Unit Editing

[Soapyfrog]

There seem to be a great deal of limitations on what you can modify a unit to do.

Frex: I have been unable to give non-missile troops missiles. Is this an actual limitation or am I doing something wrong? I hear people talking about giving the kensai a musket, so maybe I am mistaken?

Is there a FAQ somewhere that covers all the low down nitty-gritty of stat editing, i.e. what's impossible, what the limits are, and so forth?

I am very interested in attempting a Napoleonic mod. On the face of it, the Shogun engine seems quite ideal... except:

Musketeers must be resistant to cavalry. I thought I could solve this quickly and easily by giving yari samurai muskets, but it crashed the game.

If I could freely modify the capabilities of every unit, I could convert the rock-paper-scissors approach of shogun to the Napoleonic battlefield.

Any help solving these issues would be great.

[Wavesword]

I tried creating a Napoleonic 'style' army recently, but of course the AI doesn't use the units quite right. You can make Thunderbomber's into mortars for comdedy value however. The file you want to save and treasure is the file Target's explanation of stats- also search for any posts by Target or LongJohn2, as they worked on the game and occasionally give hints.

[Soapyfrog]

Thanks, it's a start!!

I understand the AI behaving correctly would be a BIT much to ask... I mainly was thinking of multiplayer.

Hmmm, thunderbombers as mortars, eh? http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

[Wavesword]

Someone called Kraellin made some stats for them I believe. MP only of course. Another problem I ran across for SP is the AI's auto resolve (for campaign battles between the AI clans remember) only makes a slight adjustment for modifications in the stats.

[Soapyfrog]

Do you know where I might find Kraelin's stats?

[Khan7]

In order to give a non-missle unit a ranged weapon YOU MUST GIVE IT AMMO! *duh*.. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

Don't worry I had the same problem when I first tried to do this too. Pretty obvious tho u gotta admit http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/tongue.gif

As far as the mortar-bombers-- take the SANDABOMA in the Projectiles.txt and increase his range and speed a heck of a lot. Then sit back and watch the fireworks http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

BTW muskets should not have any special bonus against cav.. u just have to protect from charges by keeping other units withing support range. This is entirely and perfectly historical.

Have fun,

Matt

------------------
Shogun 2 now available for download! Comes with a nifty version-switching program, so never have to break a sweat! Click here (http://stw2.polarisun.net/stw2.zip) NOW!!

To read all about it, click here (http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000398.html).

[Soapyfrog]

Ah, now I feel dumb!!
I'll try it again...

Napoleonic Infantry on the battlefield was pretty well immune to cavalry... the invention of the bayonet saw to that. Cases of cavalry breaking a body of formed infantry are incredibly rare.

Infantry is vulnerable to cavalry when:
a) they are facing the wrong way
b) they are routing

These just happen to be the attributes of the Yari units...

My thoughts for which units should be converted to what:

For the Japanese: (European Style)
Yari Samurai: Line Infantry
Yari Ashigaru: Levies (militia)
Warrior Monks: Guard/Shock Troops
Naginata: erm... um.... Artillery???
Cavalry Archers: Light Infantry
Yari Cavalry: Lancers
Heavy Cavalry: Cuirasers
Naginata Cavalry: Dragoons

And for the wierd units:
Battlefield Ninja: Sharpshooters/Skirmishers (ala 95th rifles)
Kensai: Sharpe! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif I dunno...


For the Mongols: Eastern (Russia/Turkey)
Skirmishers: Peasant Conscripts/Feudals
Korean Spearmen: Line Infantry
Korean Guardsman: Veteran/Guard Infantry
Thunderbombers: Artillery!!!
Light Cavalry: Cossacks/Feudal Cav
Heavy Cavalry: Line Cav


Something like that... Any ideas?

[Kraellin]

"...get the bucket of soapy frogs....". gotta be a red dwarf fan :)

"Someone called Kraellin made some stats for them I believe." never heard of him.

actually, i think it was khan7 that gave me the idea for my oddball stats with his civil war mod. you might ask him for a copy of that if it's not already posted on the .org.

