interesting considering the 3D view gives you the least amount of information of all the views. I suspect this is why people end up mostly using the 2D view. I use the 3D view when I want to watch the battle, not to get information, although if you find the 3D view more useful, go for it.
If you hold down the Shift key on the 2D map, it changes the backgrounds on all the icons to either red or blue so you can instantly see where the enemy units are.
Hook
-
The example of square is interesting.(i hope that in the future also in 2d represents the square)
I would not continually switch 2d and 3d for all battle for to see if infantry is in square or not.This is micromanagement.
If you select a unit on the 2D map, the unit info box has a small icon at the bottom that shows its formation.
Hook
-
I also do a 3D tour of the Map before I make my battle plans, this is the only way to get a true feeling of the topography.
Yes, 3d view is very usefull to see the relief, even if F4 can help too.
That's why I use 3d during the battle. Sometimes in 2d, units look like they are very close but when switching to 3d you can see there is no line of sight because of the relief.
-
If you hold down the Shift key on the 2D map, it changes the backgrounds on all the icons to either red or blue so you can instantly see where the enemy units are.
Hook
Bloody Hell Hook, will you please stop telling me new things, whenever I think I've got HLG understood, Hook throws a curve ball. Now Ive got to remember something new again ;) ;) :lol: :lol:
Seriously mate, I don't know how I missed that :shock:
Sometimes in 2d, units look like they are very close but when switching to 3d you can see there is no line of sight because of the relief
.
Thiio brings up a good point here.
As a general note, this Topic is an example of why the Forum is so invaluable. I think Uxbridge (the one with one leg), started off on the Bayonet Charge and now we are on topograhy, shift keys etc... The respectful sharing of ideas thoughts and answers enriches and grows the understanding of HLG and it's Community
-
If you hold down the Shift key on the 2D map, it changes the backgrounds on all the icons to either red or blue so you can instantly see where the enemy units are.
I missed this, something else to remember to check out.
-
Bloody Hell Hook, will you please stop telling me new things, whenever I think I've got HLG understood, Hook throws a curve ball. Now Ive got to remember something new again ;) ;) :lol: :lol:
Seriously mate, I don't know how I missed that :shock:
It's new. I think it's only in the latest version. I don't remember where I read about it, possibly the patch notes. Very useful feature, especially now that the unit icons are so varied. I haven't decided if I want to request a toggle to keep the red and blue icons.
Hook
-
I haven't decided if I want to request a toggle to keep the red and blue icons.
I think that may be useful for certain battles. Yesterday we did a 2 V 2 MP, Montebello scenario, with those particular OOB's, where there are some similarly colored unit icons, I found that at first glance, in the heat of battle, I misread an enemy for a friend in F2. So that under some circumstances could be usefully.
-
I had the same problem with that OoB with the old icons. On my screen, the secondary nationalities were too similar between the two sides. With the new icons, the battlefield is certainly colorful enough, and this is a good thing, but it's really difficult to keep track of who is who, even if you look close. The red and blue icons will tell you instantly at a glance what the overall situation is.
I'm just not sure if having the Shift key toggle between normal and red/blue would be a good idea. Or using caps lock to do the same thing. It could be programmed to be simple and intuitive, but is likely to cause problems with other key commands. And you lose the colorfulness of the battlefield. :)
Hook