Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


Ultimate General Focus Tester
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

73 Excellent

About JaM

  • Rank
    Able seaman

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

761 profile views
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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)..
  4. 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...
  5. 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
  6. 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.
  7. 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)..
  8. 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.
  9. 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..
  10. 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
  11. 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..
  12. 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.
  13. 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)
  14. 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...
  • Create New...