General Tactics [Archive]

Sheogorath

12-01-2008, 16:57

I know Russian tactics favor bayonets over bullets. The general idea is to minimize the time spent engaged in musket duels, substituting artillery fire to soften up the enemy prior to a musket charge.
Basically, let your cannons do the ranged work and try to preserve your infantry until they can get into the melee.
Theoretically, Russia should have some very nice light cavalry in the Cossacks, so make good use of those too. Chasing routers and picking off any infantry that get isolated.

In general, for all-faction tactics, I like the old 'flank, isolated, surround, destroy' move, which I've gotten pretty good at in NTW.

The idea is to try to draw off a section of the enemy force, isolate them, surround them with infantry, move your cannons up and give them a whiff of grapeshot if you've got the time.

Keep the remainder of the main force pinned with your own main force.

Just repeat until the main force is small enough to annihilate.

Megas Methuselah

12-01-2008, 21:31

Here's a good question we should always ask ourselves while playing Empires:

"What would Napoleon do?" :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Mailman653

12-01-2008, 23:59

What would be better is to travel in time and let Nap beta test the game.

Sheogorath

12-02-2008, 02:17

Here's a good question we should always ask ourselves while playing Empires:

"What would Napoleon do?" :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Too bad the game will be pretty much over by the time he shows up :P

Megas Methuselah

12-02-2008, 04:14

Not if I can help it. He'll be the emperor of a new Roman empire. :ave:

Polemists

12-02-2008, 05:23

Too bad the game will be pretty much over by the time he shows up

I wouldn't panic, I'd be shocked if he wasn't in the expansion considering how much CA and Sega keep mentioning him.

Mailman653

12-02-2008, 05:36

Even the official website has a space that says Expansion which is grayed out.

Megas Methuselah

12-02-2008, 07:19

Polemists

12-02-2008, 08:14

Whatevah. Just recruit an artillery unit in Corsica and you'll get this short, greasy-haired genius who can crush the old regimes of Europe with a mere swipe of his hand. Of course, the royals'll keep coming back like flies, but still...

Quite true, while you may not get NAPOLEAN as a unit, there's no reason you can't have a famous Corsican General rise to power during this time.

As for tactics, I plan on playing Austrian's and i'm curious to see how the tech tree breaks out. On the one hand, I'd like to focus on infantry, but then again I will probably have to keep with the times so my fleet and other aspects arn't out teched early on.

That said I am very excited that the tech tree has different results of same tech. Drillng Tech for America gives a different ability then Drilling Tech for England based on preview example.

My plan is going to probably involve urban combat as often as I can. Lure enemy in, get in buildings, let them have it.

I mean as Austria we don't number as vast as the Russians, our artillery isn't unbelievable, and even our calvary is not number 1. So I'll have to use the landscape and what I have to my advantage :)

Numero Uno tactic, Conquer Prussia so the German Dualism ends early on :2thumbsup:

Sheogorath

12-02-2008, 08:24

I thought Austria was supposed to have rather good cavalry. Part of their Magyar heritage and all that :P

Polemists

12-02-2008, 09:43

I never stated they were not good, simply they were not the best.

My opinon is if you don't have the best in a certain area, spread it out.

Oleander Ardens

12-02-2008, 09:53

Well if there is a nation who can be considered to have the finest cavalry it is Austria.

Polemists

12-02-2008, 11:07

truly?

and here I thought Prussia was the one with the military academies and Austria with the uniformed infantry, am I mistaken in this assumption?

Perhaps someone can better elaborate on the Prussian v Austrian tactics debate.

As prussia is who I intend to take on.

delablake

12-06-2008, 14:47

Pinxit

12-06-2008, 16:44

As Austria, I have 7 preeminent goals:

1)Crush whoever soils the Balkans, wipe out Venice and rule the Adriatic
2)Stave off the pagan Prussians until Silesia is heavily fortified, then counter-attack
3)Carry the Cross to the infidels in Costantinople/Istambul
4)Chop up the Orthodox Russkies
5)Bribe the Pope for moral support
6)Marry, marry, marry, bring young ripe princesses and their dowries into my folds
7)Hope nobody realizes what's lurking in the Alps until it's too late

Since I will be playing as Sweden my goal is pretty much set up for me by history. Survive The Great Northern War. Who knows what will happen after that. I will most likely focus on surrounding the Baltic Sea with my borders. The danes and the norwegians might have to step aside, as will Russia... Besides, if Sweden covers the entire scandinavian peninsula, I am most likely the most powerfull country out there. At that point I might focus on becoming dominant in the Atlantic and conquering colonies.

Ishmael

12-07-2008, 12:17

As Austria, I have 7 preeminent goals:
.....
5)Bribe the Pope for moral support
.....

hmm..."Bribe the Pope"..."moral support".....is it just me thats picking up a discrepancy in the logic here?

Pinxit

12-07-2008, 15:26

hmm..."Bribe the Pope"..."moral support".....is it just me thats picking up a discrepancy in the logic here?

That was kind of fun, yes. In this case I would actually consider bribing the Pope to be a moral act.

Seamus Fermanagh

12-09-2008, 03:07

I don't think tactics have changed all that much over the last 5 millenia. There are endless variants, but it basicly boils down to Patton's summary:

"Hold 'em by the nose, then kick them in the...."

Sheogorath

12-09-2008, 04:07

Megas Methuselah

12-09-2008, 05:59

Heh heh. Look at the disgraceful level we're reducing ouselves to while waiting in anticipation for the next preview or video. It's insanity. :clown:

B-DogKY

12-12-2008, 11:28

Seamus,
Your sig is incorrect. The Morrison line is "five TO one, baby, one in five". It's 2 seperate statistics. But rock on for having it in your sig at all!

Spookybear

12-17-2008, 00:09

CTRL-A

Click on Enemy

Victory

This has worked thus far, 70% of time. I am hopeful it will change in ETW, but we will see. I give MTW 2 credit, because the enemy finally countered charge, but still CTRL A pretty will did the trick. Hopefully this time with formations, battle lines, and entrenched positions, this will not be the case. Then again seeing is believing.

Oh well I just watched a video from CA

They said

"Don't play E:TW as you played any previous TW game, you will simply loose"

And as we nearly don't have any info regarding the units etc. it'll be hard to figure out tactics... :P

Megas Methuselah

12-17-2008, 02:42

And as we nearly don't have any info regarding the units etc. it'll be hard to figure out tactics... :P

Well, we could study history and use tactics that were popular during this era. But I'm too lazy...

Polemists

12-17-2008, 09:42

"Don't play E:TW as you played any previous TW game, you will simply loose"

Believe it when I see it, keep in mind these are the same people who said don't play MTW2 the way you played RTW or you will lose. Which while playing like rome may have slightly hindred you it was hardly DRASTIC. Yes the AI used ranged weapons more, and yes the AI counter charged, but you could still use the basic rush all to win most battles.

