looking good LK keep it up.
looking good LK keep it up.
Expect The Unexpected.
Go tell the Spartans, Stranger walking by, That here, Obedient to their laws, we lie. - King Xerxes
Lord Krazy,
WhoooHooo My beloved Chaesseurs a Cheval de la Garde in full splendour Wonderful work. Keep it coming.
-Cuirassier
Welcome to the dungeon Cuirassier,Originally Posted by [b
Glad you like the Chaesseurs
Then again seen as your a Lord you'd have to say that
Speaking of Lords Swords of Storm is also
a new and welcome addition to the crew.
"Lord of all things curly"
LK
Thanks Lord Krazy, I am glad to be a part of The Lords (notice the sig)I have to add Lord of all things curly LolQuote[/b] (Lord Krazy @ Mar. 19 2003,00:25)]Speaking of Lords Swords of Storm is also
a new and welcome addition to the crew.
"Lord of all things curly"
LK
Taking life one day at a time!
I have moved my posts on the challeneges of using MTW engine for a Napoleonic mod below. Let the discussions continue.
-Cuirassier
My passion is Napoleonic Warfare. With all the exciting stuff that is happening at the modder's heaven, the Dungeon, here is my 2 cents worth.
When the original STW was released, my first thought was "My How would a Napoleonic Campaign game look like using this engine?" And frankly it was about time. Enough time has been spent with the crusty old hex grids and the turn based marathon battles. A real time 3D Napoleonic battle game was long overdue.
What are the challenges of using the current MTW engine for a Napoleonic mod?
Infantry:
*******
An average Napoleonic battalion had six companies of 100 to 120 muskets each. A regiment usually had 2 battalions, sometimes three. A brigade was composed of 2 regiments and a division normally had 2 brigades. Variations always existed but this would suffice for a starting point.
For realistic tactical battle simulations I feel that the unit of maneuver should be a battalion, at the most a regiment. A company level simulation would be too taxing on the game engine. I don't even think that one could have enough units to bring in if we went in for company level detail.
Using anything higher than a regiment as the unit of maneuver would really take away the tactical nature of the simulation and some fun. At the end of the day, after all, the Total War series is about fun.
So acting on the hypothesis that we are using a battalion as the fundamental unit of maneuver, here are some of the things that we definitely could do, can not do and just about may be with the MTW engine :
Formations:
*********
Primary weapon : Musket or rifle. Range, rate of reload and fire etc could all be tweaked.
Secondary weapon: Bayonet. No problem here. Infantry could be made to charge with cold steel.
Forming line : No problem. Can do.
Forming a skirmish screen : No problem. Can do.
Attack column: So far as I have experimented, no can do. Attack column was a formation specially favored by the French. It had a frontage of two companies. It had great ease of battlefield movement and good melee capability. But the firepower was reduced compared to a line.
The already existing wedge formation is eminently suited for this role. The wedge has very little firepower but has great shock effect. Could we somehow modify the flocking behavior for the units when ordered to form a wedge so that when we ask the unit to form a wedge it forms a column? He,he
Square: Ah Here is a definite problem. No can do The square was the standard formation used by all infantry of that era against charging cavalry. It was practically invulnerable against charging horse, but was easy pickings for enemy infantry in line and especially for enemy artillery.
March column: So far as I remember, no can do. But this may not be as critical as attack column and square formations.
Special abilities :
Grenadiers had superior melee capability. This could be achieved by giving them some bonus attack points.
Light infantry was deadly in broken terrain, wooded areas and built areas. And again light infantry were far better suited to skirmish tactics than line infantry as they were specially trained. I do not know how we could give light infantry superior skirmishing skills in terrain that is amenable to light infantry tactics. Ubermodders could ponder on this one perhaps.
The following posts would be on cavalry, artillery, command and control, orders of battle etc.
-Cuirassier
Cavalry:
*******
Napoleonic cavalry was generally classified into light and heavy.
Hussars, Chasseurs a Cheval, Light Dragoons were the saber wielding light horse.
Lancers (or Uhlans) carried (duh) the lance. They were classified as lights as well.
Heavies could be armored or unarmored. The celebrated Cuirassiers and Carabiniers a Cheval being the armored heavies. Heavy dragoons being the unarmored heavies.
