Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


Ultimate General Focus Tester
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

76 Excellent

About JaM

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

813 profile views
  1. Artillery is always a battery.. it was never called company.
  2. Skirmishers were drawn from Light Company of each regiment, not from fusilier company... Each regiment had single Light Company that was supposed to perform skirmish duties when needed. Light Company was also considered "Elite company" of the Regiment, same as Grenadiers. They were also commonly brigaded together with other Light and Grenadier Companies, creating "temporary" Grenadier Battalions (typically 4 Grenadier and 4 Light Companies)
  3. unit scale at Bunker Hill is not company... Company was typically around 100men(typically less than that), yet units in that scenario are 200-300 men big.. which means they are of size of an under-strength battalion..
  4. musket range seems quite short... while musket fire was not very effective beyond 50metres or so, soldiers and militia commonly opened fire at much longer ranges, wasting ammo and getting disordered by own fire. typical range at which infantry opened fire was around 150-200m.. one of common tactics for light infantry, was to engage the enemy unit, and force it to start firing.. then own infantry could get close and fire effective volley from short range. gameplay wise - its quite problematic setting up firing lines due to very short musket range in the game. Fortifications should not be so easily destroyed.. solid shot couldnt possibly damage them that much, and howitzer shells were never as effective or reliable. plus, even broken up wooden barricades were still providing protection from musket fire for soldiers to be able to take cover..
  5. thing i reported in-game too - i think formation of unit that is behind wall or barricade should reflect their status.. right now, at Bunker Hill, militia is is disordered formation when moving, but if they occupy the barricade, they suddenly form perfect 2-line formation.. i think it would look a lot realistic if they were placed a bit more disorderly. Also, for marines and sailors when in the same group, marines (guys in uniform) should group together, while sailors would be around them. British Marines had standard infantry training, they were well trained and supposed to keep the drill. Sailors at the other side did not have military training. so combined unit of these two should look accordingly.
  6. Continental Line Infantry drill on video:
  7. Also, want to add: Companies usually had around 90-100 soldiers plus about 10-15 officers and another noncombat stuff. Yet in game you have 200-300 men large companies, which is quite unrealistic.. it was not uncommon for a company to be a half strength, so 200-250men would be better to represent under-strength Battalion.. Also, as I mentioned before Typical British Infantry Regiment was 10 companies, 8 Line Infantry companies, Grenadier company and Light Infantry company. If Grenadiers and Lights were detached, those 8 Line companies were called a Battalion, which typically was 4-8 companies big. Detached Grenadiers and Lights usually formed Grenadier Battalion, which typically was formed from all Grenadier companies from a Division (4 regiments), so technically, if Player wants to use Grenadier Battalion, he has to have a 4 Regiments of Foot from which he could detach Grenadier companies.
  8. Grenadiers in British Line infantry regiments were elite unit composed of best men in the regiment that fulfilled the requirements for Grenadiers.. they got better uniforms, extra pay etc... there were 2 companies in every single regiment of British army with Elite status... Grenadier Company and Light Infantry Company. Not a single Regiment in British army had more than one Grenadier company... Even Guard Regiments, which were quite special didnt had more Grenadier companies... Grenadier company place was the farther right wing, when Regiment was deployed as a line. Light infantry place was on far left wing. When Regiment was marching in column, Grenadier Company was at the front, Lights at the rear.. And sometimes, Line Regiments didnt even have Grenadier company... because it was common practice to create a special adhoc force and take all Grenadier companies and form them into independent Grenadier battalion.. so if anything, player should be allowed to take away Grenadier company of parent regiment and create Grenadier battalion, but should not be allowed to have two Grenadier companies within Line Infantry regiment. And its really great you wanna give Player option to customize his army, but player is playing the game from position of a General/Commander, therefore he should not be able to do things Generals were not allowed to do in reality... as they were not allowed to go and change the composition of British army.. Only King could do it, and there was no King in Europe who would pay soldiers more money than he had to (because Grenadiers had double pay)... Yes, there were exceptions, like Prussian Leib Grenadier units, but even then, there were just 2 regiments of them, and they were tasked to protect the king... and similarly, in British army, there was 1st Guard Regiment, that was actually renamed to Grenadier Regiment of Foot Guards, but that happened in 1815 after battle of Waterloo, which is a bit too soon for American War of Independence.. Besides, isnt Bunker Hill a scenario based on real events??? If so, then having 2nd company Grenadiers is illogical and inaccurate. If you wanna have custom units, thats fine, but If you have historical battles, then they should have historical unit composition...