I've seen the videos, despite the few screenshots of volleyfire exchanges, the videos have alot of infantry charging, calvary charging, duels, etc. I am all for infantry charging....tactically. I just think there should be some factions (England, France, maybe Prussia) who would win more through volley fire exchanges and some factions who it would make sense to do the horde charge thing (Russia, etc)

Since you can garrison inside buildings, and put up your own fortifications, I assume these two aspects will alleviate the old charge mentality.

That said, the longbowmen of mtw2 had spikes, and they never seemed that useful :no:

Sir Beane

12-17-2008, 21:41

Believe it when I see it, keep in mind these are the same people who said don't play MTW2 the way you played RTW or you will lose. Which while playing like rome may have slightly hindred you it was hardly DRASTIC. Yes the AI used ranged weapons more, and yes the AI counter charged, but you could still use the basic rush all to win most battles.

I've seen the videos, despite the few screenshots of volleyfire exchanges, the videos have alot of infantry charging, calvary charging, duels, etc. I am all for infantry charging....tactically. I just think there should be some factions (England, France, maybe Prussia) who would win more through volley fire exchanges and some factions who it would make sense to do the horde charge thing (Russia, etc)

Since you can garrison inside buildings, and put up your own fortifications, I assume these two aspects will alleviate the old charge mentality.

That said, the longbowmen of mtw2 had spikes, and they never seemed that useful :no:

Spikes and longbows were useful in the right situations(such as stuck in front of a city gate.)

I think the reasons the videos are melee heavy is because melee combat makes for more dramatic, dynamic video. It might also be to soothe all of the fans who are up in arms about the period being nothing but 'men in lines shooting till one side falls down'.

geala

12-18-2008, 08:42

My tactics will be simple: keep the enemy busy with infantry, move some infantry and artillery to concentrate fire to a certain spot, charge the weakened units with heavy cavalry. It's more or less the same I use in EB because it's imho the way combat is fought since the invention of war. The niceties must be judged after release.

@ Polemists: Austria/Hungary had the best light cavalry in Europe imho. (Maybe together with Russia, I cannot appraise.) The Prussians suffered very much from it in a war of attrition and tried to create a similar force of it's own. And in the 1. Silesian War Austrian heavy cavalry was also clearly better than their Prussian counterparts.

Fisherking

12-18-2008, 10:56

I am guessing that I will play the Road To Independence first. With that, in taking on the British I want to try about a three to one mix of Rifle Militia and Regular Line Infantry with Bayonets.

I want to see how much skirmishing riflemen can whittle down the opposition before engaging them with the regulars. Of course I might have some dragoons and a few cannon in the mix but that is the basic tactical experiment that I want to try.

Pinxit

12-18-2008, 14:25

Fisherking

12-18-2008, 16:32

@Pinxit

Sorry if it was unclear due to the differences in use of certain words but “taking on” in this case meant going against the British with the Americans.

Pinxit

12-18-2008, 18:03

@Pinxit

Sorry if it was unclear due to the differences in use of certain words but “taking on” in this case meant going against the British with the Americans.

Yes, I am aware of that. Im simply asking if CA enables the players to play as the British against the Americans? In the Road to Independence campaign, ofcourse. Will I be able to stop the Americans from gaining independence?

Martok

12-18-2008, 18:35

Yes, I am aware of that. Im simply asking if CA enables the players to play as the British against the Americans? In the Road to Independence campaign, ofcourse. Will I be able to stop the Americans from gaining independence?
I've been wondering this as well. My hunch is that no, we won't be able to play as the British, but I would dearly love to be wrong about that. ~:)

Fisherking

12-19-2008, 09:14

Sir Beane

12-20-2008, 21:45

I think that may be something for the main campaign. Road to Independence is a kind of tutorial campaign on the one hand and from what I gather it is scripted a bit and jumps in time, so I am not sure that it is desirable that you be able to play as the Brits…at least in the first go around. Who knows if something gets unlocked when you win it.

Once some of these great Moders get started though, all bets are off!

I can see it now! Massive Indian Coalitions! Jamestown flattened as Coalition drive massive bison herd to the sea! ROFLOL! Elephants lookout the bison are attacking!

I'd like to see a mod that makes it possible to play from the point of view of Britain, or one of the Native factions. (Assuming of course that this is not going to be in the game anyway.)

It would be nice to be able to change history a little and stop the United States from ever forming, or forming a United States made up of allied Native tribes!

Fisherking

12-20-2008, 22:17

I'd like to see a mod that makes it possible to play from the point of view of Britain, or one of the Native factions. (Assuming of course that this is not going to be in the game anyway.)

It would be nice to be able to change history a littl eand stop the United States from ever forming, or forming a United States made up of allied Native tribes!

You bet it would! And as the moders usually have the unlock codes ready almost before you can get the game installed, it is something to try early on.

It may take them a week or two for them to allow some technology transfers for the Tribes depending on how the game is set up but I am sure there will be a mod or two where you can for instance, take the Comanche and conquer Mexico, build a fleet and start a good naval war, or something along those lines.

The trouble is you just don’t know how they are going to handle the Native Americans. They were very susceptible to diseases brought from Europe and once their number were low then they ceased to be quite the obstacle they had been in the centuries before. If this is reflected in the game, by the end of the 1700s you won’t have much of a chance to rival the Europeans…but early on you might have a chance.

On the other hand if they make them weaker in combat power you may never have that opportunity.

Of course that can be moded too and from the early articles CA had said that this will be the easiest game yet to mod. But then again that is a relative issue.

Fisherking

12-23-2008, 11:37

A Naval Tactic I want to try: using four or so heavy frigates or razees against a slightly stronger fleet. I will not deploy in line, after all, CA has said that you will loose if you don’t deploy in line. In stead I will scatter and try to bring them in and rake the enemy line and then retreat out of range before they can bring their guns to bare. The AI will obviously be going for one ship at a time with its line, so when they go for one I attack with another.

If it doesn’t work it is okay, I just go with more and better ships but frigates have the speed to avoid combat with liners and this my be a route to cheaper more versatile fleet. I wouldn’t try it on 6 first rates though. Sometimes discretion really is the better part of valor.

What do some of you more experienced admirals think?

Oleander Ardens

12-25-2008, 14:58

Clausewitz and Jomini have a lot of relevant tactics for the game. Strategy is best learned by Clausewitz and Sun Tzu. Totalwar games are of course simplistic, but so is chess and a battle against a good human player will be a great challenge.

In Naval battles it will be very interesting to see how important the topography of the sea (currents, riffs, land) and the weather itself are. The properties of the ships (speed relative to the wind, maneuverability), their pieces (range, weight, rate of fire) and their crew (size, morale, skill) are decisive.

So if first rates have with their heavy pieces operated by large crews the great range and terrific firepower they should I think it will difficult to do them much harm with frigates, as long the AI is decent.

