1
General discussions / Re : The Depot
« Dernier message par zu Pferd le Hier à 11:39:47 »No problem JMM.
I'm not even sure if all those files are still operational.
I'm not even sure if all those files are still operational.
Change the forum language : 
Nouvelles:
Facebook : http://www.facebook.com/pages/HistWar/173511033275
Messages récents
2
General discussions / Re : The Depot
« Dernier message par JMM le 25 septembre 2020, 12:29:24 pm »Hi Zu,
Thank you for your help...
I have to class the set of files...
Sorry for the delay.
JMM
Thank you for your help...
I have to class the set of files...
Sorry for the delay.
JMM
3
General discussions / Re : The Depot
« Dernier message par greywulf le 25 septembre 2020, 06:28:34 am »I think Drop Box would work. Thanks
4
General discussions / Re : The Depot
« Dernier message par zu Pferd le 24 septembre 2020, 20:25:37 pm »Hi
the Gugg Depot is no longer there. (older LGdN version)
I saved all that I could in my HD so I can supply you with a zip file. I use MEGA and Dropbox.
Cheers
the Gugg Depot is no longer there. (older LGdN version)
I saved all that I could in my HD so I can supply you with a zip file. I use MEGA and Dropbox.
Cheers
5
General discussions / The Depot
« Dernier message par greywulf le 21 septembre 2020, 17:28:38 pm »Idea about when the scenarios etc. will be available again at the Depot?
6
General discussions / Re : Question on 1:1 setting
« Dernier message par JMM le 21 septembre 2020, 16:39:36 pm »Hi,
Scale 1/1in the next version...
JMM
Scale 1/1in the next version...
JMM
7
General discussions / Question on 1:1 setting
« Dernier message par greywulf le 20 septembre 2020, 07:24:10 am »What is the status of the 1:1 setting? Promised if I recall but not there yet.
8
General discussions / Re : Effect of Artillery Past 700-800 Meters
« Dernier message par Gunner24 le 18 septembre 2020, 09:53:44 am »I forgot to reply to this -
You win your bet. I would not stand in front of even a single cannon shooting cannon balls at me, no way. Maybe if I were 20 years old and still thought I was indestructible and nothing bad can ever happen to ME.
Citer
I bet none of you would do it if there were instead seventy guns even if they were using powder with Russian sulfur in it. I personally wouldn't take the wager even with half a dozen sixes.
You win your bet. I would not stand in front of even a single cannon shooting cannon balls at me, no way. Maybe if I were 20 years old and still thought I was indestructible and nothing bad can ever happen to ME.
9
General discussions / Re : Effect of Artillery Past 700-800 Meters
« Dernier message par Gunner24 le 16 septembre 2020, 16:42:46 pm »A little bit more information, I have tried to do some one on one tests : One Infantry Regt v One Artillery battery.
In nearly all cases the Infantry won the day. The battery did attempt to escape some times, but it was always too late to be saved. Sometimes the Infantry did "avoid the engagement" but mostly they moved to the flank and destroyed the battery with not many troops lost. This may be described as correct as the battery had no support or flank protection, so I would not be unhappy with that result.
As I said before these things are so very hard to "test" because any one test means almost nothing compared to when you get into action with 100,000s of men and 100s of guns all doing a lot of different things - all at the same time.
A large scale Napoleonic battlefield was not a nice neat chess board !. I think we need to accept a certain amount of confusion, be it intentionally programmed - or not
As things stand I would not say the artillery side of things is very badly wrong in any way except my item 5 mentioned earlier. There will always be things that may not look 100% right, but as long as the game works and "flows" in a reasonable way I think we should be well satisfied with that.
...
Off subject ; I have already reported this to JMM. For me the very WORST thing wrong at the moment is the CiC NOT being able to be moved where you need him to go. He is too scared of the enemy. It has very serious knock on VISIBILITY effects and for me is close to ruining the game. It is much worse than any artillery problem - but I expect it should be an easy "fix".
In nearly all cases the Infantry won the day. The battery did attempt to escape some times, but it was always too late to be saved. Sometimes the Infantry did "avoid the engagement" but mostly they moved to the flank and destroyed the battery with not many troops lost. This may be described as correct as the battery had no support or flank protection, so I would not be unhappy with that result.