Light cavalry acted as the ears and the eyes of the army. Scouting, outpost duty and rear area security were the traditional light cavalry duties. In pitched battles they could and did charge with their heavier brethren.
Heavy cavalry was trained for one and only purpose in the battlefield. Though ponderous with big men on huge horses, the heavy arm was trained to charge boot to boot to ride down any opposing formation, be it horse or foot.
The basic cavalry unit of maneuver was the regiment. An average Napoleonic cavalry regiment had three squadrons of 150 sabers each. A brigade was composed of 2 regiments and a division normally had 2 brigades. Variations always existed but this would suffice for a starting point.
For realistic tactical battle simulations I feel that the unit of maneuver for the cavalry should be a regiment. A squadron level simulation would be too taxing on the game engine.
So acting on the hypothesis that we are using the regiment as the fundamental unit of maneuver for the cavalry, here are some of the things that we definitely could do, can not do and just about may be with the MTW engine:
Formations:
*********
Primary weapon : Curved saber for the lights, lance for the lancers and straight sword for the heavies. Lethality, ease of use etc could all be tweaked.
Secondary weapon: Musketoon for the dragoons and the Carabiniers a Cheval, carbine for the hussars and Chasseurs a Cheval and pistols for the heavies. No problem here. Cavalry could be made to discharge a volley before charging home with cold steel.
Forming line : No problem. Can do.
Forming a skirmish screen : No problem. Can do. Light cavalry routinely formed in skirmish line before charging artillery.
Attack column: So far as I have experimented, no can do. All heavy cavalry was taught to charge in attack column formation. It had a frontage of a squadron. It had great ease of battlefield movement and a solid battering ram effect. But this formation was very vulnerable to artillery.
The already existing wedge formation is eminently suited for this role. The wedge has very little firepower but has great shock effect. Could we somehow modify the flocking behavior for the units when ordered to form a wedge so that when we ask the unit to form a wedge it forms a column?
March column: So far as I remember, no can do. But this may not be as critical as attack column and square formations.
Special abilities and limitations:
Lancers were deadly against infantry and artillery. Artillery crews especially despised them. Any gunner cowering under the wheels could be speared with ease if under a lancer attack. Against cavalry though lancers tended to be a bit awkward, as the lance could become a bit unwieldy in close combat.
I do not know how MTW engine handles lancers.
Cavalry charging steady infantry in square formation almost always got repulsed. The trick was to catch the infantry as it was undergoing the evolutions needed to form square from line or column. As infantry can not form square in MTW, cavalry could rampage at will in MTW. I do not know how realistic this would be.
And again cavalry would never successfully charge infantry in broken terrain, marshy ground or in built areas. Again I do not fully understand the mechanics of the cavalry charge in MTW.
More in the next post.
As for the mounted fire debate, I think the DECIDING factor in a cavalry vs cavalry melee was always the cold steel. Sure the dragoons and the Carabiniers A Cheval were trained to fire a volley into the opposing lines of charging horse. But the volley was just meant to disrupt the ranks and not to decide the outcome of the engagement forthright. A decision was always forced with the cold steel.
When two bodies of charging horse met, one side that had the lower morale would normally veer away or there would be a clash and a classic cut and thrust melee.
In either case it was the COHESION of the charging regiment that primarily decided the issue and not a puny little fussilade from a set of popgun musketoons.
So for all practical purposes we could let the cavaliers in the Nap mod ignore mounted fire and do what they do best : charge home with cold steel.
And oh, against infantry, it was ridiculous for the cavalry to engage in any sustained fire fight. The range of the carbines and the musketoons were definitely shorter than the standard infantry muskets. And the footsloggers could probably have reloaded atleast twice as fast as the mounted men. No contest here at all
Charge home Charge with the cold steel
Quote (Cuirassier66 @ Mar. 17 2003,17:03)
Wellington, is it possible to mod the formations data files and to get new formations like an attack column or a square?
Wellington's answer:
***************************
Yes and No.
These files only determine the positions of units relative to each other (infantry in the centre, cavalry on the flanks, etc). In other words they determine what formation a whole army assumes.