Fisherking

12-26-2008, 12:06

In Naval battles it will be very interesting to see how important the topography of the sea (currents, riffs, land) and the weather itself are. The properties of the ships (speed relative to the wind, maneuverability), their pieces (range, weight, rate of fire) and their crew (size, morale, skill) are decisive.

So if first rates have with their heavy pieces operated by large crews the great range and terrific firepower they should I think it will difficult to do them much harm with frigates, as long the AI is decent.

I do so much enjoy these discussions.:2thumbsup:

The thing about Heavy Frigates and Razees is that their gun compliment was of heavier caliber higher up on the ships than the Ships of the line. That enabled them to have more firepower at longer range than the larger ships.

While I would never close on an undamaged SOL I do think that a small squadron could for the most part do them serious damage from long range.

I can not find much data on the gun ranges. We know that the large Carronades were short range low velocity pieces. The data I did find stated that the long 24#s could shoot about a mile at max elevation (long shot) but there max effective range was deemed at 1200 yards/meters. 18# and 24#s seem to have also been used as chasers, leading me to the conclusion that these were the most accurate and longest ranged of the guns.

With four or so ships staying out of range until a favorable opportunity presents it self for a rake or transom shot I think you could give the larger more powerful, but slower fleet a real run for their money. Especially in heavy seas!

As I said it is something I would like to try. It may prove totally unsuitable but to me it is worth the investigation.:holmes:

Sir Beane

12-26-2008, 12:40

I do so much enjoy these discussions.:2thumbsup:

The thing about Heavy Frigates and Razees is that their gun compliment was of heavier caliber higher up on the ships than the Ships of the line. That enabled them to have more firepower at longer range than the larger ships.

While I would never close on an undamaged SOL I do think that a small squadron could for the most part do them serious damage from long range.

I can not find much data on the gun ranges. We know that the large Carronades were short range low velocity pieces. The data I did find stated that the long 24#s could shoot about a mile at max elevation (long shot) but there max effective range was deemed at 1200 yards/meters. 18# and 24#s seem to have also been used as chasers, leading me to the conclusion that these were the most accurate and longest ranged of the guns.

With four or so ships staying out of range until a favorable opportunity presents it self for a rake or transom shot I think you could give the larger more powerful, but slower fleet a real run for their money. Especially in heavy seas!

As I said it is something I would like to try. It may prove totally unsuitable but to me it is worth the investigation.:holmes:

Excellent information!

My take on Frigates vs. SOL's is that frigates should be able to win against an SOL given the right combination of circumstances and player skill.

In most conditions Frigates could travel faster and turn faster than a SOL, this sort of manoeverability should in theory allow a group of them to beat a more heavily armed SOL (I love that acronym, so easy!) by forcing the larger ship to fire broadsides at disadvantageous positions.

By using quick turns, good timing and feints and a lot of luck a group of frigates shuold be able to goad an enemy ship into firing at them at innefective ranges or angles where they can then quickly close in and fire a broadside during the time it takes to reload and prime another broadside.

If the frigate captains have any sense they could also use chain shot to cripple the masts and sails of the SOL to further increase the advantage they have in turning and speed. Of course this tactic works both ways, since the SOL could use its superior firepower to cut down the frigate's sail.

This kind of tactic would be difficult to pull off and require horrendous amounts of micromanagement, it would probably only work in small scale engagements as well. It would however be exactly the sort of thing worth experimenting with so you can show it off in multiplayer :laugh4:

Like Fisherking I want to experiment to find unorthodox tactics that are not obvious, and then use them to crush my foes. (human or A.I)

I'm very much a naval commander at heart :laugh4:

Ishmael

12-27-2008, 10:04

Sheogorath

12-27-2008, 10:11

ok folks-historically, if both sides has a lot of artillery (in a land battle), did the artillery try to take each other out, or did they tend to ignore the other side's arty and just go for the infantry?

It would generally depend on the battle and positioning of artillery.

However, up until Napoleonic times, artillery tended to be a bit lonesome on the field. The idea of the 'Grand Battery' (whether French or Russian) only came about in the late 1700's, so prior to that large concentrations of cannon would be pretty rare.

But, either way, I understand that it was preferable to capture cannons, sort of like taking an eagle or a regimental banner. You could drag them home and mount them in front of your barracks, or use them, depending on the situation.

So, I'd say that, at regular ranges, it would be unlikely to see 'artillery duels' in the 1700's. Cannons just weren't accurate enough to hit specific targets behind the lines, so a few 'potshots' when the chance presented itself might be made, but I would imagine they would stick to the convenient targets...like large masses of infantry in dense formation.

The development of a 'grand battery' gives artillery a bigger target in the enemies artillery which, IMO, makes the occurrence of 'artillery duels' more likely.

I am, of course, only speculating on this. Anybody with actual records is welcome to present them :P

Fisherking

12-27-2008, 11:18

ok folks-historically, if both sides has a lot of artillery (in a land battle), did the artillery try to take each other out, or did they tend to ignore the other side's arty and just go for the infantry?

In all likelihood the first time Counter Battery fire took place was the first time artillery showed up on both sides of the field. (think rocks if you will)

The 1650 book by Kazimierz Siemienowicz "Artis Magnae Artilleriae pars prima" was one of the most important contemporary publications on the subject of artillery. For over two centuries this work was used in Europe as a basic artillery manual. If you can find it you might get your answer.

Believe it or not artillery fell out of fashion after the musket became widely used. As Sheogorath points out it was a prize to capture and it was deemed too vulnerable to the charge, and too difficult to lug around.

Frederick II of Prussia developed the first real light artillery, and as stated Napoleon developed and perfected massed battery fire. He used it as preparatory fires before the attack.

CBR

12-27-2008, 16:52

The thing about Heavy Frigates and Razees is that their gun compliment was of heavier caliber higher up on the ships than the Ships of the line. That enabled them to have more firepower at longer range than the larger ships.

While I would never close on an undamaged SOL I do think that a small squadron could for the most part do them serious damage from long range.

Height of gundecks has very little to do with range of guns as they could change the elevation of guns. IIRC Nelson judged it took 3 frigates to equal or have a chance at outfighting a SOL.

ok folks-historically, if both sides has a lot of artillery (in a land battle), did the artillery try to take each other out, or did they tend to ignore the other side's arty and just go for the infantry?
Yes, especially the heavier guns ("battery pieces") and howitzers would engage in such a role. The lighter guns ("battalion pieces") would be more for local support.

CBR

Fisherking

12-27-2008, 17:08

Height of gundecks has very little to do with range of guns as they could change the elevation of guns. IIRC Nelson judged it took 3 frigates to equal or have a chance at outfighting a SOL.

CBR

Ah! But it surely does if the seas are not perfectly calm. It was often impossible for the three dickers to open their lower gun ports. Having the heavier guns where they could be of use in other than calm weather would make a big difference.

I may not have made that line of thought clear in my original post.

Even with a larger ship, if they could only fight with 12#ers or less, who do you think has the advantage?

