Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


Ultimate General Focus Tester
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

66 Excellent

About JaM

  • Rank
    Able seaman

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

405 profile views
  1. One thing on movement - i think infantry deployed in line should have the slowest angular speed of all, so it would be practically impossible to turn the unit to face enemy on flank. Mixed order would be a lot better at this, as 50% of men are in line, and 50% in column, therefore angular speed for half long line would be a lot faster, while columns would maneuver even better. Therefore, in mixed order player would exchange a bit of firepower, for better maneuverability. With columns, there would be no restriction on movement, therefore it would be the best formation to do any kind of maneuvers. Plus, units even tended to move at quick march while in columns, therefore overall movement would be a lot faster (in mixed order, columns would have to keep formation with the battalions in line)
  2. I think even Brigade is workable, and all the maneuvers within formation (Line -> Column -> Square) would be handled by animation itself, while unit would just keep the frontage and size at all times. Division would be then composed of 2-3 Brigades + divisional artillery. This way, single Division would be easier to control and keep together, while Corps would play major role. I think divisional commander could just take over command of one of infantry brigades, while Corps commander would be deployed as separate entity.
  3. Personally, what i would like to see with Napoleonic setting is a bit more strict organization structure, with Divisions identified a bit clearer. Typically, single Brigade was four battalion strong, Division had 8 battalions (2 brigades). Units were organized within battalions, which were smallest tactical unit and all maneuvers were performed by battalions. If scale is same as with UG:Civil War, then you could either keep units in brigades, or even go with regiments. Anyway, what would be the most different from Civil War is the way how infantry actually moved around, or how it fought. Division would typically fight with single brigade formed in line, and second brigade formed in columns. Columns were typically battalion size, therefore brigade was typically formed in 4 columns, with unit keeping its frontage similar as if formed in line, so brigade would have enough of space to quickly form the line if needed. At the same time, battalion sized columns would allow very fast transformation into squares, as it would require 2 companies to turn 90 degrees while rear companies would just move forward to close the square. Brigade formed in columns would be actually smaller target than brigade formed in line, but any hit would deal mode casualties to column than it would do to a line. Brigade formed in Columns should be also able to form squares at least 4 times faster, than if deployed in line: Mixed Order/Ordre Mixte was a special formation introduced by Napoleon (theoretically it was proposed earlier, but nobody cared to implement it in army. First use of it was during Italian campaign 1796 during battle of Tagliamento.) Brigade would form 2 center battalions in line, and flank battalions in column. This formation would give brigade better firepower than if whole unit was formed in columns, but would also allow better maneuverability (practically impossible when deployed in line), and allow brigade to attack enemy on flanks. (firepower for line formation = 100%, Ordre mixte = 75%, Columns= 50%) So, in battle, player will have to decide which of these three formations he wants to use with his brigades - with line, he would have full firepower, but would be unable to maneuver, and his brigade would only move forward at reduced speed (to keep brigade in order). Brigade would be easier to hit with solid shot (direct fire), but actual damage will be minimal (killing those in the path of shot = 3 men max for direct hit). Infantry formed in line is easier to catch unprepared by cavalry. With Mixed order, player would still have good firepower, but will be also able to move slightly faster (only 50% of men formed in line = less likely for formation to break up). Mixed order presents 75% of frontal profile, therefore is smaller target, but hits on flanks deal more damage to battalions in column ( single column = 3x3ranks, therefore direct hit will do at least 9 casualties) Mixed order can defend from cavalry better, due to flanks forming squares faster. Columns formation would be fastest to move across the battlefield, and brigades formed in columns would be able to quickly adapt other formations. Brigades would easily repel cavalry this way. They will present only 50% profile to enemy gunfire (muskets, artillery) but any hit from artillery causes always at least 9 casualties. With these three formations (four actually if we count the squares), player would have to decide what formation is best for particular situation, yet even best possible formation could end up being unsuitable against different types of threat (line vs cavalry, column/squares vs artillery). And regarding skirmishers - each battalion had single company dedicated to skirmish duty(out of 6 for French). therefore if Brigade detached skirmishers, each battalion would sent one company. (So, if brigade is 2000 strong with 500 per battalion, it would deploy around 320 skirmishers) (i can post same thing for cavalry and artillery if you want)
  4. Ultimate General in Europe

