Printable View
Welcome to the dungeon Cuirassier,Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
Glad you like the Chaesseurs
Then again seen as your a Lord you'd have to say that http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wave.gif
Speaking of Lords Swords of Storm is also
a new and welcome addition to the crew.
"Lord of all things curly"
LK http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ons/smokin.gif
Thanks Lord Krazy, I am glad to be a part of The Lords (notice the sig)I have to add Lord of all things curly Lol http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/joker.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by [b
I have moved my posts on the challeneges of using MTW engine for a Napoleonic mod below. Let the discussions continue.
-Cuirassier
My passion is Napoleonic Warfare. With all the exciting stuff that is happening at the modder's heaven, the Dungeon, here is my 2 cents worth.
When the original STW was released, my first thought was "My How would a Napoleonic Campaign game look like using this engine?" And frankly it was about time. Enough time has been spent with the crusty old hex grids and the turn based marathon battles. A real time 3D Napoleonic battle game was long overdue.
What are the challenges of using the current MTW engine for a Napoleonic mod?
Infantry:
*******
An average Napoleonic battalion had six companies of 100 to 120 muskets each. A regiment usually had 2 battalions, sometimes three. A brigade was composed of 2 regiments and a division normally had 2 brigades. Variations always existed but this would suffice for a starting point.
For realistic tactical battle simulations I feel that the unit of maneuver should be a battalion, at the most a regiment. A company level simulation would be too taxing on the game engine. I don't even think that one could have enough units to bring in if we went in for company level detail.
Using anything higher than a regiment as the unit of maneuver would really take away the tactical nature of the simulation and some fun. At the end of the day, after all, the Total War series is about fun.
So acting on the hypothesis that we are using a battalion as the fundamental unit of maneuver, here are some of the things that we definitely could do, can not do and just about may be with the MTW engine :
Formations:
*********
Primary weapon : Musket or rifle. Range, rate of reload and fire etc could all be tweaked.
Secondary weapon: Bayonet. No problem here. Infantry could be made to charge with cold steel.
Forming line : No problem. Can do.
Forming a skirmish screen : No problem. Can do.
Attack column: So far as I have experimented, no can do. Attack column was a formation specially favored by the French. It had a frontage of two companies. It had great ease of battlefield movement and good melee capability. But the firepower was reduced compared to a line.
The already existing wedge formation is eminently suited for this role. The wedge has very little firepower but has great shock effect. Could we somehow modify the flocking behavior for the units when ordered to form a wedge so that when we ask the unit to form a wedge it forms a column? He,he
Square: Ah Here is a definite problem. No can do The square was the standard formation used by all infantry of that era against charging cavalry. It was practically invulnerable against charging horse, but was easy pickings for enemy infantry in line and especially for enemy artillery.
March column: So far as I remember, no can do. But this may not be as critical as attack column and square formations.
Special abilities :
Grenadiers had superior melee capability. This could be achieved by giving them some bonus attack points.
Light infantry was deadly in broken terrain, wooded areas and built areas. And again light infantry were far better suited to skirmish tactics than line infantry as they were specially trained. I do not know how we could give light infantry superior skirmishing skills in terrain that is amenable to light infantry tactics. Ubermodders could ponder on this one perhaps.
The following posts would be on cavalry, artillery, command and control, orders of battle etc.
-Cuirassier
Cavalry:
*******
Napoleonic cavalry was generally classified into light and heavy.
Hussars, Chasseurs a Cheval, Light Dragoons were the saber wielding light horse.
Lancers (or Uhlans) carried (duh) the lance. They were classified as lights as well.
Heavies could be armored or unarmored. The celebrated Cuirassiers and Carabiniers a Cheval being the armored heavies. Heavy dragoons being the unarmored heavies.
Light cavalry acted as the ears and the eyes of the army. Scouting, outpost duty and rear area security were the traditional light cavalry duties. In pitched battles they could and did charge with their heavier brethren.
Heavy cavalry was trained for one and only purpose in the battlefield. Though ponderous with big men on huge horses, the heavy arm was trained to charge boot to boot to ride down any opposing formation, be it horse or foot.