Oleander Ardens

12-27-2008, 17:08

I can not find much data on the gun ranges. We know that the large Carronades were short range low velocity pieces. The data I did find stated that the long 24#s could shoot about a mile at max elevation (long shot) but there max effective range was deemed at 1200 yards/meters. 18# and 24#s seem to have also been used as chasers, leading me to the conclusion that these were the most accurate and longest ranged of the guns.

IMHO

a) Given that manpower set a practical limit to the size and weight of the cannons
b) Given that at certain stage the large amount powder needed to propel a large cannonball to a high velocity and thus long range would require very stable and thus very thick barrels and thus very heavy guns
c) Given that momentum is the key to penetration power a larger cannonball is generally more effective than a smaller ball
d) Given that space is a very limiting factor on a ship.

we can assume that were "sweet spots" of calibers which combined large momentum, good accuracy with long range and good rate of fire while still being managable by the crews. The design of the gun decks and the dimensions of this "sweet" calibers influenced each other.

P.S: Cannons with long barrels were more efficient and accurate than shorter cannons, but more awkward to handle and slower to reload. It would certainly make sense to create fast, stable ships with relatively few, but heavy and longranged guns for raiding, small skirmishes and independent actions.

In a new SOL such a change would make far less sense, because new ships had to fit into the existing strategies used with the existing ships. A SOL was also expected to enable proficient close combat, where a high ROF from many guns was more important than longrange power and accuracy. So it should have been subject to more compromise than a heavy frigate.

CBR

12-27-2008, 17:38

Ah! But it surely does if the seas are not perfectly calm. It was often impossible for the three dickers to open their lower gun ports. Having the heavier guns where they could be of use in other than calm weather would make a big difference.

Even with a larger ship, if they could only fight with 12#ers or less, who do you think has the advantage?
Yes in bad weather the lowest gundeck could not be used. But the big SOL's still had 24 pounders on the deck above and the smaller 74's had 18 pounders. A heavy frigate or razee were still lighter ships with thinner hull so even if it could use heavier guns the actual difference in fighting power would be less than if just comparing 24 versus 18 pounders.

CBR

Fisherking

12-27-2008, 17:58

Yes in bad weather the lowest gundeck could not be used. But the big SOL's still had 24 pounders on the deck above and the smaller 74's had 18 pounders. A heavy frigate or razee were still lighter ships with thinner hull so even if it could use heavier guns the actual difference in fighting power would be less than if just comparing 24 versus 18 pounders.

CBR

As to hull thickness you could be right. I did find it interesting that the Heavy Frigates carried about the same number of 24#s as the First Rates.

As I said earlier I intend it as a tactical experiment. Seldom did two Heavy Frigates work together. I would just love to see what a squadron of them could do.

CBR

12-27-2008, 18:13

As to hull thickness you could be right. I did find it interesting that the Heavy Frigates carried about the same number of 24#s as the First Rates.

As I said earlier I intend it as a tactical experiment. Seldom did two Heavy Frigates work together. I would just love to see what a squadron of them could do.
They had pretty much same length as a SOL so they had the room. The biggest problem was if they could carry the weight of such gun because it added a lot of stress to the deck. That was the problem for the French when they experimented with their 24# heavy frigates. Even SOL's had trouble as some were given 36# that really were too heavy for them.

USS Constellation started out with 24# but it seems that was reduced to 18# later on. Wiki mentions trouble with top weight so that might have been the problem.

I have tried frigates versus SOL's both in the board/miniature game "Close Action" and Age of Sail 2. It's not easy but it can be done, just expect some damaged ships heh.

CBR

Fisherking

12-27-2008, 18:39

Somewhere I ran across a class of early American Sloops of war that carried only a few guns, but one was a 42# long tom on a pivet mount.:dizzy2:

I guess on a trans atlantic crossing, that ship showing up at noon every day, firing a shot and running, it may dammage a ship or two.:clown:

Oleander Ardens

12-27-2008, 18:47

Well, even Razees and heavy frigates were not built (or modified) to take down third or even second-rate SOL. They were designed to counter enemy frigates in small skrimishes or duels or to scout for larger formations.

I have a question: How did the range and momentum of the 32 and 36-pounders stand up to the 24 pounders?

If the relative amount of powder (and the lenght of the barrel as the quality of the gun) was similar to the ratio used for the 24 pounders both practical range and momentum must have been far superior. Even with fewer powder the momentum was certainly higher. This explains also why the naval powers tried to outfit the decks of new ships with the heaviest possible caliber, sometimes going over the top.

Elmar Bijlsma

12-27-2008, 19:09

The increase of firepower between 24pdr and 32-36 was relatively marginal. A 24pdr would smash almost anything on it's path anyway. Though I don't doubt for shooting away thick masts the big guns had an edge.
But SOL were not required to only fight ships. In a shore action the bigger guns would be of significant advantage over smaller cannon against fortified gun batteries, both in stand off range and effect on target.

Fisherking

12-27-2008, 20:03

@Oleander Ardens

The best I could do was for the 24 lb.ers

It came from here.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/sail-armament.htm

Cannon
In ships of war, the cannon of the lower-decks are usually drawn into the ship during the course of an expedition at sea, unless when they are used in battle. They are secured by lowering the breech so as that the muzzle shall bear against the upper-edge of the port, after which the two parts of the breeching are firmly braced together by a rope which crosses them between the front of the carriage and the port; which operation is called frapping the breeching. The tackles are then securely fastened about it with several turns of the rope extended from the tackle and breeching, over the chase of the cannon.
The advantage of large cannon over those of a smaller bore is so generally acknowledged, that a particular discussion of it might perhaps be spared. The most important advantage of heavy bullets is this, that with the same velocity they break holes out in all solid bodies in a greater proportion than their weight that is, for instance, a twenty-four pound shot will, with the same velocity, break out a hole in any wall, rampart, or solid beam, in which it lodges, above eight times larger than will be made by a three pound shot; for it's diameter being double, it will make a superficial fracture above four times as great as the three-pounder, (more of a smaller hole being closed up by the springing of the solid body than of a great one) and it will penetrate to more than twice the depth; by this means the firmest walls of masonry are easily cut through their whole substance by heavy shot, which could never be affected by those of a smaller caliber; and in ships the strongest beams and masts are hereby fractured, which a very great number of small bullets would scarcely injure.
To this last advantage of large cannon, which is indeed a capital one, there must be that of carrying the weight of their bullet in grape or lead shot, and thereby annoying the enemy more effectually than could be done by ten times the number of small pieces.
These are the principal advantages of large cannon, and hence it is no wonder that those entrusted with the care of the British navy have always endeavoured to arm all ships with the largest cannon they could with safety bear; and indeed, great improvements were made on this head, by reducing the weight of many of the species of cannon, and thereby enabling the same ships to carry guns of a larger bore: and, very lately, the six-pounders in some of the smaller ships have been changed for nine-pounders of a larger fabric than usual, which hath been justly esteemed a very great addition to the strength of those ships.
The importance then of allotting to all ships the largest cannon they can with safety bear being granted, it remains to show on what foundation a change is proposed to be made in the fabric of all pieces from eighteen pounders downwards, so that they may be changed for others of the same, or less weight, but of a larger bore.

