Using the MTW engine for a Napoleonic mod

[Cuirassier66]

This is my first post in the Guild. 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.

[Gregoshi]

Welcome aboard Cuirassier66 and wow, what a first post. Was your intention that this post be added to the Napoleonic Mod topic in the Dungeon? If you need anything posted there, just post it here in the EH and ask us mods to copy it over for you.

[Wellington]

Quote[/b] (Cuirassier66 @ Mar. 16 2003,22:53)]
C66,

Nice post and welcome The Org.

I particular like your observation What are the challenges of using the current MTW engine for a Napoleonic mod? ...

... which hits the nail bang on the head

Love to have your assistance with the Nap mod. Don't know how much you know about MTW modding but thats irrelevant. Enthusiasm is what matters

Greg will pass over any posts you wish into the Dungeons Nap thread - 'cos he's a nice guy really http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

regards,
Welly

[Cuirassier66]

Gregoshi and Iron Duke (Er,, I meant Wellington&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Thank you very much for the hearty welcome. It was a warm, fuzzy feeling reading your replies.

Yes, Gregoshi. If you would be kind enough to post my threads to the Dungeon Nap thread I will be grateful.

And Wellington, it was my full intention to post in the Dungeon Nap thread. But since I do not have posting rights there(yet)I started posting here.

I have already downloaded Lord_Krazy's Napoleonic units and have created some custom battles with some French line and lights vs the Red Coats. The impression has been extremely favourable so far.

Well, I do not have any direct MTW modding experience. But I am a serious student of Napoleonic battles and have played some other Napoleonic computer simulations. No table tops though. I have done some C programming before and my understanding of the animation cycles is decent. And the very thought of having the Waterloo campaign in glorious 3D is making me drool all over the place. So I am willing to pitch in with whatever little I can.

Rest in next.

Once again thanks for the welcome.

-Cuirassier

[Cuirassier66]

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.

[Wellington]

C66,

Excellent stuff.

It's precisely this sort of rational, whilst concise, evaluation/formulation of the relative strengths and weaknesses of the various Nap units/formations that will be invaluable for this Nap mod.

I'll try to point you to some areas within MTW that relate to some of the MTW v Nap issues you've raised when your posts arrive on the thread in the Dungeon (merely to ensure all info is in 1 place).

Just briefly, some of the specific areas of MTW that handle such formation issues require a bit of programming familiarity as they are very parameter oriented (provided as amendable templates - generally in a 'C' type structure). Have a look in the Formationdata folder within MTW's root folder. The 4 text files are formation templates. The UnitType classifications (eg - MissileInfantry, MediumInfantry, AssaultInfantry ...) relate to similar (though not named exactly the same) classification for the various units as defined in the KEY file of MTW - crusaders_unit_prod11.txt that is located in the MTW root folder.

Enough for now.

Thank you for your valuable contributions already

BTW - hope you don't mind my abbreviating your monaker. It's just that I can't spell curraseaer ...

... see, I told you http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[newey1815]

Just a couple of thoughts. As far as attack columns are concerned, would I be right in thinking that only a certain number of ranks of missile troops can fire? I seem to remember reading somewhere that only 3 ranks fired? If that was so, the only thing about attack columns would be to give some melee benefit to a column, as the line/column difference in firepower would be reflected as in real life by the numbers of muskets brought to bear.

Also, a minor point I know, but I see no need to get cavalry to fire volleys before charging. Although Dragoons and Light Cavalry would sometimes skirmish before battles etc, Heavy Cavalry tended to rely on cold steel rather than any kind of 30YW rolling pistol volleys before charging home. For cavalry to get within pistol distance (max 100 yds to have any effect), and then pause to fire, they would either risk giving infantry/artillery the chance to let off another volley or round, or risk the infantry forming square, or give opposing cavalry the chance to gain the charge impetus. Any mod would, imo, be best disregarding cavalry firepower, as it was mostly of use in melees using pistols, when it can be left to the imagination how individuals have been killed.

[Wellington]

Quote[/b] (newey1815 @ Mar. 17 2003,06:01)]
Hi Newey,


Quote[/b] ]Just a couple of thoughts. As far as attack columns are concerned, would I be right in thinking that only a certain number of ranks of missile troops can fire? I seem to remember reading somewhere that only 3 ranks fired?

Thats the manner in which the MTW engine currently handles missile troops. A certain number of ranks may fire, depending on the projectile classification and (maybe?) the Supporting ranks column as specified in prod11 for all units.


