Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

JaM

Ultimate General Focus Tester
  • Content count

    143
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

69 Excellent

About JaM

  • Rank
    Able seaman

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

488 profile views
  1. Carronades vs Cannon (my take)

    yes, but thats exactly my point.. option to use different loadouts is very complicated, and something that is very problematic to do in heat of battle.. I think some kind of a new system, where player could chose how should his guns operate is needed.. its not just about enabling/disabling guns.. why not use different decks against different target areas? (fire grape from carronades, chains from upper deck and doubleshot from lower deck at short-medium ranges for example at the same time, with each deck being aimed automatically against different parts of enemy ship (grape vs top deck, chain vs sails, doubleshot vs hull) Something like a "Gun panel" which you could pop out, and select ammo, enable/disable deck and select target area (hull, sails, top deck) I know players like firing guns manually, but i think current system only really works for ships with single gun deck.. bigger ship you have, more shots you waste
  2. Carronades vs Cannon (my take)

    I think the main problem here is the fact that using diverse broadsides (for example carronades on top, medium on upper and long on lower deck) is not a good idea in Naval action due to aiming being done for whole broadside, so you would end up wasting your shots most of the time.. in reality, each deck had own officer responsible for properly aiming the guns.. I think devs should investigate options to add some kind of "gunnery assist" to player where he could pre-set his guns to certain roles, let say load grape for his carronades and preset them to only fire if target is close, while other guns would keep the solid shot - player would not have to micromanage it, but would engage targets as he sees them with ammo he wants to use for best effect.
  3. That's exactly what nobody did before so far... every single strategy game focuses either on combat itself, or high strategy.. nobody tried to combine these two together reasonably (NTW/ETW had it, but done very badly) Proper strategic maneuvers were huge part of Napoleon success, his ability to assess the situation and make right decision out of incomplete information about enemy is something that makes him really the greatest general ever. If you read about his campaigns, you can observe certain "thinking pattern" how to face enemies, how to overcome them, and defeat them in detail. For example during Italian campaign, his success was not due to combat prowess of French forces, but because he managed to outmaneuver enemy, misled them about his intentions, and attacked them from directions they did not expect are even possible.. So, i think some kind of a campaign map would be quite interesting to have, not the "grand scale map" other games do, but actual map of the campaign area, that would allow player to decide how he wants to proceed, where and how he wants to send his forces to identify and engage enemy.. I would imagine such campaign mechanics would require certain aspect implemented like supply points, route throughput ( so having whole army march over single road would mean army would have to be spread out, and would require more supplies), complete fog of war requiring player to send scouting units up front trying to identify where enemy actually is, realistic army movement speeds over terrain and roads, etc etc... This way, player would end up fighting over important junctions, or supply points because they would mean something, not just because they are pre-set as objectives by game designer.. This strategic gameplay would also give role to certain units that did not have significant role in actual battles, like for example light cavalry(recon), sappers (building/fixing/blowing up bridges, building entrechments etc), siege artillery etc etc.. It would also give player option to create his own battlegroups/divisions/corps based on actual needs, which was quite common those days (detaching grenadiers/carabiniers, light infantry and cavalry and forming flying columns)..
  4. Preserving allied troops

    Yeah, i think using allied units this way is not completely ahistorical, comes to my mind some Spanish general during Peninsular campaign who kept his forces from his home province out of fight and let others bleed.. of course that approach cost him the battle.. anyway this approach was not that unusual, and was commonly used - Napoleon kept his Old Guard in reserve almost in every battle, even at Waterloo 3 remaining Old Guard Battalions were supposed to cover the last push made by Middle guard (5 battalions), and when these were eventually repelled, Old Guard covered retreat and marched off the field intact while formed in squares protecting Napoleon and other Generals.. Napoleon commonly started attacks with less reliable men, keeping better troops for final decisive attack at the right moment.
  5. Remove names from OS

    i think ship model names should be completely removed, and players should get option to name their ships (unique name, keep database of names on server).. this way, you wont be able to tell what enemy has, until you get close and actually recognize the ship model yourself... like in reality.. would increase immersion considerably, while making certain trade "frigates" deter potential attacker by their look from distance..
  6. 'Vrijheid' Dutch 3-Rate 1782 (With Plans)