K.


------------------
The only absolute is that there are no absolutes.

[Wavesword]

Infantry were vulnerable to cavalry when not in a square, a formation that was incredibly vulnerable to cannonfire. I will enjoy seeing you trying to make NC dismount as dragoons! You can't really mod cannons I guess- you could make a version of the musket incredibly powerful so it'd get lotsa through kills but that'd be more of an assault rifle really.

[Wavesword]

The mod I'm really looking forward to is Total War: Paper, Scissors, Stone. My modem could probably handle that, and it'd be a great way to get the older folks into gaming. The cheating would be atrocious though.

[Khan7]

Actually Soapy, the impression I got was that the return of Cavalry to its pre-Cataphract role during the Napoleonic period was more due to the accuracy and rate of fire of the firearms of the day. A short, heavy, unwieldy stick with a pointy end is still basically an inferior weapon vs. a guy on a horse with a sword or a nice, nimble lance. It was the tight formation, and especially the deadly fire, of the infantrymen that protected them from cavalry. Another limiting factor on the use of cavalry was that it was rather more valuable and more rare to begin with, so you don't really want to munch and crunch them like so many Soviet tanks on the defensive lines of the enemy.

Giving muskets spear-like powers would not be a wise idea, trust me. In fact, it would probably be about the worst thing you could do. If you would like me to expound upon the successful ways in which you could achieve the simulation you seek, just ask.

Matt

------------------
Shogun 2 now available for download! Comes with a nifty version-switching program, so never have to break a sweat! Click here (http://stw2.polarisun.net/stw2.zip) NOW!!

To read all about it, click here (http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000398.html).

[Soapyfrog]

Kraelin: Red Dwarf it is! Good catch... http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

BTW, I don't see your stat on the org, might you post it here?

Khan7: Napoleonic massed musket fire was stunningly innaccurate. All decisive battles in the Napoleonic era were decided by cold steel. The bayonet killed far more than the musket.

Believe it or not, a solid rank of infantry with fixed bayonets could completely stop a cavalry charge. A horse cannot be induced to charge into such a mass... the reason why cavalry charges are effective is because the terror they instill in their intended targets, who will hopefully break and run.

If they do NOT break (i.e. they are well-trained), the charge will fail... which is why cavalry would only very, very rarely attempt a charge against a body of formed infantry.

If a body of infantry were caught low on ammo, then they could indeed be in trouble from lancers, who could literally trot up to the infantry qite unmolested and spear them from 12 feel away. This situation, also, is extremely rare.

The simple fact is that cavalry in the Napoleonic period were only used for 1) reconaisannce 2) fighting enemy cavalry, and 3) pursuing a broken enemy

Ok, so you can't really simulate infantry squares in Shogun... that's OK. In practice, infantry almost always had time to arrange itself into square when neccessary, so assuming infantry is nearly immune to cavalry is OK.

The main problem as I see it is that once Yari unit in Shogun loses it's cohesion (not broken, just meleeing, pursuing, or moving quickly) SHOULD become much more vulnerable to cavalry charges. I think there is an effect but it isn't strong enough.

Infantry rules the battlefield. The presence of cavalry on the battlefield should basically limit the mobility of the infantry and make pursuit of a broken enemy VERY profitable.

I think this can be acheived.

On the subject of cannons... couldn't you take the thunderbomber weapon, lengthen the range, increase the accuracy, and make it a 2 or 3 man unit? Also make them very slow to move...

Also musket fire must be largely ineffectual in terms of casualties at all but the closest of ranges. ROF needs to be slowed as well, I think. Musketmen in Shogun are killing machines, and that is simply not accurate.

Another question: Is there a reliable BIF editor/covnerter, should I ever get to the point of making new sprites?

[Soapyfrog]

Khan7: BTW, I DID ask! Tell me! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

[Khan7]

"Notoriously inaccurate" all depends on your definition of notorious. They were certainly more accurate than firearms of previous eras, especially as rifled barrels were beginning to catch on at this point.