If you wanted a new formation (eg: French attack) you could probably code a template as such that defined several rows of Infantry with cavaly behind. Eg: with 16 units something like -
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
C C C C
... if you see what I mean.
To indivual units (I) 'formation' (column/line) can be defined to some degree in prod11 (cant remember the exact names of the fields 'supporting ranks/prefered number of ranks'?).
Squares are not, to my knowledge, possible
******************* End of Wellington's answer
Napoleonic artillery
***************
Napoleonic artillery could be generally classified into foot and horse artillery. Foot gunners walked alongside the guns when maneuvering. Horse gunners, to a man, rode along on their own horses, and thus the celebrated mobility of the horse artillery. It was not for nothing that horse artillery was called as flying artillery. The guns themselves were, of course, pulled by teams of horses.
Artillery was classified as heavy or medium depending upon the weight of the shot that was thrown out. A myriad number of shot weights were being used by the various adversaries of that era. But 6 pounders and 12 pounders were the most common.
The basic unit of battlefield maneuver was invariably the battery. A French artillery battery consisted of 6 cannons, of which 4 were guns and the remaining 2 were howitzers.
All the guns of the Napoleonic era were of the smooth bore type and could fire round shot at a high velocity against either soft or hard targets. Howitzers fired explosive shells in a high trajectory and thus could attack targets behind a ridgeline or inside a building. Howitzers were also smooth bore.
Both guns and howitzers could fire canister (tightly packed musket balls in metallic cans) against soft targets that could be devastatingly effective under short ranges.
The max range for a 12 pounder cannon firing roundshot was around 1800 meters (5905 feet). It was a very rare gun captain that engaged the enemy at such extreme ranges. Effective ranges for a 12 pounder would be in the order of 900 meters (2953 feet)
The max range for a 12 pounder cannon firing canister was around 600 meters (1969 feet). Again effective canister ranges for a 12 pounder would be in the order of 450 meters (1476 feet)
For a typical 6 pounder cannon the ranges would be:
Roundshot max range : 1300 meters (4265 feet)
Roundshot effective range : 700 meters (2297 feet)
Canister max range : 450 meters (1476 feet)
Canister effective range : 350 meters (1148 feet)
For the purpose of doing a Napoleonic mod using MTW, I believe that a battery should be the basic unit of maneuver. I also believe that it would be too cumbersome to differentiate between howitzers and regular guns.
OK, what are the challenges of implementing the Napoleonic artillery arm using the MTW mod?
*The well-known fact that cannons could not move in MTW is a serious problem. Even the relatively ponderous foot artillery moved a bit before and during the battle. Napoleon, being a gunner himself advocated aggressive use of artillery (some would say too aggressive) on the battlefield. Even if we accept that foot artillery did not move that much and are willing to live with immobile cannons for the foot batteries in MTW, what about the horse guns?
*Horse artillery lived and died on its fame for lighting fast maneuvers. Horse guns routinely galloped with charging cavalry to exploit any tactical situation quickly.
So the Napoleonic battlefield would not feel "right" if we did not have flying artillery
One possible solution would be to use the Naptha throwers as horse artillery We could throw away the graphic for the Naptha guys and replace it with some animations of a horse pulling a gun. Once in range, the gun could unlimber and go through the animations of firing a projectile.
Next post : combined arms tactics .
C66,
Great stuff. Nice to see your considerable contributions (already!
As we now have C66 to contribute to this project (in terms of post's within the Dungeon) I'll be posting a few items regarding what needs to be done to ensure the success of this Nap mod.
One sentence that I'd like to emphasise, from C66, is the following -
This is, to my mind, THE QUESTION that needs to be considered first and foremost, for anyone working on a somewhat different mod (this Nap mod or any other).
Now C66 is on board for contributions I'll start itemising what needs to be done, both in respect of the MTW engine and the points raised by C66.
Welly
Four Cavalry units will be posted shortly
Chasseurs a Cheval
Guard Chasseurs a Cheval
Austrian Hussars
Russian Dragoons
LK
LK,Quote[/b] (Lord Krazy @ Mar. 19 2003,12:31)]Four Cavalry units will be posted shortly
Chasseurs a Cheval
Guard Chasseurs a Cheval
Austrian Hussars
Russian Dragoons
LK
Can you itemise the previous post, regarding units per faction, in respect of exactly what type of type of units are provided by for each faction.