The 24-pound guns each required a gun team of 6-14 men to operate and weighed about 5600 pounds. They are called 24-pounders because they fired a cannonball that weighed 24 pounds. Although the solid 24 pound shot is what was commonly used, the guns could be loaded with a combination of projectiles. The long gun possessed one great advantage: it could far outrange the carronade, and if well operated had a chance of crippling the enemy before coming to close quarters.
The normal gunpowder charge used for these guns was six pounds and their maximum range was about one mile at maximum elevation, but due to inaccuracy at that range this was literally a "long shot." The maximum effective range of a 24-pounder was about 1200 yards. The usual engagement range, however, was much closer. CONSTITUTION engaged HMS Guerriere in 1812 at about 25 to 50 yards. At this range CONSTITUTION's guns could do terrible damage, with her cannonballs penetrating over two feet of oak planking.
The 32-pounder Navy gun [length 112 inches, 57 hundredweight] was intended service was on first class frigates and ships of the line. A total of 744 smoothbore guns of this type were manufactured at five different foundries from 1846 to 1852.
_____________________________________________________________

I can not find the site again but it said that point blank range (0° elevation) was just short of 300 yards with an 8lb charge. It listed max range at 10° elevation (the max) at about 2700 yards and went on to say that because of inaccuracy guns were seldom fired above 4° elevation.

CBR

12-29-2008, 18:12

I have a question: How did the range and momentum of the 32 and 36-pounders stand up to the 24 pounders?
When it comes to actual values for penetrating wood I have found various values which overall is 50/50 confusing and enlightening. Some suggest a linear increase from velocity and others closer to the square of velocity. If penetrating wood resembles the physics behind steel plate then one solid oak plank of say 12 inches is stronger than 2 planks of 6 inches each. That might have something to do with the different test numbers I have seen.

Apparently some US test from the IIRC 1820's showed that a 24 pounder could penetrate a SOL up to 700 yards but not beyond. The hull thickness of a SOL would be around 2-2.5 feet and I have seen 1.5 feet for standard frigates and 1.75 feet for USS Constitution (with extra strong oak used) The heavier guns seems to have a penetration of 4-5 feet at around 100 yards or so.

At least there is some physics we can be pretty sure of, and that is the relative difference in penetration based on difference in caliber. That same relative difference also works with ballistic coefficient.

I have converted the diameters of various gun weights with the 6# set at 1. Note that this is UK pounds exept the 36# French gun that is more like 39 UK pounds. The numbers in the brackets are the difference squared to show the overall surface area of a hole. An attempt of showing number or size of splinters.

6# 1 [1]
9# 1.15 [1.31]
12# 1.27 [1.59]
18# 1.44 [2.1]
24# 1.59 [2.52]
32# 1.75 [3.05]
36# 1.87 [3.48]

So a (French) 36# should have 1.87 times the penetration of a 6# at equal velocity. It will also move 1.87 times further before losing the same velocity compared to a 6#. For the 36# versus 24# difference it would be 1.87/1.59=1.18 and it might be able to penetrate a SOL at 900-1000 yards (if we base it on the US test)

There also seems to be an odd effect with penetrating wood, as the best way of producing lots of splinters was to have a shot with just enough velocity to penetrate. If it moved fast it would just make a neat hole. I don't know how to explain that except maybe that the violent(fast) impact would push wood more to the side, while the slow impact would be better at pushing the wood forward.

CBR

Sheogorath

12-29-2008, 19:38

http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/Russian_artillery.htm

Under 'Equipment', if you search there are a few ranges listed.

For instance:

The maximum firing range for ½ pood unicorn was 2300 m, and for ¼ pood - 1500 m.

A 'pood' is an old Russian unit of measurement equivalent to 16.4kg or 36 pounds.

A 'Unicorn' was a Russian artillery piece which was essentially halfway between a howitzer and a regular cannon. While apparently regarded as superior to howitzers, they were pretty unique to the Russian army.

Some searching in the other artillery sections should find some sources for ranges as well.

Of course, this is mostly intended as a resource for Napoleonic-era stuff, but given that the idea of a 'bronze/iron tube' doesn't change that much until rifling and breech loading become common, the information should still be relevant.

EDIT:

Ah-HAH!

http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/artillery_tactics.htm

Fisherking

12-29-2008, 20:12

Good find CBR

To me the splinter action sounds like the spalling effect. The spall knocked lose from the inside when a round does not penetrate a solid surface but strikes it with sufficient force.

The first six American Frigates were not only made from a couple of kinds of Super Oak not available to European ship builders, the wood was also treated in a special solution to impart more toughness and elasticity.

Rather than make the tables I will allow you to look up the mechanical properties of the woods.
Quercus bicolor (swamp white oak)
Quercus virginiana (live oak)

Quercus Robur (European Oak)

I know about the solution only because the last of it and the treated wood was found at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, in a tank in the still undisclosed solution, under a building, stored there god knows how long. (It was founded in the 1850s) The wood was very much needed for the overhaul of the Constitution and that is where it went.
(from what I got the stuff is still classified):laugh4:

The US tests were in all likelihood tested against Quercus alba (American white oak)
The penetration in Quercus Robur would be greater I would imagine.

:book:

Oleander Ardens

12-29-2008, 21:14

Good info here.

I will try to frame the discussion by using elementar physics. I use snippets of Wikipedia here.

We really need just two major equations here plus some little deduction skills

Drag equation

In fluid dynamics, the drag equation is a practical formula used to calculate the force of drag experienced by an object due to a fluid that it is moving through. The equation is attributed to Lord Rayleigh, who originally used L2 in place of A (with L being some linear dimension). The force on a moving object due to a fluid is:

Fd = (-1/2) p V^2 Cd A

where

Fd is the force of drag, which is by definition the force component in the direction of the flow velocity,[1]
ρ is the mass density of the fluid, [2]
v is the velocity of the object relative to the fluid,
A is the reference area, and
Cd is the drag coefficient — a dimensionless constant, e.g. 0.5-0.7 for a sphere

Momentum

p = m v

where p is the momentum, m is the mass and v is the velocity

Thoughts

Let us assume now that every long gun accelerates their projectile to a common velocity x. The Cd factor, the density of the air are also identic.

We know also that:

1 pound = 453.59237 grams
The density of cast iron grey is 7150 kg/m³

24 pounder: weight 24 pounds (10,87kg), volume 0.0015 m3, area (need to calculate the root)

Anyway it is easy that given that shape and density are equal what matters is the weight of the shot. The 36 pounder has a far batter relationship between mass and area (in the drag equation) than the 24 pounder, thus retaining momentum during the flight far better. So while it starts with a hefty advantage in momentum while leaving the barrel this increases through the flight with every meter covered. Thus it can effectively engage a ship from a far longer range, accuracy permitting.