And while clashes up through the Civil War were very often decided by the bayonet, I can think of at least one off the top of my head, actually from the French and Indian War, in which bayonets were never used yet casualties were severe. I don't think it is accurate to say that muskets were ineffective weapons and bayonets did most of the work.. in fact this indeed seems very inaccurate.

You may have noticed that the attrition rate overall in STW is off the charts. Although to be honest the attrition rates due to missle fire (tho too high) are much closer to reality than those due to melee.. missle fire was historically pretty effective on the massed formations of this period.. it was somewhat analogous to field artillery of later eras. But to make a Napoleonic mod, in which formations took account for the accuracy of musket fire by assuming less vulnerable formations (only two or three ranks to stand in the line of battle), you will definitely want to fool around with the musket stats to get it down to reality.

[EDIT: Actually, I'll revise that-- in the general era of warfare of which Sengoku was a part, missle fire was deadly when armor worn by the target was generally ineffective to stop the missle. One could make an argument against the Japanese bow as a particularly penetrative weapon, but guns undoubtedly had such powers, as did longbows etc in other parts of the world. I still agree that original STW muskets are a bit unrealistically deadly, but are actually in line if you consider them relative to the ridiculous pace of melee atrition.]

As far as cavalry vs. infantry, you will be able to achieve the desired effect through some combination of the following things:

(a) give cavalry a high charge bonus but relatively lower melee and especially defend bonuses

(b) you could also try setting units' morale in general low enough so that a torn-up infantry unit might waver or break and run even before cavalry impact.

But please trust me on this one, I don't want to write a 5-page thesis on all the many reasons, but having line infantry with the Yari bonus is just a bad idea. You will be able to beautifully achieve the effect you desire through some tweaking with my recommendations above.

All will also recommend that once you achieve a sort of balance you like you will want to up defend bonuses by a certain amount across the board.. melee attrition rate in original STW is ridiculously high. In STW2 the increase is +7 across the board but you shouldn't put too much weight on this as you're doing something totally different.

As far as my ACW mod.. I frankly think it's kind of crap in most ways.. but a decent of amount of creative energy went into it, and it WAS the first actual mod, and I suppose it's kind of interesting. If you e-mail me at gengiskan0@cs.com I can e-mail this one to you. The Org does not host my stuff, you can take this up with them if you like.

Matt

------------------
Shogun 2 now available for download! Comes with a nifty version-switching program, so never have to break a sweat! Click here (http://stw2.polarisun.net/stw2.zip) NOW!!

To read all about it, click here (http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000398.html).

[This message has been edited by Khan7 (edited 06-15-2002).]

[Soapyfrog]

Rifles did not cme into play until the post-Napoleonic period. Even by Crimea, most units still used smoothbore muskets. By the Civil War, however, the rifle was seeing widespread use, and can be credited for magnifying the bloodiness of the conflict.

Although rifles existed at the turn of the 19th century, they were too expensive for mass production, and training men to shoot accurately was not, in any case, a priority.

At greater than 50 paces, musket fire was primarily a morale weapon... it did not generate significant casualties.

Incidently, if you are taking about the French and Indian war, then you are NOT talking about European warfare. The battles were skirmishes, usually involving irregular troops, with an entirely different kind of weapon than the European musket... that is to say, long barrelled (sometimes rifled) hunting weapons employed by men who were well used to shooting accurately at small targets at considerable range.

In European warfare the emphasis was on speed and synchronization rather than accuracy.

Basically, if you were to take two battalions of @120 men and place them 200 feet apart and have them fire at one another at a steady rate, you might expect maybe 1 casualty on either side every 3 volleys or so.

Sound surprising? Consider that after the second volley, the two units would no longer be able to see what they were shooting at, in any case.

On of the reasons why the British were so tremendously effective was because they recognized the importance of the first volley. British tactics involved advanceing up to within 30 or so paces of the enemy line, halting, delivering a single massive volley from guns carefully loaded in advance, and then lowering bayonets and chargeing.

The enemy would usually break before the charge closed... the threat of cold steel.