Saying infantry/cavalry/artillery tells me we have just 3 units per faction (in respect of prod11).
Now I know we have at least 2 French cavalry units -
- Chasseurs a Cheval
- Guard Chasseurs a Cheval
I also know know that your plates allow for Dragoons and Hussars (for all nationalities?)
Any further clarification?
Guys,
I'm now out of this mod. I'll be progressing a "Nap type mod" on my own - simply because its far easier to do things by yourself (if you know how to do them). I'll release my offering when I'm happy with it.
Welly
hereis v1.4
Well seen as Welly has left.
We have to go back to the drawing board again.
I tought we were going to have maps and some scripts
in the near future but that's out the window now.
I'll start work on the campaign in aday or two
and LBA can start on a map.To be honest
I'm pretty tired now and going on reserve for awhile
working on this.So this set back has
kind of knocked the wind
out of me.I'm going to get some rest and get back
to you guys in a few days when I will be
in better shape I hope.
Thanks
Regards
Lord Krazy.
good job LK , The new cav look really good, i also like the new range graphic, it works well and looks the part.
Is there a guide any where on how to edit the graphics, i would like to help u out with this but need pointing in the right direction. i would love to see a scottish regiment in there.
Also ive been trying to find some music to replace the medieval stuff, does any one know where i can find some (i.e bag pipes/ pipes and drums etc )
Also im triyn to create some new speech sounds instead of the latin, which might make it abit more authentic.
btw did u get the file i sent u with the unit icons ?
Lord Krazy, hei
I played a custom battle yesterday as the French against the British in a cavalry + infantry scanario.
Loved it. It was wonderful to see my chasseurs charging pell mell at the green jackets.
We must think of a way for the infantry to form square though. The way it is now, cavalry would just rule the battlefield.
Regards,
Cuirassier
LK ,You are my hero, thanks for the auto install feature on the latest update 1.4 I am thorughly enjoying this, without all the unzip hassles, I think it will make more accesible to others also , Good job...
Taking life one day at a time!
More Cavalry have been done
They just need to be compiled.
We will do that later today.
Scots Greys and Inniskilling Dragoons
plus Cossack lancers and maybe a few more.
I have noticed while I'v been gone the
last couple of days that only
two of the Lords have posted in this thread.
Is there something going on I should know about
or is everybody just war spotting on CNN?
LK
Hello total war-ers
at day i am at war protests at night i am making war mods
Like you all know Thelordz and many friends are building new mod Napoleon...and is coming on.. I am thinking of cannons in bif at a moment. Do not misanderestemate me.
Combined Arms Tactics:
********************
Sorry for the long delay. In the previous posts I discussed the infantry, cavalry and the artillery arms separately. We would have a look at the combined arms tactics in this post.
Napoleon was a firm believer in the massed firepower of the guns. A gunner at heart and in training he observed that “it is with artillery that one makes war”. French tactics invariably favored a massed bombardment of the enemy troops prior to the grand assault. Napoleon’s adversaries initially tended to distribute artillery throughout the infantry divisions and even brigades. This scattered employment was never able to counter the ferocity of the French massed onslaught. In the later campaigns Napoleon’s adversaries learned to mass artillery into “grand batteries” of their own. Wagram and Borodino are notable examples of this.
Usually it was the relatively immobile foot artillery that was being used in the grand battery role. Horse artillery almost always galloped with the charging horse.
If the strengths of the opposing armies at the start of the battle were more or less equal, the immediate objective was to gain cavalry superiority. Because any unbroken enemy horse that was marauding in the field would severely hamper the mobility of the attacking infantry.
Provided the enemy horse was willing to engage, the infantry would march forward. For the French , it would almost always be in attack column formation (with a frontage of two companies, approximately 240 muskets wide). Cavalry would march either directly behind or on the flanks with the horse artillery galloping ahead.
Assuming that enemy infantry is met without any cavalry support nearby, all the three arms would work in unison to bring the enemy infantry down. First the supporting horse would feign a charge or in some cases actually charge. This would force the enemy infantry into square as this was the only formation that the infantry could use to defend against charging horse. But the square was terribly vulnerable against infantry or cannon fire.