As I said before these things are so very hard to "test" because any one test means almost nothing compared to when you get into action with 100,000s of men and 100s of guns all doing a lot of different things - all at the same time.
A large scale Napoleonic battlefield was not a nice neat chess board !. I think we need to accept a certain amount of confusion, be it intentionally programmed - or not
As things stand I would not say the artillery side of things is very badly wrong in any way except my item 5 mentioned earlier. There will always be things that may not look 100% right, but as long as the game works and "flows" in a reasonable way I think we should be well satisfied with that.
...
Off subject ; I have already reported this to JMM. For me the very WORST thing wrong at the moment is the CiC NOT being able to be moved where you need him to go. He is too scared of the enemy. It has very serious knock on VISIBILITY effects and for me is close to ruining the game. It is much worse than any artillery problem - but I expect it should be an easy "fix".
10
General discussions / Re : Effect of Artillery Past 700-800 Meters
« Dernier message par Mr. Doran le 16 septembre 2020, 08:53:04 am » I agree with your sentiment and your points line up with my observations, particularly points one, four, and five.
Here is a reference thread for other complaints about artillery not covered here:
http://www.histwar.org/forum/index.php?topic=8446.0
On the general observation about massed artillery not being effective at holding its own ground, even against infantry attacks, is something I have seen quite a lot unfortunately. Randomness is part of the Napoleonic battlefield but I do not think the calculus is quite so fuzzy on the majority expected outcome you should achieve when a bunch of meat in close-order formation starts advancing into the sight of a few dozen cannons or more at less than 300 meters away. From the many tests I have ran, it is certainly evident massed artillery does not function as the obstacle of an incredibly steep wall it should present itself as. In regards to casualties I can't imagine them being dreadfully high unless the attackers were determined. It seems more likely such behavior would not be attempted to begin with in most situations against massed artillery, and if it were, a rout occurring before serious casualties could be inflicted.
Part of the problem, which also produces a metric-shit-ton of other systemic issues within the representation, is the fact that we really do not have a proper representation of skirmishing or open-order fighting in general. If entire regiments and battalions were allowed to fight in open-order, light-companies detached, and of course in the applicable cases detached light-companies forming together to form grande bandes we might have a more-sensible-on-average interaction for infantry having some type of reasonable combat with and against artillery. Another reference thread:
http://www.histwar.org/forum/index.php?topic=8453.0
In regards to point three I really have to disagree in totality, mainly because I do not think people realize how poor the under-performance really is, even with massed fire. Once the guns start firing from about 800 meters it is absurdly unlikely that they even damage a target even with an hour of fire. It is as if the accuracy table is discreet, rather than continuous, and at 799 meters there is still a 20% chance of a hit given X amount of fire but once you get to 800 or 801 meters there is a less than 5% chance of a hit given X amount of fire. Regardless if that is how the code actually works in practice it sure as hell feels like it functions as such. Six and twelve pound cannon should still be able to cause damage at ranges of one to one and a half kilometres, given the right circumstances, if you have enough guns firing on the area. And for whatever reason, all my intuition about how effective massed artillery fire should be at ranges of 700 to 800 meters or greater if it were truly the case that artillery fire into and past these ranges was completely ineffective, we should have the God given choice by doctrine and command to for our guns to not fire at these ranges.
If for some reason I am not convincing enough on this lets put it another way:
For a large enough sum of money, I reckon some of you, especially at your old-ages, would be willing to stand down range of a dozen six-pound smooth-bore cannon of the era and allow them to fire at you once at a range of 900 metres. If they don't hit the target you get this large sum of money as your reward. If they do, well, you know what happens. Now, I bet none of you would do it if there were instead seventy guns even if they were using powder with Russian sulfur in it. I personally wouldn't take the wager even with half a dozen sixes.
Side request and questions for JMM:
1. Is it currently possible to do reverse-slope bombardments?
2. Does the bombard sector act as an attack ground or is it just a general directive to the AI to fire on any enemies within an area?
