Skeksis Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 (edited) ... Edited November 9, 2021 by Skeksis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeRuyter Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 13 hours ago, Skeksis said: Will land units be the same size as in UGCW? Not likely. Look at the Bunker Hill scenario - units are company or equivalent with 100-300 men. AWI battles were generally smaller as well. Units in UG:CW are essentially brigades of up to 2500 men. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeksis Posted October 2, 2019 Author Share Posted October 2, 2019 (edited) ... Edited November 9, 2021 by Skeksis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeRuyter Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 23 hours ago, Skeksis said: Oh that a shame, sounds like something Totalwar does, regress game characteristics! But I suppose the game is about landing marines rather than transporting an army. Well I wouldn't look at it as a regression, rather a different scale. It is a different period in history with smaller battles and as you note landing marines. Look at Bunker Hill - about 3000 troops per side so you represent smaller formations as units. Using the scale in UG:CW you would only have a couple of units for each side. They do have the opportunity to represent individual companies on the battlefield in this game which IMO is a good thing if done right. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaM Posted October 6, 2019 Share Posted October 6, 2019 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.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeRuyter Posted October 7, 2019 Share Posted October 7, 2019 19 hours ago, JaM said: 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.. Yes but are not some of the units companies - artillery for example? I know you posted earlier that some were erroneously marked as companies - like a grenadier company but was too large. My main point above stands though - I'll revise the scale comment to say that it is more of a battalion/regimental scale as opposed to UG:CW which is more or less brigade scale. You could take it down to company level as well, which would fit with the landing force element of the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaM Posted November 7, 2019 Share Posted November 7, 2019 Artillery is always a battery.. it was never called company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeRuyter Posted November 12, 2019 Share Posted November 12, 2019 On 11/7/2019 at 6:47 PM, JaM said: Artillery is always a battery.. it was never called company. Let's not get pedantic here. Since you mentioned it however you are incorrect. US artillery in the AWI was organized as regiments and divided into companies. Maybe you were thinking of the ACW or modern TO&E? https://revolutionarywar.us/continental-army/artillery-regiments/ Here is another example, the reserve artillery battery of the French I Corps in 1815 comprising 87 men with 6 pieces 12 lb guns and 2 howitzers: 11ème Compagnie du 6ème Régiment d'Artillerie à Pied http://centjours.mont-saint-jean.com/detail_uniteFR.php?rubrique=O&unite=144 Several armies of the period also designated the artillery train as a company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeBoiteux Posted November 12, 2019 Share Posted November 12, 2019 53 minutes ago, DeRuyter said: Let's not get pedantic here. Since you mentioned it however you are incorrect. US artillery in the AWI was organized as regiments and divided into companies. Maybe you were thinking of the ACW or modern TO&E? https://revolutionarywar.us/continental-army/artillery-regiments/ Here is another example, the reserve artillery battery of the French I Corps in 1815 comprising 87 men with 6 pieces 12 lb guns and 2 howitzers: 11ème Compagnie du 6ème Régiment d'Artillerie à Pied http://centjours.mont-saint-jean.com/detail_uniteFR.php?rubrique=O&unite=144 Several armies of the period also designated the artillery train as a company. and the French artillery had already been organized in permanent companies since the 17th century (Louis XIV, 1668). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaM Posted November 16, 2019 Share Posted November 16, 2019 On 11/12/2019 at 7:36 PM, DeRuyter said: Let's not get pedantic here. Since you mentioned it however you are incorrect. US artillery in the AWI was organized as regiments and divided into companies. Maybe you were thinking of the ACW or modern TO&E? https://revolutionarywar.us/continental-army/artillery-regiments/ Here is another example, the reserve artillery battery of the French I Corps in 1815 comprising 87 men with 6 pieces 12 lb guns and 2 howitzers: 11ème Compagnie du 6ème Régiment d'Artillerie à Pied http://centjours.mont-saint-jean.com/detail_uniteFR.php?rubrique=O&unite=144 Several armies of the period also designated the artillery train as a company. no, what i meant, is that artillery was always organized into battery. No matter how many guns its had, it was always called battery.. 2,4,8 or 80... always a battery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeRuyter Posted November 18, 2019 Share Posted November 18, 2019 On 11/16/2019 at 8:41 AM, JaM said: no, what i meant, is that artillery was always organized into battery. No matter how many guns its had, it was always called battery.. 