Anyway, I digress... you make some good points. Lowering unit morale is a must... melee combat in Napoleonic times was extremely brief (infantry was unarmoured... the prospect of getting hacked to death did not appeal to the common man of the citizen armies) and one side invariably broke just after (or usually before actually) contact.

On the other hand, units were able to withstand incredible poundings with artillery and musket fire without breaking. This is a tricky paradox to model.

Increasing the charge bonus of cavalry does not seem like such a good idea... trained infantry were not usually shaken by cavalry charges for reasons previously explained.

I think cavalry should be relegated to it's proper role on the Napoleonic battlefield... auxillary reconaissance and pursuit. They really have no place at all in a pitched battle.

Remember, the Yari samurai ARE the line infantry of the Sengoku period, and you would think about charging THEM with cavalry (well maybe upgraded Naginata cavalry)

I can understand if you have balance concerns... but at the moment I am more concerned with simulation. Once I have that, I can work out the balance.

In a way I would think about maybe even LOWERING the charge bonus for cavalry... Sengoku Japanese cavalry was a lot scarier than Napoleonic, largely unarmoured cavalry. Their weapons are better, and employed with better training, and they have substantial armour... let's just say if a group of Samurai Cavalry mixed it up with some Cuirassers, I wouldn't put my money on the Europeans.

Hmmm... I shall have to think about it.

By rights, most units should have no armor, execept Cuirassers. I'm not sure this would work too well though, as melee would proabbly become WAAAY too deadly. Morale should be low enough that melee ends very rapidly with one side routing. Rallying should be easier probably than it is. Routing troops should run significantly faster than pursuing troops. Cavalry should probably tire more quickly to avoid the 100% casualty pursuits that seem to frequently occur.

[Khan7]

Au contraire, according to what I have read Cavalry were frequently enough used in a pitched battle, in the thick of it, and often had the decisive effect.

As far as your casualty figures for battallions trading volleys, it does not particularly suprise me as this sounds about the same as what I've heard for Civil War regiments at standoff range.

And keep in mind that the effective British tactic you mentioned is for a CHARGE.. they're not gonna do this except in those specific circumstances.

Well, to be honest, I do find your casualty rate estimate to be a bit unbelievable. 200 feet is about 66 yards. Musketry of the day was IIRC considered to be effective out to 150 yards or so. I cannot believe that a confrontation at 66 yards would not be rather intense. Certainly not critically intense, but a bit more than the stand-off range intensity of which you speak.

But as far as Yari infantry.. if you make Line infantry from Yari infantry, the cavalry will barely be able to pursue them and will not be able to flank them or get them when they're disordered. You will really have to trust me on this one. Not to mention that the Yari designation is entirely inappropriate, as a bayonet, wielded solo, is a horrible weapon to use against a horse. Out of formation a Yari would have much less of an advantage but still be dangerous to cavalry, as has been depicted in at least one Kurosawa movie I can think of.

Anyway, you can choose to take my advice or not, tho your seeming perception that armor (in TroopStats.txt) has an effect on melee attrition rate may cause one to believe that you at this point have a lack of experience with this system.

But at any rate, cheers, and good luck. Will be interested to see what you come up with.

Matt

P.S.: I forgot to mention before, there is a reliable and well-made BIF editor, RSW's v2.1, available from the Org. However it is nowhere near the power the developers had, so if you want to do any truly serious BIF editing you're really uckedfay. Talking about very tedious work and mediocre results.

------------------
Shogun 2 now available for download! Comes with a nifty version-switching program, so never have to break a sweat! Click here (http://stw2.polarisun.net/stw2.zip) NOW!!

To read all about it, click here (http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000398.html).

[This message has been edited by Khan7 (edited 06-15-2002).]

[Wavesword]

The majority of casualties in the Napoleonic era were caused by cannonfire. Cavalry tended to carry spikes to dispose of them while the infantry cowered in impregnable squares.

[Soapyfrog]

Wavesword: Cannonfire certainly generated a LOT of casualties during the battle proper, but by far the highest casualties were caused by bayonet, sabre and lance, usually after one side had broken.