    American revolution seems quite problematic to me, as its scale was quite small.. battles were nowhere in size to ACW battles, even bloodiest ones were mere skirmishes in comparation.. Napoleonic Wars are much better fit, as they practically share same scale with ACW, and there are actually plenty of big battles that can be modeled. Plus, Napoleonic wars were so wide, everybody would find its favourite faction there.. Of course, it would be a lot harder to make, as devs would have to make playable campaign for multiple major nations at least ( French, Austrian, Prussian, Russian campaigns at least, plus maybe Peninsular for British), but audience would be a lot bigger this time than it was with American Civil war..
  5. True, yet regarding scale, even small actions during Napoeonic times like for example Napoleon campaign in Italy, was a lot larger in scale than entire American Revolutionary war.. deployed forces were typically just brigade size at most, sometimes even smaller, while casualties in those battles were quite small.. I would say you would have a problem to find single significant Napoleonic battle that would be of the same small scale, as the biggest American Revolutionary battle was.. so in that case, single unit would have to be battalion size, because usually entire force was just a mere brigade.. Imagine playing ACW battles where you have just 1-2 infantry brigades for most of battles.. Bloodiest battle of American Revolution was probably Bunker hill (411 British vs 1054 US dead) followed by battle of Camden (1050 US dead vs 314 British). In total, US lost 7174 men and 8241 was wounded during entire 8 years long American Revolution. (The Toll of Independence by Howard Peckham (The University of Chicago Press, 1974)) British losses were not published but would be quite similar.
  6. Main difference between War for Independence and Napoleonic warfare is also in overall scope.. what some might not realize, entire Brittish army in North America was just 30.000 strong, most battles were fought with very small forces.. At Saratoga for example, there were about 16000men together (7000 Brittish vs 9000 American) and losses were relatively quite small (450 dead British vs 100 dead American?) At the other side, Napoleonic wars were a lot bigger, most battles were of large scale, comparable to Gettysburg, or even bigger.. War for Independence is actually just a small skirmish in comparation.. so technically, game would require slightly different scale or view to accommodate for a lot smaller units with War for Independence.
  7. not just guerillas.. Russian units used very big variety of muskets.. The French Charleville musket was considered by Russians as the lightest and best made. The British muskets were slightly larger and more durable than the French weapons. The Prussian, Swedish and old Russian muskets were considered as unwieldy. In the beginning of 1812 the armament of the Russian infantry included Russian and foreign weapons of 28 (!) different calibers.
  8. not just horses, but artillery as well... Napoleon lost most of his artillery in Russia.. they had to rebuild it quickly yet never returned into same level in latter years..
  9. Things i would like to see the most is Napoleonic era artillery effects.. with solid shots bouncing through units, making carnage with flanking shots against thin long lines of infantry.. different types of canister, light(musket bullets) for short range work, heavy for longer distances, etc...
  10. It definitely gives a lot of material, multiple campaigns, different sides, different Generals...
  11. Exactly. Napoleonic wars have a lot of marketing potential, while combat of that era is different from Civil War, yet very unique. It would allow implementing different gameplay mechanics, put more emphasis on formations, cavalry battles, artillery concentrations.. Napoleonic era was extremely rich tactics wise, a lot more than Civil war where role of cavalry was very limited and rifles + canister shots would make a quick work of any massed attack.. Can you imagine charge of Cuirassier division against your deployed infantry, rolling down on you in perfect double line formation, while you would be scrambling to adapt the square formations while preparing your hussars to counter-charge the repelled cuirassiers? Or have different infantry formations, where you could deploy your regiments in line formations or mixed order or columns, based on what you are trying to achieve, having multiple types of Infantry, Grenadiers, Fusiliers, Chasseurs, Voltigeurs all with different pros and cons, different tactics, deployments etc etc..
  12. not all eras are as interesting i'd say... besides, Darth was working on both ETW and NTW mods back in his days.. so why not just show CA how its supposed to be done?
  13. there was only one Ultimate General, and his name was Napoleon...
  14. DLC addons?

    personally, i think only DLCs worth paying for must add some interesting gameplay mechanics.. i hate when game devs release DLCs with just some retexstures etc.. like the CA does..