2,4,8 or 80... always a battery. Your statement above was that artillery "was never called company". My references clearly showed that this was not correct at least during the AWI and Napoleonic wars and this game is set during that period. Sure a unit of guns can be and is generally referred to as a "battery" but in some cases was called an artillery company. Breaking it down further you see references to a "section" of guns or in the case of cavalry a "troop". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeBoiteux Posted November 18, 2019 Share Posted November 18, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, DeRuyter said: Your statement above was that artillery "was never called company". My references clearly showed that this was not correct at least during the AWI and Napoleonic wars and this game is set during that period. Among your references, don't you have the date of 26 May 1716 when George the 1st created the first two permanent 'companies' of Royal Artillery ? Am I wrong ? Edited November 18, 2019 by LeBoiteux 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeRuyter Posted November 19, 2019 Share Posted November 19, 2019 On 11/18/2019 at 12:42 PM, LeBoiteux said: Among your references, don't you have the date of 26 May 1716 when George the 1st created the first two permanent 'companies' of Royal Artillery ? Am I wrong ? No - wow nice find! 👍 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeBoiteux Posted November 19, 2019 Share Posted November 19, 2019 ^ The French created permanent companies of artillery in 1668. So the British couldn't wait too long to do it 😁 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaM Posted November 30, 2019 Share Posted November 30, 2019 On 11/18/2019 at 6:42 PM, LeBoiteux said: Among your references, don't you have the date of 26 May 1716 when George the 1st created the first two permanent 'companies' of Royal Artillery ? Am I wrong ? you are mistaking battlefield unit with organisation... Artillery unit on the battlefield was called Battery... it could be named Regiment, Company, whatever, that was just organisational name... but on the battlefield, artillery pieces were always deployed into Batteries..... Battery was the lowest tactical battlefield unit of Artillery. Same way as Battalion was the lowest tactical unit of Infantry and Squadron was the lowest tactical unit of Cavalry.. Of course Battalion was composed of companies, but these were not operating on battlefield on their own, but always as part of Battalion.. same thing with Cavalry and Artillery. Anyway its true British had a bit different naming in 18.century, but eventually adopted European convention. For some reason they were using "Brigade" as a lowest artillery tactical unit. Anyway for everybody else (Spanish, French and later Americans) Battery was the name of lowest tactical unit on the battlefield. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeRuyter Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 On 11/18/2019 at 12:09 PM, DeRuyter said: Your statement above was that artillery "was never called company". My references clearly showed that this was not correct at least during the AWI and Napoleonic wars and this game is set during that period. Sure a unit of guns can be and is generally referred to as a "battery" but in some cases was called an artillery company. Breaking it down further you see references to a "section" of guns or in the case of cavalry a "troop". On 11/30/2019 at 6:05 AM, JaM said: you are mistaking battlefield unit with organisation... Artillery unit on the battlefield was called Battery... it could be named Regiment, Company, whatever, that was just organisational name... but on the battlefield, artillery pieces were always deployed into Batteries..... Battery was the lowest tactical battlefield unit of Artillery. Same way as Battalion was the lowest tactical unit of Infantry and Squadron was the lowest tactical unit of Cavalry.. Of course Battalion was composed of companies, but these were not operating on battlefield on their own, but always as part of Battalion.. same thing with Cavalry and Artillery. Anyway its true British had a bit different naming in 18.century, but eventually adopted European convention. For some reason they were using "Brigade" as a lowest artillery tactical unit. Anyway for everybody else (Spanish, French and later Americans) Battery was the name of lowest tactical unit on the battlefield. Man you must be a "Red Leg". I am not necessarily disagreeing with you, but I'll just leave my earlier quote for context. Maybe instead of just repeating the same line over and over you can show me some reference from the AWI supporting your point for the game's time period. I am well aware that a unit of guns was often referred to as a battery in particular in a fortification or field works. So the question is in the 18th century was the term battery used colloquially when referring to an artillery company in the field. One could also include horse artillery which I have seen in numerous sources referred to as a troop. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now