Thus once the enemy infantry had been forced into square, the attacking infantry would deploy into line and start blasting off. Worse still, the compact enemy infantry square would present an almost unmistakable target for the artillery that would unleash devastating blasts of canister into the square. When the square was seen to be wavering, waiting cavalry would charge home to execute the coup de grace.
This was the theory at least. Many things could and did go wrong. A successful combined arms coordinated attack demanded very skillful timing from a commander wrestling with the battlefield control problems of the Napoleonic era.
-Cuirassier
Very interesting stuff C66 what went wrong at Waterloo?
Very good work LK.
Ah, that Mr.Egg, is a different discussion altogether that warrants a thread of its own. But since you touched a topic that is one of my prime periods of interest in Napoleonic warfare, here is my two cents on why Napoleon could not crack the thin red line.
*Lack of his personal tactical control of the battle. He had taken direct tactical control of the battle many a times before, Wagram being a good example. If Marshal Ney’s impetuosity was never in doubt, his battle judgment could at times be a bit rash.
*Committing a better part of an army corps ( 3 divisions) into the futile struggle for Hougoumont. It could have been surpassed. At worst Jerome could have kept the Guards inside honest with just cannons and howitzers.
*Lack of cavalry support for the powerful first corps attack ( 4 divisions) by
Count d Erlon. A puny brigade of cuirassiers was the only flank protection awarded. With the cavalry superiority that Napoleon enjoyed over the Allies, at least a corps of heavy cavalry (2 divisions) should have gone in with the first corps infantry attack. Napoleon would still have had 2 more divisions of heavy cavalry in reserve ( not counting the powerful division of the Imperial Guard heavy cavalry division that is!
*When the massed cavalry charges did press home, total lack of infantry and horse artillery support for the cavaliers. Had Napoleon been in direct control, he would have immediately rectified this fatal omission.
*Failure to spike the Allied guns, when the French horse was controlling the ridgeline for the 3 hours that the cavalry charges raged on. Not a single cavalryman thought about dismounting and spiking the guns that were abandoned with the cavalry swirling around.
I could go on and on. It is, as I said, a separate thread. You could email me separately if you want to discuss this.
Combined arms tactics continued:
**************************
As I mentioned in my previous post, during the Napoleonic Wars, all the three arms were beautifully balanced and a combined arms attack was vital for a successful outcome.
The challenge for us MTW modders as far as the combined arms tactics is this: “How do we make the AI use proper combined arms tactics?”
It is one thing with clever modding to simulate a square formation. But how do we make the AI put the infantry in square formation when being threatened by cavalry? And again how do we make the AI make feigned cavalry charges so that infantry goes into square so that the AI artillery could blast them apart?
I saw the other day a battalion of French light infantry in line formation charging a regiment of Russian dragoons I have no explanation for their behavior
So the challenges are :
*How do we give the infantry a square formation?
*How do we make the AI use this square formation when being threatened by cavalry?
*How do we make the AI realize that enemy infantry is in square and could be blasted away by cannon fire?
I have looked at some of the Crusaders_Unit_Prod11.txt file entries.
Some of the unit attributes look interesting.
These are the
“CavAttackBonus”
"CavDefenseBonus” and
“Units this unit is fearful of”.
Obviously “CavAttackBonus” for infantry should be set to 0. Infantry does NOT charge cavalry. Period.
"CavDefenseBonus” for infantry could be set to maximum. But I don’t know how we could qualify this bonus depending upon the formation the infantry is in. Clearly an infantry unit in skirmish formation would be much more nervous looking at a regiment of charging horse than a battalion of infantry in solid square. I would need some input from veteran modders as to whether we could change this bonus depending upon the formation type.
Regards,
Cuirassier
Does anybody know how to decipher the formation templates in the FormationData folder?
I found some interesting stuff in the HistoricFormations.txt
The SQUARE formation is described as follows: Could somebody help me to deipher the fields?
;****************************************************************
;Square
;This a three sided rectangle actually.