I will comment on the other factors (grapeshots, splintering) later

Sir Beane

12-29-2008, 21:22

This discussion quickly took a turn to the technical :laugh4:

If things get any more complicated you'll be in danger of losing me (I fall asleep at the mere sight of equations, being an English student.)

I have a nagging feeling that whatever facts and figures the historians and physicists in this thread come up with, Empire will use a much less accurate model.

As for Friagtes vs. SOL's. I'm guessing Frigates will fair much better in-game than they may have done in real life. Judging by comments and things so far the guys at CA seem to have a soft spot for the Frigate, I wouldn't be suprised if they erred on the generous side when implementing its stats.

Fisherking

12-29-2008, 21:37

I have a nagging feeling that whatever facts and figures the historians and physicists in this thread come up with, Empire will use a much less accurate model.

As for Friagtes vs. SOL's. I'm guessing Frigates will fair much better in-game than they may have done in real life. Judging by comments and things so far the guys at CA seem to have a soft spot for the Frigate, I wouldn't be suprised if they erred on the generous side when implementing its stats.

You could be right…

I saw one of the articles where an American 44 gun took on the line ahead of its mates. I think they said they sank one and boarded the ship that rammed them…a 64 I think it was!

I don’t think I would have played it so bold. Especially when it came to boarding a larger ship. Even with help on the way it sounds a bit too daring to me.

I would rather have a just rating than a superman unit…just do them justice.
:inquisitive:

Sir Beane

12-30-2008, 00:28

Since there will be a lot less naval units than land units I think we can expect more accurate and better balanced navies. Atleast I hope we can.

Another unit that might end up as a super unit would be roket ships. They seem to be mentioned a lot in previews at least.

CBR

12-30-2008, 01:42

This discussion quickly took a turn to the technical :laugh4:
Hm yes I guess my post opened a can of worms...

I have a nagging feeling that whatever facts and figures the historians and physicists in this thread come up with, Empire will use a much less accurate model.
In the end it is impossible to get into too much detail anyway. There was a variance in gunpowder quality, density of shot and even different length of guns that rarely are recorded anywhere.

People back then seems to have focused primarily on overall weight of a broadside and that is also what some miniature rulesets are doing. With some minor multipliers for smaller guns and shorter range for carronades, is a fair aproximation of overall firepower for a ship. Of course a computer game does allow for more advanced stuff under the hood.

Although naval combat seems to be the thing that CA, fans and reviewers rave on about the most, it is my opinion that land combat will still be the bread and butter of Total War as naval combat just won't have the same tactical complexity. Neither uber frigates nor rocket ships are gonna change that.

CBR

Lorenzo_H

12-30-2008, 13:17

CBR

12-30-2008, 13:35

I want to know, for land battles:

Will you have to tell units when to fire? This will make managing large amounts of infantry fiendishly difficult.

Will (otherwise equally matched) infantry engagements simply be decided by whoever opens fire first?
I doubt it will be different from older titles. There might be some kind of fire button so you can pick the precise moment to fire when you want to hold fire until enemy gets very close, but you could do that before too with fire at will off.

If everything is equal then the side who losses men first will not produce as many losses when he fires back. But it depends on % of losses from such a salvo and the randomness of hits.

CBR

Sir Beane

12-30-2008, 15:00

I want to know, for land battles:

Will you have to tell units when to fire? This will make managing large amounts of infantry fiendishly difficult.

Will (otherwise equally matched) infantry engagements simply be decided by whoever opens fire first?

CA have confirmed that there will be a 'fire' button as part of the UI that lets you choose the exact moment your units fill the enemy with holes.

Remember the old saying. Don't shoot until you can see the whites of their eyes!

Oleander Ardens

12-30-2008, 15:23

In the end it is impossible to get into too much detail anyway. There was a variance in gunpowder quality, density of shot and even different length of guns that rarely are recorded anywhere.

True enough. But as every gun was suscitable to such variances things even out among the calibers. Personally I think that the barrel of larger guns was (caliber-wise) relatively shorter than the one of smaller guns. They might haver used also rather relatively less powder to propel the shots. But still the momentum of a 36 would have been vastly superior to a 24.

People back then seems to have focused primarily on overall weight of a broadside and that is also what some miniature rulesets are doing. With some minor multipliers for smaller guns and shorter range for carronades, is a fair aproximation of overall firepower for a ship. Of course a computer game does allow for more advanced stuff under the hood.

Are carronades even in? So far I haven't seen them.

You could be right…

I saw one of the articles where an American 44 gun took on the line ahead of its mates. I think they said they sank one and boarded the ship that rammed them…a 64 I think it was!

It might have been the USS Constitution, which in reality was of course clearly outclassed by a SOL with 64 pieces unless in heavy waters. Perhaps CA has decided to paint things brightly, for all the colonials here :yes:

Sir Beane

12-30-2008, 15:28

It might have been the USS Constitution, which in reality was of course clearly outclassed by a SOL with 64 pieces unless in heavy waters. Perhaps CA has decided to paint things in a fashion more agreeable for all the colonials here :yes:

I have to admit this is one of my worst fears about Empire. Given how CA have favoured the popular factions in the past (Romans in Rome for instance), I'm worried that they might get a little carried away and give the US really fancy units with little basis in fact.

I can certainly CA the Colonies getting rediculously superior frigates and probably one or two units of sniping skirmishers that will have your generals head off before he can give the first orders.

Of course since CA are English and Britain was pretty big at the time I can see the same thing happening with them, but at least Britian did historically take a huge section of the world.

It's a bit too early for the Thirteen Colonies to be a real superpower.

CBR

12-30-2008, 16:54

True enough. But as every gun was suscitable to such variances things even out among the calibers. Personally I think that the barrel of larger guns was (caliber-wise) relatively shorter than the one of smaller guns. They might haver used also rather relatively less powder to propel the shots. But still the momentum of a 36 would have been vastly superior to a 24.
Yes the general differences in gunpowder would even things out. But there are also national differences as well as improvements throughout the century. There is too little information to produce a precise difference in penetration between year 1700 and 1800, if there even was any.

And yes I do think smaller guns overall had longer barrels but especially for the smaller guns there were several versions and there appears to be very few records that tells us what barrel length a certain ship used at a given time.

A 36# would be better than a 24# but what if you are within a range where both can penetrate then how much better is it? Sure it has 50% more energy at identical velocity but does it produce an average of 50% more casualties and gun dismounts? Carronades did not have same velocity and energy but enough to penetrate at shorter ranges. At such ranges the regular guns could be double or even tripple shotted.

If one looks at surface area of a hole then a 36# has a 31% larger hole than a 24# and that might be a better indicator for casualties.

So there will the advantage of range for heavy guns where smaller guns might not penetrate at all, but also at ranges where not many hits were achieved, to short ranges where the difference in weight might not be the best way of looking at the true effect from hits.