Khan7: Experience with the system, I have NONE!! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif So beleive me even though I am disagreeing with you on the historical use of cavalry, I am taking your game suggestions VERY much in mind.

And now, to history http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

I am not aware of any pitched battle of the Napoleonic period where cavalry played a decisive role in breaking the enemy. Can you give me an example? Certainly there were small actions where cavalry was able to prove decisive, geneally when they caught an infantry unit during a formation change or marching in column.

British infantry rarely entered into extended firefights, almost always delivering a single volley at point blank range and then chargeing with bayonets lowered both on offence and defence. Continual fire was looked upon as undisciplined and bad for morale.

There is an excellent account of a French Line regiment (82nd, du Picq) at the battle of Caldiera encountering a regiment of Austrian Grenadiers (high quality troops). The French halted 60 paces from the enemy line, who was firing away vigorously. In an effort to get his men moving forward again, Colonel du Picq moved with his staff of 12 men through the front ranks on horseback, ordering his men to cease fire and close up, but despite the continual firing from the Austrian line a mere 60 paces away, neither him nor any of his staff were hit, and no French infantrymen were observed to fall. Upon resuming the advance, the Austrian Grenadiers immediately fled. In this case, the musket fire (although unnerving) was entirely ineffectual.

At Vitoria in the Penninsular war, musket fire effectiveness by the British army was calculated at one enemy casualty for every 800 rounds fired... and this from the British, widely recognized as the most effective infantry during the period.

There are many more examples I can give you.

There are a couple of things I don't think I will be able to simulate:

1) The importance of the first shot. The first volley delivered by a unit is always by FAR the most effective. As successive volleys are delivered they become less synchronized and less well-aimed, until you have a complete breakdown of fire discipline. I don't think this can be simulated.

2) The morale effects of musket fire... musket fire alone almost never induced troops to flee, although it was unnerving and could prevent them from advanceing. I don't think this "shaken" state can be simulated.

Thanks for your ACW mod BTW!!! I am going to give it a crack.

Oh yes... you mentioned cavalry having trouble pursuing running yari infantry. I know this was a problem beofre the patch, but currently I find that if I send a fresh cavalry unit chasing a broken yari unit, I am generally able to wipe tme out to the last man, suffering only 3 or 4 casualties.

[DurrutiColumn]

Sorry, Soapy, mate, whilst I agree with some of your comments on Napoleonic warfare, I can't agree with your lowly opinion of cavalry. If an infantry battalion/regt was caught in open field in anything other than square formation it was *almost* always dead meat when attacked by cavalry. Yes, even British infantry with their superior musketry couldn't survive in line. This is because cavalry, when charging a unit in line, wouldn't blindly impale themselves on the bayonets facing to the front. As they approached at the charge they would use their mobility to break off and flow round each flank and to the rear. Result - carnage. And that's if the infantry unit stood their ground.

A unit in square possessed greater confidence and morale when attacked by cavalry - infantry caught line in would usually run before the attack hit home. Actually the same could be said when infantry attacked infantry. Usually one side would 'fail its morale test' and run - yes even the 'Old Guard' infantry ('La Guard Recule'). That's why the bayonet was certainly NOT a major cause of death or injury on the Napoleonic battlefield (yes the cavalry sabre on fleeing troops maybe...). Where on earth did you read that?
British musketry was feared for good reason. At Waterloo when 8,000 French troops of Reille's Corps finally followed up after the cavalry attacks, the columns suffered 20% casualties from the devastating sustained fire of Wellington's infantry formed up in special 4-rank line (ready to switck into square). This was enough to break the attack without a single bayonet needed.

A great illustration of this was Quatre Bras. Those Anglo-allied infantry that formed square in time remained safe from successive charges of cuirassiers and lancers whereas the 69th Foot, ordered into line by the Prince of Orange, was cut to pieces as was the 33rd Foot, caught unformed. I said infantry in line was *almost always* cut to pieces by cavalry - at Quatre Bras the 44th Foot remained in 4-rank line but were able to repel a surprise French cavalry attack by having the rear ranks turn round, the battalion fighting back-to-back to provide an emergency all-round defence. The Prince of Orange repeated the same mistake two days later when he ordered the 8th King's German Legion and Kruse's Nassauers into line only to have them break and rout under cavalry attack at Waterloo.