The basic cavalry unit of maneuver was the regiment. An average Napoleonic cavalry regiment had three squadrons of 150 sabers each. A brigade was composed of 2 regiments and a division normally had 2 brigades. Variations always existed but this would suffice for a starting point.
For realistic tactical battle simulations I feel that the unit of maneuver for the cavalry should be a regiment. A squadron level simulation would be too taxing on the game engine.
So acting on the hypothesis that we are using the regiment as the fundamental unit of maneuver for the cavalry, here are some of the things that we definitely could do, can not do and just about may be with the MTW engine:
Formations:
*********
Primary weapon : Curved saber for the lights, lance for the lancers and straight sword for the heavies. Lethality, ease of use etc could all be tweaked.
Secondary weapon: Musketoon for the dragoons and the Carabiniers a Cheval, carbine for the hussars and Chasseurs a Cheval and pistols for the heavies. No problem here. Cavalry could be made to discharge a volley before charging home with cold steel.
Forming line : No problem. Can do.
Forming a skirmish screen : No problem. Can do. Light cavalry routinely formed in skirmish line before charging artillery.
Attack column: So far as I have experimented, no can do. All heavy cavalry was taught to charge in attack column formation. It had a frontage of a squadron. It had great ease of battlefield movement and a solid battering ram effect. But this formation was very vulnerable to artillery.
The already existing wedge formation is eminently suited for this role. The wedge has very little firepower but has great shock effect. Could we somehow modify the flocking behavior for the units when ordered to form a wedge so that when we ask the unit to form a wedge it forms a column?
March column: So far as I remember, no can do. But this may not be as critical as attack column and square formations.
Special abilities and limitations:
Lancers were deadly against infantry and artillery. Artillery crews especially despised them. Any gunner cowering under the wheels could be speared with ease if under a lancer attack. Against cavalry though lancers tended to be a bit awkward, as the lance could become a bit unwieldy in close combat.
I do not know how MTW engine handles lancers.
Cavalry charging steady infantry in square formation almost always got repulsed. The trick was to catch the infantry as it was undergoing the evolutions needed to form square from line or column. As infantry can not form square in MTW, cavalry could rampage at will in MTW. I do not know how realistic this would be.
And again cavalry would never successfully charge infantry in broken terrain, marshy ground or in built areas. Again I do not fully understand the mechanics of the cavalry charge in MTW.
More in the next post.
As for the mounted fire debate, I think the DECIDING factor in a cavalry vs cavalry melee was always the cold steel. Sure the dragoons and the Carabiniers A Cheval were trained to fire a volley into the opposing lines of charging horse. But the volley was just meant to disrupt the ranks and not to decide the outcome of the engagement forthright. A decision was always forced with the cold steel.
When two bodies of charging horse met, one side that had the lower morale would normally veer away or there would be a clash and a classic cut and thrust melee.
In either case it was the COHESION of the charging regiment that primarily decided the issue and not a puny little fussilade from a set of popgun musketoons.
So for all practical purposes we could let the cavaliers in the Nap mod ignore mounted fire and do what they do best : charge home with cold steel.
And oh, against infantry, it was ridiculous for the cavalry to engage in any sustained fire fight. The range of the carbines and the musketoons were definitely shorter than the standard infantry muskets. And the footsloggers could probably have reloaded atleast twice as fast as the mounted men. No contest here at all
Charge home Charge with the cold steel
Quote (Cuirassier66 @ Mar. 17 2003,17:03)
Wellington, is it possible to mod the formations data files and to get new formations like an attack column or a square?
Wellington's answer:
***************************
Yes and No.
These files only determine the positions of units relative to each other (infantry in the centre, cavalry on the flanks, etc). In other words they determine what formation a whole army assumes.
If you wanted a new formation (eg: French attack) you could probably code a template as such that defined several rows of Infantry with cavaly behind. Eg: with 16 units something like -
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
C C C C
... if you see what I mean.
To indivual units (I) 'formation' (column/line) can be defined to some degree in prod11 (cant remember the exact names of the fields 'supporting ranks/prefered number of ranks'?).
Squares are not, to my knowledge, possible
******************* End of Wellington's answer
Napoleonic artillery
***************
Napoleonic artillery could be generally classified into foot and horse artillery. Foot gunners walked alongside the guns when maneuvering. Horse gunners, to a man, rode along on their own horses, and thus the celebrated mobility of the horse artillery. It was not for nothing that horse artillery was called as flying artillery. The guns themselves were, of course, pulled by teams of horses.