3. Is it possible for artillery targeting one formation to hit another? In other words, when artillery fires is the result treated as a percent chance to hit a specific target or is it a percent chance to hit a specific area and then calculates if the shot that landed in that area hit a target.
1. As we all know here, just because you are behind a slope does not mean you are immune to enemy artillery fire if the enemy cannon can place themselves at the right height and right distance away from that slope. They may not know what they are hitting, or to what effect of fire they are having, but that is an academic question to anyone unlucky enough to be on the receiving end of it.
2. We should be able to turn areas of the battlefield into a beaten zone of shot and shell. If not already in the game, it should also enable use to attempt to bombard a reverse slope given the geometry makes it possible to do so.
Here is a reference thread for other complaints about artillery not covered here:
http://www.histwar.org/forum/index.php?topic=8446.0
On the general observation about massed artillery not being effective at holding its own ground, even against infantry attacks, is something I have seen quite a lot unfortunately. Randomness is part of the Napoleonic battlefield but I do not think the calculus is quite so fuzzy on the majority expected outcome you should achieve when a bunch of meat in close-order formation starts advancing into the sight of a few dozen cannons or more at less than 300 meters away. From the many tests I have ran, it is certainly evident massed artillery does not function as the obstacle of an incredibly steep wall it should present itself as. In regards to casualties I can't imagine them being dreadfully high unless the attackers were determined. It seems more likely such behavior would not be attempted to begin with in most situations against massed artillery, and if it were, a rout occurring before serious casualties could be inflicted.
Part of the problem, which also produces a metric-shit-ton of other systemic issues within the representation, is the fact that we really do not have a proper representation of skirmishing or open-order fighting in general. If entire regiments and battalions were allowed to fight in open-order, light-companies detached, and of course in the applicable cases detached light-companies forming together to form grande bandes we might have a more-sensible-on-average interaction for infantry having some type of reasonable combat with and against artillery. Another reference thread:
http://www.histwar.org/forum/index.php?topic=8453.0
In regards to point three I really have to disagree in totality, mainly because I do not think people realize how poor the under-performance really is, even with massed fire. Once the guns start firing from about 800 meters it is absurdly unlikely that they even damage a target even with an hour of fire. It is as if the accuracy table is discreet, rather than continuous, and at 799 meters there is still a 20% chance of a hit given X amount of fire but once you get to 800 or 801 meters there is a less than 5% chance of a hit given X amount of fire. Regardless if that is how the code actually works in practice it sure as hell feels like it functions as such. Six and twelve pound cannon should still be able to cause damage at ranges of one to one and a half kilometres, given the right circumstances, if you have enough guns firing on the area. And for whatever reason, all my intuition about how effective massed artillery fire should be at ranges of 700 to 800 meters or greater if it were truly the case that artillery fire into and past these ranges was completely ineffective, we should have the God given choice by doctrine and command to for our guns to not fire at these ranges.
If for some reason I am not convincing enough on this lets put it another way:
For a large enough sum of money, I reckon some of you, especially at your old-ages, would be willing to stand down range of a dozen six-pound smooth-bore cannon of the era and allow them to fire at you once at a range of 900 metres. If they don't hit the target you get this large sum of money as your reward. If they do, well, you know what happens. Now, I bet none of you would do it if there were instead seventy guns even if they were using powder with Russian sulfur in it. I personally wouldn't take the wager even with half a dozen sixes.
Side request and questions for JMM:
1. Is it currently possible to do reverse-slope bombardments?
2. Does the bombard sector act as an attack ground or is it just a general directive to the AI to fire on any enemies within an area?
3. Is it possible for artillery targeting one formation to hit another? In other words, when artillery fires is the result treated as a percent chance to hit a specific target or is it a percent chance to hit a specific area and then calculates if the shot that landed in that area hit a target.
1. As we all know here, just because you are behind a slope does not mean you are immune to enemy artillery fire if the enemy cannon can place themselves at the right height and right distance away from that slope. They may not know what they are hitting, or to what effect of fire they are having, but that is an academic question to anyone unlucky enough to be on the receiving end of it.
2. We should be able to turn areas of the battlefield into a beaten zone of shot and shell. If not already in the game, it should also enable use to attempt to bombard a reverse slope given the geometry makes it possible to do so.