    sometimes i end up thinking whole perception of British invincibility is just a propaganda.. even on land, last time i saw a table with 18-19.century land battles fought by British and French, where both sides had 50:50 wins and losses... Yet French are usually mocked for always losing.. (i guess this comes mostly because of WW2, yet even here majority of people forgets that French fought to the bitter end to save fleeing British expeditionary corps evacuating through Dunkirk..) sorry for offtopic
  7. One additional possible layer for artillery to consider is the fact that artillery rate of fire was in reality not influenced by technical limitation of the gun itself, but was influenced by amount of available ammo... they would not fire at maximum possible rate of fire at long range.. instead, they would reduce rate of fire significantly, so their ammo supply would be sufficient for them, for entire battle (at Lutzen 1813, french artillery fired for 9 hours, with rate of fire 1 shot every 3 minutes. at same battle, French guard battery fired for 2 hours, with rate of fire of 1 shot per 90 seconds) Maximum rate of fire would be usually used only in emergencies, when artillery had to fire against enemy that is closing in on their positions. is such situation, rate of fire could be increased to 2-8 rounds per minute (based on gun type) Anyway, i guess such thing complicates the artillery setup for games quite a lot, especially with the supply system implemented... artillery firing with reduced rate of fire would run through own ammo a lot slower, therefore would not need to be resupplied that fast, but of course, its effect on target would be reduced as well... yet in long range gunnery, effect on target was minimal anyway, therefore it made no sense wasting ammo in rapid fire. Maybe something Devs could think about for artillery in the future - make rate of fire variable based on distance to target - closer it is, faster artillery reloads, up to its construction speed..
  8. Personally, i try to have single artillery unit for infantry division, and usually go with 3-4guns per 1000 men in division.. so if I have 3 brigades with 1500 men, then i have artillery battery with 12-18 guns to support them, preferably 12lber Napoleons (if possible). I also keep 2 batteries of Rifles in last "division", which kinda supplements the role of Corps reserve, where i also have some cavalry or skirmishers. This way, i have my divisional artillery with my infantry, and rifled guns in the back ready to support my attacks from long range.
  9. UG- Civil War 3..??

    What shocked me actually was looking at army battle orders from multiple battles for American Independence and seeing that typical brigade on both sides was 500-600 men strong, usually composed of 4-6 regiments, which gives about 100 men per regiment.. 500-600 men is actually under strength Napoleonic battalion, which was theoretically 800-1000men strong, but due to campaign losses typical strength was around 500 men, with single Brigade usually having 4-6 such battalions (so at least 2000men)
  10. UG- Civil War 3..??

    Maybe, but casualties in those battles were typically in hundreds.. scale wise, it was quite insignificant.. there were no big battles during war for Independence, and even those largest, were actually quite small.. at Saratoga? 7000 British fighting 9000 American with 400 casualties? even if scale was smaller, large majorities of battles would have to be fought with forces just few regiments big.. you could pretty much forget about more than 10 units per side, because even if regiment was the smallest unit, typically single regiment had at least 1000men (500 per battalion), so even at Saratoga, you would have practically 6 British regiments fighting 9 American... (or 12 British battalions fighting 18 American).. Anyway, problem is the scale, as i said before, number of large battles (at least as big as Saratoga) was very small in entire War for Independence.. such campaign would be nowhere near grand scale current Civil War campaign has... Which is why i think Napoleonic theme is a lot better option, with huge timeline they can cover.. and technically, they could even release War for Independence DLC with same assets from Napoleonic game quite easily.. but you cannot make it other way around, because War for Independence for example had very limited role of Cavalry or artillery, which was quite dominant in Napoleonic times...
  11. UG- Civil War 3..??

    Revolution is way too small in scale... a mere skirmish.. there are battles in Napoleonic period where losses were 5x higher than what losses were during entire war for independence.. Its nowhere in scale to Civil war... Even biggest battles during war for independence had just slightly over 1000 casualties.. British for example lost approximately 7000 men between 1776-1783
  12. 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)
  13. 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.
  14. 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)
  15. 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..
×