Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Kevlarburrito

Ensign
  • Posts

    17
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

281 profile views

Kevlarburrito's Achievements

Landsmen

Landsmen (1/13)

6

Reputation

  1. How so? All of the mechanics are already there. The "brigades" we have are already splitting off smaller elements.
  2. I agree with this. In fact the code is there, it's the same idea as splitting "skirmishers" off from a "brigade". In fact, and sort of comically, the amount of men splitting off as skirmishers are accounting for late war regimental sizes (albeit at the low end numerically). I'd really like to see regiments accounted for, not called Brigades.
  3. I'm not saying reduce their numbers, that wasn't my point at all. I'm saying up the number of cannons.
  4. Also, just so you guys know, that organization also tries to protect battle sites by incorporating them into national parks and preventing them from being developed. In fact they are working on the Princeton Battlefield near me (New Jersey, USA) which was the site of a famous battle of the American Revolution. It's, rather ironically, in danger of being bulldozed to make way for an addition to school. Spread the word! They're doing some really good work to try a hold onto historical sites for future generations : )
  5. Just as an addendum to everything I just said: If I come across as a bit of a horses rear-end, it is not intentional. I just walked in from work so I'm a bit tired and irritated (rush hour traffic >_<). Also I used separate replies to address you all individually rather than in one giant post just for my own sanity.
  6. I get that there needs to be a level of simplicity, but what I'm trying to get at is that the graphical elements, the functions, all of that can remain the same. The only adjustment I am arguing for is an adjustment to the value. In other words, if we're going to say that we are commanding individual brigades as the smallest element we are able to command (without special situations in place breaking them down further from the start of the mission) than the value of men that we are given as a recruitment pool, how many men are assigned to what kinds of cannons, and how many men form, at minimum, an early war brigade, all of that needs to be adjusted as it is either too high, in the case of artillery (or too low if you account for the support element which we are not), or too low in the case of infantry at the brigade level, at the outset of the war.
  7. But even with all of that the point still stands as they were not cross trained, remember? Even if you account for the limber and horse crew, that would be well OVER 22 men. Again, the issue is the amount of men per cannon. IF we're stating that the number of men shown in the game (right now 22 men per cannon) is supposed to depict every man that can CREW A CANNON (capitalized for emphasis, not that I'm screaming it be an ass lol), than 22 men is too high for a single gun. If logistics is to be included, then we would have to include: Quartermasters Medical staff Engineers Blacksmiths Nurses Singalmen Carpenters Gunsmiths/Armorers Public relations Teams of wagons Pontoon bridge crews The entire medical corps of the Union army (since someone above wanted to emphasize the point using mid to late war numbers and statistics) Bakers Butchers Couriers Scouts Surveyors We simply are not accounting for all of that. The only time, I think, that the crews of horses are being accounted for is in the mounting and dismounting of cavalry. At this point to argue that a single gun needs 22 men, even accounting for the limber crew, is high. I'm well aware of what is required to operate a field artillery unit, as I was a field artilleryman, and even the modern field artillery battery has sections numbering between 3 and 8 depending on the piece with the entire battery being between 100 and 140 men. But as I've been trying to say, we aren't accounting for support elements, so why have 22 men per single cannon in game? If we're going to suppose that a crew needs a back up, then 10, 12, or maybe 14 men per gun.
  8. I agree with the point, but my argument isn't about the amount of men with regards to artillery, it's about the amount of cannon. 22 men should be able to field 2 cannon, not 1. Again, 8 men per cannon 2 cannon per section 1 officer (Lieutenant) per section of 2 cannon 17 men total for 1 section of cannon.
  9. To answer the first point: Few if any, mine being one of those few. But then, the numbers I posted did not take those numbers into account either, only the 8 men per gun, 17 men per gun section (2 guns + crew + 1 section commander). Second point: The structure works fine yes, that's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that to call a brigade of 1000 men a brigade is ridiculous so early in the war. Even by late war standards most REGIMENTS were fielding between 300 to 800 men on the Union. At the bare minimum after FOUR TO FIVE YEARS of conflict, the numbers in game would be accurate. Most regular infantry REGIMENTS were founded at 1000 as per the standard. Gettysburg is, again, a mid to late war battle, my point still stands. Even for brigades like the famous Iron Brigade, at MID WAR strength (i.e. Gettysburg) they went in at 1500 for the entire brigade. That was after spending 3 years at war. Regarding the heavy artillery units: A battalion and a regiment are one in the same. Heavy artillery battalions and regular infantry battalions are vastly different in terms of units composition. Again, by 1865, yes, these numbers would be accurate. But we ARE NOT in 1865 at this point...so regiments are still being formed at 1,000. A many were still being formed in these numbers well into 1864 in the North.