Quote[/b] ]If that was so, the only thing about attack columns would be to give some melee benefit to a column, as the line/column difference in firepower would be reflected as in real life by the numbers of muskets brought to bear.

Good stuff. A bit of lateral thinking regarding the MTW engine capabilities and the 'logistics' of Napoleonic volley fire (and suchlike considerations) is what is needed.

Many of these considerations ARE feasible by changing the parameters within the MTW prod11/projstats files.


Quote[/b] ]Also, a minor point I know, but I see no need to get cavalry to fire volleys before charging. Although Dragoons and Light Cavalry would sometimes skirmish before battles etc, Heavy Cavalry tended to rely on cold steel rather than any kind of 30YW rolling pistol volleys before charging home. For cavalry to get within pistol distance (max 100 yds to have any effect), and then pause to fire, they would either risk giving infantry/artillery the chance to let off another volley or round, or risk the infantry forming square, or give opposing cavalry the chance to gain the charge impetus.

Quite correct. By the time of the Nap era such Carrocale tactics by mounted troops, using either a light carbine or pistols, was no longer feasible.

The early Pike and Shot era whereby most Infantry missile weapons were based on versions of the Arqubus, and such missile troops accounted for a lesser proportion of infantryt (as opposed to pikes/halberds/swordsmen), ensured some success for such caracole tactics by cavalry.

Once the Infantry had been totally rearmed with Muskets ( that provided the bayonet capability - obviating the necessity for pikes, were more accurate, were generally discharged in volleys etc ) any Cavalry units that attempted to approach such Infantry formations merely to discharge weapons were quickly decimated.

Thus, mounted firearms died a death.


Quote[/b] ]Any mod would, imo, be best disregarding cavalry firepower, as it was mostly of use in melees using pistols, when it can be left to the imagination how individuals have been killed.

I'm assuming the Nap mod will ignore any capabilty for mounted firearms. That would be reasonably logical considerinmg the period. We did try and introduce mounted firearms (Medieval wise) to the MTW and they were partially sucessfull. The engine can cope with such 'different' units (different insomuch as MTW does'nt come with any mounted firearms) but I think such units will be a minor considerations for Naps - as yopu have quite rightly pointed out.

Interested in the mod? All assistance is welcome.

Welly

[CBR]

Im pretty sure supporting ranks doesnt have anything to do with number of ranks firing..that more or less depends on line of sight and velocity of missile weapon.

Arquebusiers and handguns fire in 3 revolving ranks because IsGun has been set to yes and I think the 3 ranks are hard coded. IsGun set to yes also means that a unit will use volley fire if you put the unit in 2 ranks.

I did some tests some time ago..but not sure how many ranks could fire if IsGun was set to no..but IIRC it was 1 rank.

CBR

[Wellington]

Quote[/b] (CBR @ Mar. 17 2003,07:02)]Im pretty sure supporting ranks doesnt have anything to do with number of ranks firing..that more or less depends on line of sight and velocity of missile weapon.

Arquebusiers and handguns fire in 3 revolving ranks because IsGun has been set to yes and I think the 3 ranks are hard coded. IsGun set to yes also means that a unit will use volley fire if you put the unit in 2 ranks.

I did some tests some time ago..but not sure how many ranks could fire if IsGun was set to no..but IIRC it was 1 rank.

CBR
CBR,

You could be right. The reason I said maybe? was because LK and I did some tests many months ago with mounted Arquesbusiers (new units). We found that the 1st rank ALWAYS lost their weapons (graphically speaking) whilst firing.

We also found that the number of indivudual figures that attempted to perform either a 'shoot' or 'reload' action was always a maximum of either 2 or 3 ranks (regardless of how the cavalty formation was alligned on the battlefield.

Just changing the depth/width of the formation appeared to have no effect on the number of ranks actually performing an action (shoot/reload). Therefore I presumed it was a characteristic of some value/parameter in prod11.

This testing was all done pre-patch 1.1 - so I don't know what the pathc would have offered - if anything.

Considering CA released images (sprites) that simulated a mounted Arquebus (and pistol) firing action I presumed the original intention of CA was to provide such mounted firearms units (otherwise why produce the graphics image that are NOT used in any current CA provided unit) but probably ran out of time before the actual release of MTW.

As all our testing failed to produce a 1st rank with weapons ... my own conclusion was this was a preparatory step for the MTW add-on that had been disabled (hard coding) to prevent modders using such images.