Are carronades even in? So far I haven't seen them.
I don't even know if ships in ETW use different gun sizes so maybe they don't bother with carronades.

CBR

Fisherking

12-30-2008, 20:02

I have to admit this is one of my worst fears about Empire. Given how CA have favoured the popular factions in the past (Romans in Rome for instance), I'm worried that they might get a little carried away and give the US really fancy units with little basis in fact.

I can certainly CA the Colonies getting rediculously superior frigates and probably one or two units of sniping skirmishers that will have your generals head off before he can give the first orders.

Of course since CA are English and Britain was pretty big at the time I can see the same thing happening with them, but at least Britian did historically take a huge section of the world.

It's a bit too early for the Thirteen Colonies to be a real superpower.

I wouldn’t worry.
I was half hoping to see the Ferguson Rifles in the SF edition, but they were not there…they could be in the game none the less…and they were British. Tech Tree maybe?

American Riflemen may be a pain for the British but they were militia and lacked bayonets so the best method against them is to charge with what ever you have…so far as I know. Native American rifles my be a different issue as they could have a higher melee value, though I am not sure they should, but perhaps stronger moral…

As to the American Frigates, they were extremely tough opponents and technologically advanced for their time, but taking on a 3rd rate or better would have been foolish.

I doubt that CA will take the wood used in these ships into consideration but at the time it was the difference between using regular iron and high grade steel.

from wiki
Live oak wood is hard, heavy, and difficult to work, but very strong. In the days of wooden ships, live oaks were the preferred source of the framework timbers of the ship, using the natural trunk and branch angles for their strength. The USS Constitution was constructed from Southern live oak wood harvested from St. Simons Island, Georgia, and the density of the wood grain allowed it to survive cannonade; even today the U.S. Navy owns extensive live oak tracts.

Primary materials used in her construction were # white pine, longleaf pine, white oak, and, most importantly, southern live oak, which was cut and milled at Gascoigne Bluff in St. Simons, Georgia. Southern live oak, a particularly dense wood, can weigh up to 75 lb (34 kg) per cubic foot (1,201 kg/m3). Constitution's hull was built 21 inches (530 mm) thick in an era when 18 inches (460 mm) was common. Her vertical hull ribbing was placed 2 in (51 mm) apart instead of the standard 24 in (610 mm). Her length between perpendiculars was 175 ft (53 m), with a 204 ft (62 m) length overall and a width of 45 ft 2 in (13.8 m). In total, 60 acres (24.28 ha) of trees were needed for her construction. Paul Revere forged the copper bolts and breasthooks.The copper sheathing installed to prevent shipworm was imported from England.
_____________________________________________________________

I figure the only reason they are included is because the game was first slated to end in the 1820s. They were not commissioned to be built until 1794. The American navy in the War of Independence built a few smaller frigates but was mostly privateers.

Are carronades even in? So far I haven't seen them.

I thought I saw them in one of the naval reviews…but which?:wall:

Oleander Ardens

12-31-2008, 10:38

A 36# would be better than a 24# but what if you are within a range where both can penetrate then how much better is it? Sure it has 50% more energy at identical velocity but does it produce an average of 50% more casualties and gun dismounts? Carronades did not have same velocity and energy but enough to penetrate at shorter ranges. At such ranges the regular guns could be double or even tripple shotted.

If one looks at surface area of a hole then a 36# has a 31% larger hole than a 24# and that might be a better indicator for casualties.

So there will the advantage of range for heavy guns where smaller guns might not penetrate at all, but also at ranges where not many hits were achieved, to short ranges where the difference in weight might not be the best way of looking at the true effect from hits.

Good observations. Personally I think that the difference between a 36# and a 24# is especially important in artillery duels between SOL, where the targets where plentiful, large and sturdy. The ability to shatter the hull of the ship from far further afar was therefor a great advantage. From short range the larger holes and greater splintering should have been made more than up for a slighty slower ROF.

So we can deduce that the heavy frigate was a very clever design. Usually able to outrun a SOL it was sturdy enough to make it problematic to engage it with 18# while being able to create havoc with the 24# against the light hulls of the normal frigates. Given that the colonials could not even dream to muster anytime enough SOL to be a halfaway credible threat in a decisive battle it settled for an interesting raider.

Live oak wood is hard, heavy, and difficult to work, but very strong. In the days of wooden ships, live oaks were the preferred source of the framework timbers of the ship, using the natural trunk and branch angles for their strength. The USS Constitution was constructed from Southern live oak wood harvested from St. Simons Island, Georgia, and the density of the wood grain allowed it to survive cannonade; even today the U.S. Navy owns extensive live oak tracts.

Primary materials used in her construction were # white pine, longleaf pine, white oak, and, most importantly, southern live oak, which was cut and milled at Gascoigne Bluff in St. Simons, Georgia. Southern live oak, a particularly dense wood, can weigh up to 75 lb (34 kg) per cubic foot (1,201 kg/m3). Constitution's hull was built 21 inches (530 mm) thick in an era when 18 inches (460 mm) was common. Her vertical hull ribbing was placed 2 in (51 mm) apart instead of the standard 24 in (610 mm). Her length between perpendiculars was 175 ft (53 m), with a 204 ft (62 m) length overall and a width of 45 ft 2 in (13.8 m). In total, 60 acres (24.28 ha) of trees were needed for her construction. Paul Revere forged the copper bolts and breasthooks.The copper sheathing installed to prevent shipworm was imported from England.

Very nice info.

American Riflemen may be a pain for the British but they were militia and lacked bayonets so the best method against them is to charge with what ever you have…so far as I know. Native American rifles my be a different issue as they could have a higher melee value, though I am not sure they should, but perhaps stronger moral…

I really hope that skirmishers with rifles are not too strong. Since the early 18th century Tyrolean riflemen proved to be fearsome enemies and were able to win practically every battle bar one on homesoil against the French and Bavarians. But often the terrain was ideally suited for skirmishing, being the heartland of the Western Alps. The french and bavarian line infantry of the enemy deployed often as skirmishers, driving casualities down. I really hope we can skirmish to some extent with line infantry.

Good riflemen should be important thanks to their ability to shelter from fire, speed and accuracy of fire. But the should not drop too many enemies in one volley. BTW Veteran skirmishers were sometimes even able to hold their own against cavalry, I even read about seasoned units charging cavalry with cold steel in line formations.

Fisherking

12-31-2008, 15:25

Riflemen should give you a sound advantage in range but a lower rate of fire. I don’t know about European Rifles, but the American ones being locally made lacked bayonets.

Depending on the ammunition carried they could definitely be your most powerful anti-infantry weapon while holding the line infantry in reserve until the great bayonet charge! Then perhaps they would be used as fallow on units aiding in the grand rout!

I am fairly sure that some of these tactics will prove to be ridiculously optimistic when the game gets here, but it gives us mental exercise while we wait.