Of course, cavalry would most usefully be used to force the enemy into square so they could be blasted to pieces by artillery and musketry. Combined arms - the key to success in Napoleonic warfare. When the French failed to co-ordinate the three arms successfully two days later at Waterloo/Mont St Jean, they paid the price with huge massed cavalry charges coming to nothing because the infantry and artillery were not brought forward to blast the British squares.

The S:TW/MI engine as it stands simply cannot be used to represent Napoleonic warfare (or any other post-medieval period for that matter). The whole range of formations and tactics simply don't exist - attack column, massed brigade column, mixed order (column and line), square, skirmish, en echelon etc, etc.

If you want to capture the essence of the Napoleonic era, do yourself a favour and buy Breakaway's 'Waterloo: Napoleon's Last Battle'. It's finally available in Britain at EB although the rest of the world has had it for some time (wouldn't think we were one of the main participants would you?). Their Austerlitz game is also out soon!

[This message has been edited by DurrutiColumn (edited 06-15-2002).]

[This message has been edited by DurrutiColumn (edited 06-15-2002).]

[This message has been edited by DurrutiColumn (edited 06-15-2002).]

[Soapyfrog]

The event you are referring to occurred to just 1 Battalion of the 69th, the 2nd.

Such incidents were not very common. Infantry could deploy rapidly into square formation (and even maneuver in such a formation, if of sufficient quality).

And incidents like that were certainly not decisive on any scale larger than a skirmish.

I would say they would be about as rare as... a heavy cavalry unit charging a yari smaurai unit and winning! So it works out well.

Sustained fire by a British formation was an exception to the rule. British fire was devastating becuase it was witheld 'til the shortest possible range. In fact the British scoffed at the European tactics of long-range volleys before an advance, since such volleys were generally entire ineffectual.

My bayonet statement was in error... I was thinking "cold steel"... even so it should be noted that during the Napoleonic wars several battles were decided without the use of musket fire whatsoever (due to heavy rain), e.g. Katzbach, part of Dresden, and a number of other fairly major engagements.

Shogun lets you do any formation except square, including mixed formations, so it's not THAT bad.

I have Breakaway's Waterloo, and I found it to be dreadfully flawed in terms of gameplay. Very disapointing. Still it is better than anything else out there, if you want real time.

What I would like is slow real-time game heavily based on the Gamer's regimental combat system, complete with a command system. Ah that would be great!

Shogun may not be a perfect engine, but it should do a reasonable facsimile. Obviously if I could edit the intrinsic unit interactions and bonuses, that would be better...

[DurrutiColumn]

Good points, Soapy, but I have to mention one outstanding example of the crucial intervention of cavalry which I somehow forgot before. At Waterloo, D'Erlons 1st French Corps were poised to smash through Picton's 5th Division with the support of Travers' cuirassiers who were getting ready to force the British into squares. It was only Uxbridge's British heavy cav that saved the day. They routed the cuirassiers who they caught disordered, then plowed on into D'Erlon's infantry causing terrible carnage.

The French infantry were deployed in massed divisional column rather than the more flexible column of divisions. Consequently they were unable to form square in time and virtually the entire infantry Corps temporarily ceased to exist. Donzelot's division was completely destroyed, Marcognet's routed and only Durrete's was able to retire in some sort of order. The French lost 5,000 men and two eagles...Not bad for cavalry which 'have no place at all in a pitched battle' I would say!

Of course that event was missed out of the movie - you only see the aftermath when the heavies lost control and continued on to the French Grand Battery where they were routed by fresh French cav.

I agree with your point about musketry for Napoleonic (non-Brit) armies in general at this time. Many poor quality troops and conscripts were actually sent into battle without any ammunition for their muskets. I suppose this is why the French were not the only ones who still considered the rapid, sledgehammer column attack the main tactic. I'd have to say, at the risk of sounding 'nationalistic', that describing Austrian Grenadiers as 'high quality' can only be relative to the rest of the Austrian army which on the whole had a pretty poor record for most of the Napoleonic Wars.

Interesting what you say about re-creating all Napoleonic formations except square. You are probably right but I think it would take quite a bit more manual micro-management to arrange your troops into some of these unlike WNLB where a single button-click sends the order? Is 'skirmish' in STW the same thing as the switch from close to extended order, fire-at-will formation that the word means in the early 19thC?

I'm honestly interested in opinions on W:NLB. What parts of the gameplay do you consider at fault? My own main gripes are mainly to do with the interface where I consider the camera angle too low (lower than SMG) causing distance distortion. However the amount of micro-management in large scenarios is also a pain. I have gotten used to this over time by employing the 'pause' and 'slow' speed mode. The follow-up game, 'Austerlitz', promises better friendly AI and 'command control' and after this release, a 3rd patch to 'Waterloo' with these improvements is promised - have to wait and see.

Anyway, good luck with your ambitious project http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif



[This message has been edited by DurrutiColumn (edited 06-17-2002).]

[Wavesword]

Dunno how this ended up in OT. Soapyfrog could you tell us your sources for the idea that bayonets caused more casualties than any other weapon? Also you'll want to read a thread called "The moral effect of the cavalry charge" I'm gonna bump in GD. Also as you're new to the system you might also like to know that increasing honour on missile units doesn't really improve their shooting skills, just morale and combat. What I did in modelling things was use arq and musket for poor and good shots respectively. Argh, my right index finger is bandaged.

[Papewaio]

Units have moral penalities if attacked from behind/out flanked/being aimed at by guns/height disadvantage/out numbered... adds up but only with casualities can you break a unit. So you could micromanage and have units fight back to back or use four units to form a square. Because if Calvary do catch you from behind you can kiss most of them goodbye for no return casualties.

Also don't let your muskets fire at will. Let the enemy come closer into effective range and do a mass volley. This can easily rout some units if enough kills are done ...the amount of kills in a short time inflicts a moral penalty for a time period, so if you shoot at will the mass shock does not happen just a gradual small penalty, but the mass fire is enough to cause a rout... rout two units at the same time and you can cause a chain rout, as routing units cause a moral penalty, two of them routing can be enough to make the rest scared enough to rout even without taking damage.

In STW the most casualties are done by Light Calvary after the enemy are routed and running from the field. You do not get as much honour for killing routing enemies if any, but you do get rid ot them http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif.

[This message has been edited by Papewaio (edited 06-20-2002).]

[Gothmog]

Folks? If you guys are so interested in making a moden warfair game, why not simply get Sid Meier's Gettysburg? Yes, it's several years old, but perfectly designed. And the antietum expansion pack makes it ever better.


------------------
Pain is weakness leaving the body.
http://members.fortunecity.com/argus1000eyes/fighter.gif

[Khan7]

Gah! The problem with Gettsyburg is they did too much damned tampering with the underlying combat factors. It's effectively ruined with the v3 patch, and Antietam is a joke.

Matt

[barocca]

This is becoming OT !!!

------------------
DoragonBarocca of Clan Doragon (http://doragon.cjb.net)

[TosaInu]

Konnichiwa,

I received mail:

...The name of the game is : La Grande Armée At ... http://www.matrixgames.com/games/Austerlitz
...

The game seems still in development, their aim seems to be to make a Napoleonic game like STW.

------------------
Ja mata
Toda MizuTosaInu
Daimyo Takiyama Shi

http://www.takiyama.cjb.net

[Soapyfrog]

Wavesword: by comments about bayonet casualties were quite off. My apologies for misrepresenting, I had latched onto a bad source a long time ago, and for some reason never discarded it after discreditation.

As for musketeer honour, I had not thought to use their honour to lower their accuracy, just to make them break more easily when threatened with (or actually engaged in) melee combat.

Hopefully a commesurate lowering of cavalry honour will prevent caqvalry from becoming too effective against organized infantry.