;For those occasions when you're feeling insecure
;****************************************************************
Template Square
;;; Flags
HistoricalTemplate
Defend
Priority 0
Slot 0 ;Unused
MaxUnits 0
XPos 0 absolute
ZPos 0 absolute
EndSlot 0
Slot 1 ;Unused
MaxUnits 0
XPos 0 absolute
ZPos 0 absolute
EndSlot 1
Slot 2 ;Central cavalry mass
;;; Restrictions
;; MaxWidth 30
MinWidth 30
;;; Slot position
XPos 0 absolute
ZPos -30 absolute
;;; Unit Info and hints
General
;; Unit Types
UnitType GeneralOnly 1.0
UnitType HeavyMounted 1.0
EndSlot 2
Slot 3 ;Left side light cavalry
Optional
;;; Restrictions
;; MaxWidth 30
MinWidth 30
;;; Slot position
XPos -3 relativeTo 2
ZPos 0 relativeTo 2
;;; Unit Info and hints
NotGeneral
;; Unit Types
UnitType LightMounted 1.0
UnitType Mounted 0.5
EndSlot 3
Slot 4 ;Right side light cavalry
Optional
;;; Restrictions
;; MaxWidth 30
MinWidth 30
;;; Slot position
XPos 3 relativeTo 2
ZPos 0 relativeTo 2
;;; Unit Info and hints
NotGeneral
;; Unit Types
UnitType LightMounted 1.0
UnitType Mounted 0.5
EndSlot 4
Slot 5 ;Dummy slot spanning 2 and 3
Spans 2 and 3
EndSlot 5
Slot 6 ;Dummy slot spanning all three cavalry slots
Spans 4 and 5
EndSlot 6
Slot 7 ;Left side outward facing archers
Optional
Priority 0.5
;;;Restrictions
MaxUnits 2
;;; Slot position
XPos -15 relativeTo 6
ZPos 0 relativeTo 6
;;; Unit Info and hints
NotGeneral
Angle -90
NumRows 3
;; Unit Types
UnitType MissileInfantry 1.0
UnitType MissileMounted 0.5
EndSlot 7
Slot 8 ;Left side outward facing infantry
Optional
Priority 0.6
;;;Restrictions
; Width fixed 20
; Depth fixed 20
MaxUnits 2
;;; Slot position
XPos -5 relativeTo 7
ZPos 0 relativeTo 7
;;; Unit Info and hints
NotGeneral
Angle -90
NumRows 3
;; Unit Types
UnitType HeavyInfantry 1.0
UnitType MediumInfantry 0.5
EndSlot 8
Slot 9 ;Right side outward facing archers
Optional
Priority 0.5
;;;Restrictions
; Width fixed 20
; Depth fixed 20
MaxUnits 2
;;; Slot position
XPos 15 relativeTo 6
ZPos 0 relativeTo 6
;;; Unit Info and hints
NotGeneral
Angle 90
NumRows 3
;; Unit Types
UnitType MissileInfantry 1.0
UnitType MissileMounted 0.5
EndSlot 9
Slot 10 ;Right side outward facing infantry
Optional
Priority 0.6
;;;Restrictions
; Width fixed 20
; Depth fixed 20
MaxUnits 2
;;; Slot position
XPos 5 relativeTo 9
ZPos 0 relativeTo 9
;;; Unit Info and hints
NotGeneral
Angle 90
NumRows 3
;; Unit Types
UnitType HeavyInfantry 1.0
UnitType MediumInfantry 0.5
EndSlot 10
Slot 11 ;Dummy slot spanning entire width of square
Spans 7 and 9
EndSlot 11
Slot 12 ;Artillery
Optional
;;; Restrictions
Width relativeTo 6
;;; Slot position
XPos 0 absolute
ZPos -20 relativeTo 6
;;; Unit Info and hints
InterUnitSpacing 5
;; Unit Types
UnitType Artillery 1.0
EndSlot 12
Slot 13 ;Defensive Infantry line
;;; Restrictions
MinUnits 2
Width relativeTo 11
MaxDepth 5
;;; Slot position
XPos 0 absolute
ZPos 0 absolute
;;; Unit Info and hints
NotGeneral
NumRows 2
;; Unit Types
UnitType HeavyInfantry 1.0
UnitType NonMissileInfantry 0.8
EndSlot 13
Slot 14 ;Missile line
;;; Restrictions
MinUnits 2
Width relativeTo 13
WidthFactor 0.95
;;; Slot position
XPos 0 absolute
ZPos -10 relativeTo 13
;;; Unit Info and hints
NotGeneral
NumRows 2
;; Unit Types
UnitType MissileInfantry 1.0
UnitType MissileMounted 0.5
EndSlot 14
EndTemplate Square
That's for using square as a group formation.