Tomisama

01-05-2009, 01:13

Some things I hope you will enjoy.

BBC Animated Map: Battle of Trafalgar

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/launch_ani_trafalgar.shtml

18TH CENTURY FRENCH DRUMMING

INTRODUCTION

http://fortress.uccb.ns.ca/search/HE09-3.htm

And if you have time.

DRUMMERS IN THE GARRISON

http://fortress.uccb.ns.ca/search/HE09-12.htm

I never had any idea how important drummers were :book:

ConnMon

01-05-2009, 02:38

A quick question on the topic of how units will fire, it was stated that there will be a button to initiate firing, right? So I'm wondering if you have to keep pressing the button or will they keep firing until giving the order to stop? :help:

CBR

01-05-2009, 02:45

Fondor_Yards

01-05-2009, 07:57

You can either use the normal fire at will option, or have it so they only fire when you chose, IE a close range full barrage.

Ishmael

01-05-2009, 08:16

CBR

01-05-2009, 13:19

i think ill leave it late in a custom battle or two, simply so i can see dead horses clobbering my men (to use the CA persons example).
That said, does anybody know what a good range is to shoot on level ground? For that matter, what were the accurate ranges of the guns at the time (yes, i know thats on the site somewhere, but i cant be bothered to trawl the forum)?
In real life waiting until the enemy was within 50 meters or less you had a good chance at stopping or even routing the enemy with just one salvo. Generally the closer the better and depending on quality of unit.

But of course guns had much longer range and units could try to do a slow advance with individual platoons firing and the rest marching a bit forward, then another platoon fires etc and they would start at perhaps 200+ meters with that.

Tests of muskets showed they were not as inaccurate as some people thinks. At 50 meters range one could expect to hit a target (a badly made musket would be worse of course) and units firing at large targets could achieve hit rates of several % at 300 meters. But that was peacetime tests and there was a big difference between that and the realities of the battlefield.

CBR

Polemists

01-06-2009, 09:37

I think as another player stated it is a good system.

On the one hand, some of us don't want to have to keep clicking to fire, and on the other hand, there are advantages to holding your fire.

I assume this will be similiar to MTW with fire at will button (if you want automatic fire) a halt button (to hold fire) and probably a third button for fire.

You could do this in MTW2 you just had hit fire at will when the enemy was where you wanted them, though it wasn't as advantegous.

I'm more curious about urban assualt regarding the garrisoned buildings.

In one screenshot/video I saw a cannon shot took out a house a bunch of men were garrisoned in. While true enough, it makes me think that people will just blow up every building in sight with the cannon before entering lol.

So i'm hoping there is some damaged building mecanic or something.

Like you can garrison your men in the barrack or something, that way if enemy wants it they have to take it the hard way :wall:

pdoyle007

01-06-2009, 14:32

If you turn a house to rubble is the rubble then something to be used and hidden behind?
The 'hold fire' option would be interesting if you were garrisoning a house, wait till the enemy are walking past then 'BOOM' with a full company's worth

Polemists

01-06-2009, 14:54

Well this goes back to my urban combat idea.

I mean are we really going back to flags?

I mean it makes locating your units easy, but I hope the other side can't see the flags because how lame is that?

"Where are they hiding general?"

"Well do you see that large flag above building 4, fire your cannon at that one."

I mean i'd like to be able to do some city ambushes.

Fisherking

01-06-2009, 15:45

The game uses physical models for the gun fire. Evidently it also seems structures such as ships, buildings and walls are modeled. Whether rubble is a physical object in the game though is only a guess.

It would be great if everything is a physical object on the battlefield. That sure takes care of any line of sight, line of fire difficulties…so long as shrubs and grass don’t block fire.

It is going to be interesting to see how different ammunition effects structures and people. I am sure the Physics of the game will need to be complex to handle all the surfaces and objects there.

Ammunition is something that we have had very little discussion on. I want to see buck and ball loads for close range work! And don’t forget canister for your cannon, to stop that charge!

I surely agree that the General’s unit should not stick out like a neon sign, with a flashing SHOOT ME pointing at him. I hope everything has a hide ability to some degree. And yes even elephants, provided they have cover or concealment of some kind. It would make those scouting units useful like they were in earlier games. It is very hard to ambush an enemy if he sees where every unit is.

I am looking forward to see how it all fits together, especially with the delayed release, I would like to see some more concrete information.

Sir Beane

01-06-2009, 16:23

I think we can assume that rubble will be a physical model in game. One of the previews I read definitely stated that trees and bushes and things will be modelled.

I think we can also guarantee different kinds of ammo for your cannons, unlocked through research. I have seen it mentioned many times throughout the various previews and interviews. I would assume canister, grape shot and possibly even things like heated shot will be included in game.

I also think that ambushed and things might feature more heavily this time, given that lines of sight and fire and also cover are playing a much bigger part in the game.

I hope we can hide units in buildings only to have them pop up and catch the enemy in a deadly crossfire during a seige.

Fisherking

01-06-2009, 17:32

I know most of the CANNON ammunition will be there!

I want to see the INFANTRY ammunitions!

More from wiki:
Buck & Ball Ammunition:
round lead ball combined with three buckshot pellets
Construction
Buck and ball was issued in paper cartridges that combined the projectiles with the black powder propellant charge to facilitate rapid loading of the weapon. The buckshot would set in front of the ball, so that the ball would act as a gas seal for the buckshot. Like any other paper cartridge, the rear of the cartridge would be torn open to expose the powder, which would be loaded, and the remaining paper, balls, and buckshot would be rammed down on top.

Purpose
The intent of the buck and ball load was to combine the devastating impact of the full-size ball with the spreading pattern of a shotgun, and served to greatly improve the hit probability of the smoothbore musket used in combat, especially at closer ranges, where the buckshot would retain significant energy.
Claud E. Fuller, in his book The Rifled Musket (New York: Bonanza Books, 1958) shows tests of a rifled musket firing Minie balls, and a smoothbore musket firing round ball and buck and ball rounds at various ranges. At ranges of 200 yards (180 m) and under, the buck and ball from the smoothbore musket, while less accurate than the rifled musket, actually produces a greater number of hits due to the greater number of projectiles; 37 of 50 Minie balls, vs. 18 of 50 balls and 31 of 150 buckshot, for a total of 49 hits in 50 shots. Beyond this range, the buckshot will have lost sufficient energy to become ineffective due to its lower ballistic coefficient.

Use
Perhaps the most famous proponent of the buck and ball loading was George Washington, who encouraged his troops to load their muskets with buck and ball loads during the American Revolution. The buck and ball load was standard issue throughout the Seminole Wars of 1815 - 1845. With the advent of general issue rifled muskets in the American Civil War, the buck and ball loading began to fade from use, though it did see action in the remaining inventory of smoothbore muskets. The buck and ball load has been replaced in current military inventories by standard buckshot loadings in the combat shotgun.
As you can see the stuff was effective!