As you say though, I don't 100% understand the system, and the interactions may be a little too simplistic to model what I have in mind.

[Wavesword]

Yay, no-one ever admits to losing arguments here!

[Hirosito]

i do i just never lose one http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

[Soapyfrog]

Arguments are part of the learning process... they help joggle my poor memory anyway, and make me go do my research again!! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

I wonder what a bounty of modding opportunities Medieval TW will bring? There certainly seem to be FAR FAR more unit types!! (and proper artillery too, though immobile...)

[Emp. Conralius]

if arguments get too out of hand, the mod will set it straight. Right Hirosito? jus kiddin!

[verysoon]

Quote Originally posted by Soapyfrog:
Kraelin: Red Dwarf it is! Good catch... http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

BTW, I don't see your stat on the org, might you post it here?

Khan7: Napoleonic massed musket fire was stunningly innaccurate. All decisive battles in the Napoleonic era were decided by cold steel. The bayonet killed far more than the musket.
[/QUOTE]

Yikes! Where to start. Innacuraccy/accuracy didn't matter. What mattered was that 2,000 plus men firing 2-3 shots a minute equals 5,000 plus rounds a minute.

Soapyfrog, bayonet battles were extremely *rare* in warfare. During the Napoleonic Era, 80-85% of caulities were caused by musketfire, 10-15% cannon fire, and less than 1% to bayonet or sword/lance.

This is from Philip J. Haythornthwaite's "The Napolenonic Source Book.

..Leaving aside the stoming of fortified positions (both fortresses and fieldworks like th redoubts at Borodino), examples of bayonet-fights can hardly be found. Bayonet-charges were not uncommon; but as they were always executed when the enemy had been shattered by musketry or artillery-fire and was already wavering, one side or the other almost invaribly broke and ran before bayonets could actually be brought to play, the resulting fights being simply to hasten the fleeing troops on their way: in effect, it was the pyschological effect of the byonet-charge which brought results, rather than the physical effect" pg 76

or

G.J. Guthrie, Deputy Inspector-General of Hospitals) stated that troops never fought hand-to-hand, "for the best possible reasons,that one side turns and runs away as soon as the other comes close enough to do mischief." pg 76.

Your information on cavalry is failry accurate.

[verysoon]

Quote Originally posted by Wavesword:
The majority of casualties in the Napoleonic era were caused by cannonfire. Cavalry tended to carry spikes to dispose of them while the infantry cowered in impregnable squares. [/QUOTE]

No. Perhaps 15%, possibly 20% The MAJORITY casualties were caused by inaccurate muskets.

[verysoon]

Quote Originally posted by Soapyfrog:
.
I am not aware of any pitched battle of the Napoleonic period where cavalry played a decisive role in breaking the enemy. Can you give me an example? Certainly there were small actions where cavalry was able to prove decisive, geneally when they caught an infantry unit during a formation change or marching in column.
[/QUOTE]

From John Ellis's, Cavalry: The History of Mounted Warfare. Pg.140.

In many of Napoleon's battle's the cavalry played an important part,and did much to justify his claim that large numbers of horse could be used to strike the crucial blow. At Marengo (1800) the turning point was a charge by Kellerman's 400 troopers into the flank of Zach's Austrian column, some 6,000 men in all. At Austerlitz (1805)Murat's cuirassiers were used at an early state to charge the teh allied horse in the flank and drive them from the field. The cavalry at Jena (1806) really came into thier own after the battle, when the whole of Murat's command was used to pursue the PUrssians, and they acheived the remarkable feat of coverin something like 500 miles in twenty-four hours."

"Perhaps the most decisive and important of all Napoleonic cavalry charges in history, was at Eylau (1807) when the 10,700 reserve cavalry moved into the centre and covered 2,500yards in an authentic thundering assualt on the Russian columns."

Now, Wellington did not think much about British cavalry. After the war he said,
"I considered our cavalry so inferior to the French from what of order, that although I considered one of our squadrons a match for two French, yet I did not care to see four British opposed to four French, and still more so as the numbers increased, and order of course became more necessary. P. 144.