It's an option but everything is at this stage
LK
With regard to the Waterloo, IMHO the Prussians
showing up on the flank as they did was the only thing
that stopped Napoleon on the Day.
Seen as the rest of Europe was preparing to march on France it would not have made much difference in the long
term, even if he did win the battle of Waterloo.
If anyone thinks the Prussians did not make the difference
Would be happyy to simulate the battle playing as the Allies without the Prussians.
This would be nice as I always wanted to know how
the French could have been beaten soly by the British forces on the day.Even with the amount of stupid
things the french managed to do in a single morning
French Millitary planning at the time did
not take into account, whole armies
showing on your flank by surprise
half way through a battle.
If it did I'm sure it would have
pointed out. that you were in a bad sitution
no matter who you were fighting.
LK
Thank you KD.
Don't forget LBA and the other Lords.
This is not a one man show
LK
LK,
Do you have any inkling as to how to make this square formation available under the group formations option?
-Cuirassier
Cuirassier, remember the MTW combat model looks at the difference between the attack and defence stats, with each one differential raising kill probabilities by 20%. Given this, you probably don't want to raise infantry's cav defence bonus too much.
I would start with the basic stats for a spear and cav_sword (available in the CA crusaders_unit.prod11.xls file in the downloads section):
spear: 0 attack, 1 defence, 2 rank bonus, 1 cav att bonus, 4 cav def bonus
cav_sword 2 attack, 0 defence
These clearly favour the spear over cavalry in a frontal clash (infantry attacks at +1, cavalry at -5!
BTW: I think the AI responds to the numbers - in Shogun and MTW it was common for me to see AI spears chasing my cavalry around the map It seems to crunch the numbers better than we do.
Originally posted in Entrance Hall by a new member(hal269091 ):
To the Lords and Wellington
I was fascinated by the Napoleonic era ever since and I've done lots of research and reading about this time, especially in regards of the military aspect of the subject.
Unfortunately there is no game dealing with warefare in these times and so I was very excited, when I first found this thread. Especially when I realised that some of the most gifted modders posting in this forum would take part.
So it was kind of a pain to see Wellington leave the team and starting to work for his own Nap Mod.
What has happened? Wouldn't it be better, to merge abilities and efforts together. In my - the forum newbie's opinion - a mod like this needs both: The analytical brain of Welly with his very systematic approach to all problems and the gifted abilities of the Lords in actually modding units and graphics. What a waist of energy and effort to do two mods about the same subject.
Don't you think that there might be a way to get over it and start cooperating again?
Just my thoughts (and it was so important for me to say that - it actually was the reason I decided to actively take part in this forum). Not meant to offend anyone.
Anyway - I would prefer to see you back in one team again but in case you won't like to do that, I offer my - limited - services to anyone of the both teams. As my free time is few I probably will not be able to take part in establishing the conceptional structure of this mod but I can fulfill clearly stated and "non-epic" tasks.
My knowledge about this time is quite well and over the time I've collected a number of some 400 books about Uniforms and warfare in the time of Napoleon. So I probably could provide you with data about and images of leaders and uniforms of that time. My photoshop skills are good enough to mod graphics of other games - so they probably will be good enough for mtw as well - and I have a scanner.
As I would really like to play a mod like that I'm very willing also to do some work for it. Just tell me what you need and I tell you if I can do it and - if yes - when it will be ready.
Again I would like to repeat, that it was double fun for me to work for a reunited team but finally it's - of course - your decision.
Best wishes to all of you
Hal
The surest way to lose the respect of one's peers is to take a stand on principle...alone.
Welcome oh Demon of Light,
A cheerful salute from a Napoleonic nut to a fellow one.
We may yet see the "factions" merge So do not loose heart.
Thanks for your support.
Best Regards,
Cuirassier
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks