Fighting without artillery

[pcelt]

Seeing the item re the artillery being rated too strongly and accounting for the extreme incidence of routing by infantry and cavalry---I set up a single corps battle but removed all the artillery from the combat area so that only infantry and cavalry were involved.
    But I still found that units facing only infantry fire still routed or retreated very speedily and firefights were very brief and to me seemed very unconvincing. Also when ordered to attack another infantry unit which required an advance the unit making the advance soon became very disorganised and with no military shape. I also noticed that a strong cavalry unit with high spirit often lost this spirit when pursuing a weak cavalry unit so that once they caught up with the enemy cavalry their spirit had dropped to a point where they were no longer superior in spirit and were quickly routed----this also seems to me to be unrealistic and unconvincing.
   i still find this simulation very tantalising---a curates egg in fact---brilliant modelling of battlefield, of units,uniforms and manoeuvres and also provides a variety of excellent interfaces...but I still find the actual combat depiction-- even without the artillery defect-- unrealistic and unconvincing. I so much want to feel as convinced by the combat depiction as by the remainder of the simulation which is outstanding----but the combat remains for me a real problem and I am really unconvinced by it currently.

[JMM]

We made a lot of tests with balanced INF units with generally good behaviours.
Moral (and cohesion) are very important...

Also when ordered to attack another infantry unit which required an advance the unit making the advance soon became very disorganised and with no military shape.

Generally when a unit is in pursuit of an ENY, it takes this formation... but never if the unit moves forward an organised ENI...

Could you send me an example of your test with a bad behaviour...
(histwar@histwar.com xxx.sav file in a folder save/bataille)

[Gunner24]

I also noticed that a strong cavalry unit with high spirit often lost this spirit when pursuing a weak cavalry unit so that once they caught up with the enemy cavalry their spirit had dropped to a point where they were no longer superior in spirit and were quickly routed----this also seems to me to be unrealistic and unconvincing.

I made a post about this some time ago - it never got any comments.

i still find this simulation very tantalising---a curates egg in fact---brilliant modelling of battlefield, of units,uniforms and manoeuvres and also provides a variety of excellent interfaces...but I still find the actual combat depiction-- even without the artillery defect-- unrealistic and unconvincing. I so much want to feel as convinced by the combat depiction as by the remainder of the simulation which is outstanding----but the combat remains for me a real problem and I am really unconvinced by it currently.

I agree, almost word for word.

[JMM]

Citation
I also noticed that a strong cavalry unit with high spirit often lost this spirit when pursuing a weak cavalry unit so that once they caught up with the enemy cavalry their spirit had dropped to a point where they were no longer superior in spirit and were quickly routed----this also seems to me to be unrealistic and unconvincing.
I made a post about this some time ago - it never got any comments.

Perhaps because the cavalry unit lost the communication with its friendly units...

Gunner24.. sorry, there were a huge number of post just after the release, so I could not answer to all

i still find this simulation very tantalising---a curates egg in fact---brilliant modelling of battlefield, of units,uniforms and manoeuvres and also provides a variety of excellent interfaces...but I still find the actual combat depiction-- even without the artillery defect-- unrealistic and unconvincing. I so much want to feel as convinced by the combat depiction as by the remainder of the simulation which is outstanding----but the combat remains for me a real problem and I am really unconvinced by it currently.
I agree, almost word for word.

I have to watch the fights... there are a lot of parameters.. we have add some green units..
Could you try INF vs INF with the same status...
If the result seems wrong, just send me the xxx.sav file

JMM

[Hook]

But I still found that units facing only infantry fire still routed or retreated very speedily and firefights were very brief and to me seemed very unconvincing. Also when ordered to attack another infantry unit which required an advance the unit making the advance soon became very disorganised and with no military shape. I also noticed that a strong cavalry unit with high spirit often lost this spirit when pursuing a weak cavalry unit so that once they caught up with the enemy cavalry their spirit had dropped to a point where they were no longer superior in spirit and were quickly routed----this also seems to me to be unrealistic and unconvincing.

pcelt, I understand everything you're saying and I can appreciate how you feel. 

I've played dozens of games and have watched 100 or more individual battles, and I'm seeing all the same things you are.  The difference is, everything I'm seeing is what I expected to see, except the extreme disorganization of an infantry regiment and in some cases the amount of lack of cohesion in a corps attack, and in the latter case I believe it's because of the orders I gave.  If I'd written the game myself, it wouldn't be much different.

Many people expect more from their cavalry that it would ever have been able to deliver, but that's not new.  Many generals on the actual battlefield were the same way.  Cavalry can be very powerful, but it's also very brittle.  Way too brittle to be used as a hammer.  Think of it as a one-shot pistol.  After it's done one good attack, it needs to pull back to rest.  Anything beyond that first attack is unlikely to succeed.

In the case of a cavalry unit chasing a running enemy, it will wear itself out and eventually find itself isolated, too far from friendly troops and too close to the enemy.  This lowers its morale.  Even if it catches the enemy cavalry and defeats it, it's going to have to pull back to regroup, and this is often shown in the game as a rout.  The cavalry usually recovers from this, but not always.  It's going to depend on the local battlefield situation.

I can watch the cavalry on the 2D map and usually predict the outcome, even without looking at the unit cards.  Whether it's "This will be an easy win" or "This will not end well for those guys" it's pretty much what I expect.  If there's a problem, it's that cavalry can be too aggressive, and that can be adjusted in the doctrine editor.

Cavalry's strength is in its mobility and its threat, not in the actual charge. 

Hook

[pcelt]

Hook I thank you and appreciate your observations but re the cavalry situation:
  1 The cavalry unit sent to attack the enemy cavalry was of high spirit and had not been engaged before.
   2 The enemy unit had been involved and was of low spirit and was smaller than the attacker and began retreating.
  In my view a pursuing , larger and much better spirited cavalry unit  would have improved spirit in a pursuit of a retreating enemy ---but the reverse seemed to occur--with spirit diminishing so much that it became inferior to the retreating units and on contact ,routed.
  I cant believe that proximity to friendly units was a decisive factor as the pursuit was on a wing and borh units were distant from friendlies.
  I am no expert in Napoleonic warfare but it does not seem a credible encounter and I dont find it convincing.
 

[Hook]

pcelt, I'd expect a unit advancing to contact with expectations of winning to have high morale as well.

If you want to make the save game available, I can analyze it to see if there are any obvious problems, and if there appears to be a bug I can report it.  Just let me know what time or frame number I should be looking at and where on the map.

Hook

[Uxbridge]

Hook, I think you are totally right about how cavalry should be used, and the one-shot analogy is helpful. But then you have to think, the soldiers of the day knew all this. It still doesn't explain why individual units go charging off, even if their Corps is ordered to be defending a line. I hope we can correct this in the regimental AI.

[Gunner24]

I think you are totally right about how cavalry should be used

I also agree, but I'm looking at some things that can not really be explained, even knowing this.....I'm sure it's the doctrine not being set correctly....I have seen case's of Cavalry not having been engaged and go charging off and the moral go down very low, very quickly, before they do anything, fighting wise, but this is most likely to do with being nearer many enemy troops than friendly ones......but even with that it seems a little over done.

Having said all that, I'm still not sure, I guess there were many real case's of Cavalry charging off, going to far, and not making contact with the enemy before they had to head back to safety - so it could be correct, but my worry is how often this happens - like a bit too much ???????.