  10. I think it would be easier to allow the map to have more areas that could be used as "fortified positions". In that stone walls, some fences, forests, boulders, hills, and buildings, could all have the option to garrison men in them. The coding is already there, the graphics and mechanics already there, all that needs to be done is to place more of those points on the map.
  11. You are referring to the next unit level below brigade. This is called a regiment, or battalion. The game does NOT depict the army composition of the day accurately. There are not "two smaller birdgages [read: brigades]" in one brigade. A Civil War era brigade was composed of 2 to 5 regiments of 1,000 men each as the standard. This would place brigades at 2,000 to 5,000 men each. Then, yes, it would make sense to divide brigades up into regiments. Or "small brigades" as you worded it.
  12. I disagree, I think 1 brigade is more than enough to man a breastwork, however I think the size of the brigades needs to change. As it stands right now, 1000 men per brigade is way too small for a unit at the brigade level. Union and Confederate regiments both had a starting standard of 1,000 men per regiment at the start of the actual war. This would place brigades at 2,000 to 5,000 men at the beginning of the war.
  13. Before I begin I'd like to state that my knowledge comes from my own military experience as a field artilleryman, Civil War reenacting, and through college where I majored in Intelligence Analysis. To main issues I have regarding unit sizes are as follows: Issue #1. Field Artillery: A single piece of artillery does not require 22 men to field. You have 8 men to operate the piece, 4 to handle the limber, and for every TWO guns (an artillery section) you had a Lieutenant in charge. So for a UNION basic artillery battery you'd have 6 guns, 48 men, 16 Lieutenants, 1 commanding officer (a Captain). This brings the total to 65 men. Right now, 1 artillery piece adds 22 men to it. That means you're looking at a basic artillery battery having 132 men. That's roughly TWO batteries worth of men. That needs to be revamp. To continue; FIVE artillery batteries, in the Union, were formed into artillery brigades commanded by a Colonel. Each Union infantry corps had 1 artillery BRIGADE attached to it. That would mean having not 6 guns per BRIGADE but at the very least 30 guns with, approximately, 660 men. This means that the amount of men per gun in the game needs to be readjusted to reflect accurate unit organization. Issue #2. Infantry: At the onset of the Civil War, a Union battalion/regiment consisted of 1000 men as per the standard, while yes this would vary, the STANDARD was 1000 men. In the game we are commanding individual BRIGADES of 1000 men and this is inaccurate, we should have brigades made up of 3 to 5 regiments of 1,000 men each. This brings the total from 3,000 to 5,000 men for a brigade (currently 1,000). A division consisted of 2 to 4 brigades with the total between 6,000 to 20,000 men (currently 4,000 with 1,000 men per "brigade"). The next level up is corps; consisting of 2 to 3 divisions (Union) bringing our total up to 12,000 to 60,000 men (currently 8,000 with 2 divisions to start at 4,000 men per division roughly). A Union ARMY would consist of 3 corps (as the standard) making our total for a STANDARD UNION ARMY anywhere from 24,000 to 180,000 men. Currently numbers for the standard army, provided you could fill each regiment brigade with 1000 men, 4 "brigades" per division, 2 to 4 divisions per corps, 1 corps at the start of the game would be between 8,000 and 16,000 men. Again, this needs to be adjusted. Bare in mind that I am not saying 180,000 men need to be graphically represented with individual sprites. While that would be awesome, the graphics we have are okay, just the values need to be adjusted. Any thoughts on this? Can this be adjusted by us? In other words is there a file I can go adjust. or "mod" if you will, that would account for this?
  14. Something weird and exceedingly annoying I have noticed is the propensity for infantry units in melee to continue charging through lines, inflicting ZERO casualties to enemy infantry units while taking A TON of casualties of their own, till they get behind the enemy lines and their either completely rout or surrender. All of this occurs while they are at a breaking point. They become completely uncontrollable when it begins and stays that way throughout the entire time. Is this a feature? It's almost like the unit charges 1 enemy unit and then if there is another unit behind or occupying the same ground, believes there is one giant unit and tries to pass through all of them. It makes zero sense for an entire battalion to charge, or get charged, fight a melee, and then after their morale drops advance THROUGH the enemy lines until they completely rout, get annihilated, or find themselves at the back end of the map. Anyone else experience this?
  15. There is a command "Backwards march" that is the real life equivalent of what's being suggested herein. However, you try to get an entire brigade to march backwards without tripping over terrain and let me know how feasible it is to do this over a long distance. It's really only used for small distance movements.
×
×
  • Create New...