  9. i dont know.. i dont like the fact Devs are not implementing 18.century combat with this game, but opting for some Civil War setup with just recolored uniforms for soldiers.... Formations are way too loose, in reality soldiers were supposed to stand shoulder to shoulder.. and British were particularly precise in this.. distance between ranks in British infantry was 0.63m. French Infantry stood closer (0.325m), Austrian infantry farther (1.3m) Oh and of course, while watching Bunker Hill, one thing punched me instantly - there were 2nd Company Grenadiers running around.... thing is, Grenadiers were ALWAYS 1st Company and there was only single company of Grenadiers in every single Line infantry regiment... besides, Grenadiers were technically not named 1st Company, 1st up to 8th were Line Infantry companies, Grenadier company and Light Infantry company were elite companies of the regiment and therefore unnumbered. http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/British_infantry_the_redcoats.htm#_organization_and_tactics Naval battles looks great in this game, but Land combat so far is quite terrible im affraid...
  10. looks nice, but formations are way too open.. in 18.century Infantry was supposed to be shoulder to shoulder to maximize firepower for minimal frontage. Also, 3 ranks were typical for Line infantry in close order(British calling it "German Doctrine"). British "American doctrine", which was adopted during American War for Independence called for 2 rank formation, but usually with Light Infantry. Yet British used both German and American doctrines were used together, with British troops during Napoleonic wars.
  11. looks good, only issue i saw there was kinda lack of fire discipline, which was perilously enforced by officers in 18.century.. British infantry was particularly well known for this, soldiers being not allowed to fire at will.. so, it would look a bit better if only light infantry was allowed to fire from skirmish/open order, while Line infantry should always use double rank formation for delivering volleys.
  12. what i find interesting is the fact that this 2 by 2 regimental formation is practically same thing as French 4 ranks Line deployment from 18.century.. it had same amount of firepower with 2 ranks serving as reserve.. seems to me like a quite a waste of manpower as 50% of men will not use weapons at all.. Such a thing would make sense only at confined battlefield where many other units are present and therefore regiments cannot by fully deployed, yet even then i think it would be better to fully commit smaller number of regiments in line deployment and keep full regiments in reserve for outmaneuvering or replacements. anyway, 3 by 3 deployment looks closer to Napoleonic wars, where infantry was usually formed in 3 ranks, and sometimes you would have regiment marching with battalions deployed in line one behind the other.. yet, marching regiment like this is not very effective, as battalion itself is quite long if deployed in 3 ranks.. which is why usually regiments marched forward with either double division column (2 companies) or single division column (single company) Yet of course, even French who used columns a lot, never charged in actual column.. at Waterloo for example, last charge of Imperial Guard, Middle Guard Battalions marched as column, but when they received enemy fire, they deployed into lines and exchanged musketry fire and charged forward. They even managed to break through first line, but were repulsed by British reserves, and countercharge.
  13. If they will go with Napoleon, what i would like to see in this engine, are large battle maps, let say size of whole operational area before certain battles.. And player would have multiple entry points with limited unit threshold (limited amount of unit that can be placed on that entry point) simulating usual practice of different marching directions for different corps.. This way, player would have to do the recon on the battle map, decide which way his forces move forward, where they concentrate, or how they spread out.. this way player would be the one who orders own units to reinforce where he sees it fit (instead of linear scenario setup), so battles could happen even on different places than they did in history.. It would make initial orders a lot more important, because it could determine what force will meet the enemy, or how far from each other player's divisions will be at the time he makes contact with enemy forces.. This way, light cavalry would get whole new level of importance as it would be the eyes and ears of the army, with main role to identify where exactly enemy army is.. At the same time, it would give player option to use proper Napoleonic strategies, while at the same time, actual numbers would not play that big role, instead, amounts of men player can get in time would be more important.. lots of battles of those times were decided when one side got late reinforcements which sometimes decided already lost battles like for example Marengo, while others were won because of properly utilizing own approaching units into battle plan (Austerlitz - Davout's Corps) So, imagine a Waterloo campaign, with map where you would have Ligny, Waterloo, Quatre Bras and Wavre present at the start, and both sides deployed in their historic starting positions. and it would be player role to scout the probable areas of enemy approach, and maneuver own armies into position player wants to win the campaign.. Player would have option to rewrite the history by adopting different strategy, and face different consequences of own actions. Of course, road network would be important, with limited throughput for units, so player will be unable to march whole army over one road (or he could ,but at the cost of army being spread out on that road, and much slower than if different parts would move separately)..
  14. main advantage being on elevated position is against artillery... bounces from solid shots will not be that effective, while shells will be impacted as well. plus, you can use the reverse slope tactics, and stay hidden, allow enemy to march up the hill just to get shot at from close range as they get over the hill... plus, enemy would have no info about your numbers up to the last second...
  • Create New...