I'm eagerly awaiting the VI add-on merely to ascertain whether I was right or wrong. I strongly suspect VI will offer mounted firearms - using the same images that have been 'weapon disabled' in the basic MTW.

Welly

[CBR]

Quote[/b] (Wellington @ Mar. 17 2003,13:30)]I'm eagerly awaiting the VI add-on merely to ascertain whether I was right or wrong. I strongly suspect VI will offer mounted firearms - using the same images that have been 'weapon disabled' in the basic MTW.
Ohh would be nice as I wouldn't have to use the mounted crossbows as mounted arquebusiers in Italian Wars http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

CBR

[Lord Krazy]

Hi Cuirassier66

Welcome to the org.

Welcome to the Nap team also http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Regards,

LK http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

[Cuirassier66]

Thanks for the warm welcome Lord Krazy

I will try to pitch in whatever little I can.

Wellington, is it possible to mod the formations data files and to get new formations like an attack column or a square?

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

[Lord Krazy]

Quote[/b] (CBR @ Mar. 17 2003,07:02)]Im pretty sure supporting ranks doesnt have anything to do with number of ranks firing..that more or less depends on line of sight and velocity of missile weapon.
supporting ranks only takes into account
how many ranks can be considered fighting in melee.
The projectile stuff is harcoded
just like you say.


LK:smoking:

[Lord Krazy]

Quote[/b] (CBR @ Mar. 17 2003,13:43)]Ohh would be nice as I wouldn't have to use the mounted crossbows as mounted arquebusiers in Italian Wars http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

CBR
Welly and I already released a mounted
musket unit for MTW months ago.

The pistol thing is doable also
in more than one manner.
I don't know about the next version of MTW
dealing with that department of the game.
I think they have laid out their stall
on what we are going to get and that has
not been mentioned in anything I have read.
I think they will be concentrating on things
more viking.

LK http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

[CBR]

Quote[/b] (Lord Krazy @ Mar. 17 2003,23:35)]supporting ranks only takes into account
how many ranks can be considered fighting in melee.
The projectile stuff is harcoded
just like you say.
LOL what I actually meant to say was preferred number of ranks as supporting ranks is only melee related. But never mind.. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif

CBR

[CBR]

Quote[/b] (Lord Krazy @ Mar. 17 2003,23:43)]Welly and I already released a mounted
musket unit for MTW months ago.
Yes I have checked out the 69 unit file. Thought about using them but wanted the mod to be as simple as possible for download and install.

CBR

[Wellington]

Quote[/b] (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?
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.

Welly

[Lord Krazy]

Square?
well how about infantry have lots of supporting
ranks so if you give them a square type
formation and a cav defence bonus we might
get something out of it.

LK http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

[Cuirassier66]

Well, in this formation, could they be made to be very vulnerable to artillery fire?

The standard technique for the Nap cavalry was to force the enemy infantry into square and let rip with horse artillery at canister range.

-Regards,
Cuirassier

[Cuirassier66]

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.

I do not know if it would work. What do you think, Wellington and Lord_Krazy?

Next post : combined arms tactics .

[Wellington]

Quote[/b] (Cuirassier66 @ Mar. 18 2003,20:52)]I do not know if it would work. What do you think, Wellington and Lord_Krazy?
C66,

I'll wait until your post's are transfered to the 'Nap Mod' thread in the Dungeon. Then we all discuss the pro's and con's.

re- Artillery I suspect we have to stay with the MTW system as guns/limbers raise the same problems as previous discussions on other threads regarding Chariots/Elephants.

If you want a little background search for 'elephants' and look at LK's 'Request to Community' thread in the Dungeon. It's discussed there.

Welly

[Cuirassier66]

This thread has been moved lock, stock and barrel to the Napoleonic Mod thread in the Dungeon. Admins please close this thread.

Gregoshi, thank you very much for elevating my posting rights so quickly that I could start posting in the Dungeon.

Best Regards,
Cuirassier

[Gregoshi]

I think we'll leave this open and see if any Junior Patrons want to chime in. If not, it will drop off the radar screen.

[Thorfinn Skullsplitter]

The Mod is great I was just wondering if someone could explain how to install the flags and shields. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

[Gregoshi]

Hello Thorfinn and welcome to the Org.

I'm not sure I follow your question. It sounds like there is an auto install for the mod. Is it not working for you?