ETW to Napoleonics: why did artillery "regress"/get smaller?

I know quite a bit about Napoleonic warfare, but precious little about the earlier century covered by ETW.

One thing that surprised me in the game was the calibre of the artillery. The first mobile foot artillery you have are 12 pounders, which are then surpassed by 24 pounders. However, 12 pounders were the largest guns I have come across in Napoleonic battles - at Waterloo, these were the heaviest French guns, the more usual calibres being 8 pounders while the Brits only fielded 9 pounders. Similarly with horse artillery, the ETW French can have 18 lb monsters while Napoleon's horse artillery managed only 6 lbers (the Brits had 9 lb). Can anyone shed any light on this apparent regression? I suspect Napoleonic era artillery was more accurate, mobile and perhaps faster firing - it was the queen of the battle whereas in ETW I think it is rather more decorative - perhaps smaller calibres were the price of this?

I have not got that far into ETW yet, but my impression is that artillery in it comes into its own with howitzers, mortars and funky explosive ammunition etc. But my understanding of Napoleonic battles is that it was round shot and grapeshot that were the main death dealers - other stuff was used rarely or in special circumstances (e.g. at Waterloo, Wellington used his sole battery of howitzers to get at French troops massing in front of Hougomont, but out of a direct line of fire). Again, Napoleonic artillery seems more "primitive" than ETW artillery. Puckle guns also seem rather powerful - or at least expensive - in ETW but did not survive into the Napoleonic battle.

Can anyone shed any light on the apparent "regression" of artillery from ETWs representation to its Napoleonic form?

ETW has little to do with history? No one had 24 pounder field artillery but someone could haul them out from a fortress in case they had the time and need of course.

Percussion shells is 1850's tech so is pretty advanced tech for the ETW era.


CBR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBR

ETW has little to do with history? No one had 24 pounder field artillery...

Percussion shells is 1850's tech so is pretty advanced tech for the ETW era.

---

Thanks, CBR. I was afraid of that but unlike RTWs Egyptians, flaming pigs etc, had not seen the issue discussed so wondered if it was just my ignorance of the period.

Hm yeah it does not seem to be a big topic as such. Maybe people consider it merely a tech that just like the steam engine is OK for the advanced tech to research. But some MP'ers might disagree and see it as a major issue when coupled with yet another silly thing like mortars heh


CBR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

Puckle guns also seem rather powerful - or at least expensive - in ETW but did not survive into the Napoleonic battle.

---

Square bullets?? Why that's ingenious!

Puckle guns were, to put it kindly, "well ahead of their time". I don't think CA ever thought to include them out of historical veracity, rather to stretch game play a bit.

I believe the size of the artillery round depended on the target. In a siege, heavier guns are better. Smaller cannons are more portable, allow for more ammunition, and are more versatile, i.e. better on the battlefield.. Eventually artillery grew in size again but as munitions become “smarter”, smaller ammunition is used.

Actually, some armies DID field 24lber and over weapons, although they were mostly unicorns/howitzers or mortars. Siege cannon, as well, would be quite large.

Some ships and fortresses, using guns that didn't need to be hauled around a lot, had quite large guns as well.

However, as was mentioned, larger guns were rarer as field pieces because hauling them around was tiring and risky. If you were beaten on a rainy day, you didn't want to risk losing a huge and expensive field piece to mud or a broken wheel.

I'm not sure of the Napoleonic period weights, but around the Thirty Years' War about the largest actual cannon a field army would normally have "organically" was a 12-pounder - and that was already a giant pain to transport, what with weighing in the order of several tons if you include the carriage...
Bigger guns were pretty much strictly for sieges and normally traveled in a separate siege train, whose strategic mobility generally ranked somewhere around "beached whale".

Howitzers, being shorter and lighter for their caliber (as they weren't designed for the pressures involved in firing solid shot), were obviously lighter for their bore size though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

Square bullets?? Why that's ingenious!

---

A fairly old idea AFAIK, though. People occasionally had custom firearms made which fired those - something about nasty ragged holes being inflicted tends to get mentioned in most books in the context...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

A fairly old idea AFAIK, though. People occasionally had custom firearms made which fired those - something about nasty ragged holes being inflicted tends to get mentioned in most books in the context...

---

Old and grieviously damaging maybe, but terrible with regards to firing accuracy and manufacture of either barrel or shot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

I'm not sure of the Napoleonic period weights, but around the Thirty Years' War about the largest actual cannon a field army would normally have "organically" was a 12-pounder - and that was already a giant pain to transport, what with weighing in the order of several tons if you include the carriage....

---

In the Napoleonic period most horse guns were 6-8 Pounds depending on the nationality. Divisions would also often have foot batteries attached to them with the same sizes. Corps-level artillery pieces were almost universally 12 Pounders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

Old and grieviously damaging maybe, but terrible with regards to firing accuracy and manufacture of either barrel or shot.

---

Well they were kinda rare. Custom jobs each and every one, AFAIK.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

In the Napoleonic period most horse guns were 6-8 Pounds depending on the nationality. Divisions would also often have foot batteries attached to them with the same sizes. Corps-level artillery pieces were almost universally 12 Pounders.

---

Actually I was kind of trying to refer to the weight of the gun and its carriage there, not the "weight of shot"... looking at it, I'll give you it was probably a little opaqualy worded. :sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBR

ETW has little to do with history?

---

OK, QED, case closed:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=564

Gah.

Who opted for the Rock Paper scissors effect in the community? if we find out who they should be flogged.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veho Nex

Who opted for the Rock Paper scissors effect in the community? if we find out who they should be flogged.

---

This is a little off topic and I have no interest in pointing a finger at any individual, but the question of modelling the balance of arms in TW is an interesting subject.

RPS was a hallmark of Shogun, I think - even to the extent that spear armed peasants could be rather nasty to heavy cavalry. Few units, with very clear battlefield roles. For archers, cavalry and spears, RPS made sense - although I was a little more quizzical about the other funky types of infantry (warrior monks/2H samurai; naginata - with either very high attacks or defences, and very low opposite qualities).

MTW moved away from RPS, to some extent, by introducing more units and having more of a tech tree (primarily due to historical improvements in armour but also to introduce "elite" troop types such as knights etc).

RTW broke RPS by making some units - heavy cavalry, elite archers - simply uber. From a historical point of view, I always thought this was odd for a period marked by the dominance of heavy infantry. From a gameplay point of view, Shogun vets griped that it made the battles less tactical (which it did).

The RTW balancing was more appropriate for M2TW, age of the knight and longbow/crossbow, but CA picked up the call for a return to the purer RPS balance of Shogun when Lusted helped rebalance the stats for Kingdom. Spears were beefed up, swords and cavalry nerfed, while missiles made useless in melee.

I don't have much of an objection to the Kingdoms stats: both M2TW and Kingdoms stats are plausible alternative models of the period. But I have always had the feeling CA was breaking away from using history as their anchor to some kind of ahistorical concern for "balance" which I have never quite got my mind around. With the proposed rebalancing of naval combat, that feeling has hardened into hostility.

Back on topic:

I was told that Napoleon used lighter cannons than most of his enemies in order to have more of a strategic mobility.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peasant Phill

Back on topic:

I was told that Napoleon used lighter cannons than most of his enemies in order to have more of a strategic mobility.

---

I don't think that is true. The cannons used by the various powers were pretty similar in weight.

Strategic mobility or rather of lack of same could have an impact as the French did IIRC not have enough horses for all their artillery in the 1805 campaign. Also in the Peninsular War both sides rarely used 12 pounders because of the poor roads.


CBR