Artillery was classified as heavy or medium depending upon the weight of the shot that was thrown out. A myriad number of shot weights were being used by the various adversaries of that era. But 6 pounders and 12 pounders were the most common.
The basic unit of battlefield maneuver was invariably the battery. A French artillery battery consisted of 6 cannons, of which 4 were guns and the remaining 2 were howitzers.
All the guns of the Napoleonic era were of the smooth bore type and could fire round shot at a high velocity against either soft or hard targets. Howitzers fired explosive shells in a high trajectory and thus could attack targets behind a ridgeline or inside a building. Howitzers were also smooth bore.
Both guns and howitzers could fire canister (tightly packed musket balls in metallic cans) against soft targets that could be devastatingly effective under short ranges.
The max range for a 12 pounder cannon firing roundshot was around 1800 meters (5905 feet). It was a very rare gun captain that engaged the enemy at such extreme ranges. Effective ranges for a 12 pounder would be in the order of 900 meters (2953 feet)
The max range for a 12 pounder cannon firing canister was around 600 meters (1969 feet). Again effective canister ranges for a 12 pounder would be in the order of 450 meters (1476 feet)
For a typical 6 pounder cannon the ranges would be:
Roundshot max range : 1300 meters (4265 feet)
Roundshot effective range : 700 meters (2297 feet)
Canister max range : 450 meters (1476 feet)
Canister effective range : 350 meters (1148 feet)
For the purpose of doing a Napoleonic mod using MTW, I believe that a battery should be the basic unit of maneuver. I also believe that it would be too cumbersome to differentiate between howitzers and regular guns.
OK, what are the challenges of implementing the Napoleonic artillery arm using the MTW mod?
*The well-known fact that cannons could not move in MTW is a serious problem. Even the relatively ponderous foot artillery moved a bit before and during the battle. Napoleon, being a gunner himself advocated aggressive use of artillery (some would say too aggressive) on the battlefield. Even if we accept that foot artillery did not move that much and are willing to live with immobile cannons for the foot batteries in MTW, what about the horse guns?
*Horse artillery lived and died on its fame for lighting fast maneuvers. Horse guns routinely galloped with charging cavalry to exploit any tactical situation quickly.
So the Napoleonic battlefield would not feel "right" if we did not have flying artillery
One possible solution would be to use the Naptha throwers as horse artillery We could throw away the graphic for the Naptha guys and replace it with some animations of a horse pulling a gun. Once in range, the gun could unlimber and go through the animations of firing a projectile.
Next post : combined arms tactics .
C66,
Great stuff. Nice to see your considerable contributions (already!http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif to the Nap mod on this thread.
As we now have C66 to contribute to this project (in terms of post's within the Dungeon) I'll be posting a few items regarding what needs to be done to ensure the success of this Nap mod.
One sentence that I'd like to emphasise, from C66, is the following -
This is, to my mind, THE QUESTION that needs to be considered first and foremost, for anyone working on a somewhat different mod (this Nap mod or any other).Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
Now C66 is on board for contributions I'll start itemising what needs to be done, both in respect of the MTW engine and the points raised by C66.
Welly
Four Cavalry units will be posted shortly
Chasseurs a Cheval
Guard Chasseurs a Cheval
Austrian Hussars
Russian Dragoons
LK http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ons/smokin.gif
LK,Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
Can you itemise the previous post, regarding units per faction, in respect of exactly what type of type of units are provided by for each faction.
Saying infantry/cavalry/artillery tells me we have just 3 units per faction (in respect of prod11).
Now I know we have at least 2 French cavalry units -
- Chasseurs a Cheval
- Guard Chasseurs a Cheval
I also know know that your plates allow for Dragoons and Hussars (for all nationalities?)
Any further clarification?
Guys,
I'm now out of this mod. I'll be progressing a "Nap type mod" on my own - simply because its far easier to do things by yourself (if you know how to do them). I'll release my offering when I'm happy with it.
Welly
hereis v1.4
Well seen as Welly has left.
We have to go back to the drawing board again.
I tought we were going to have maps and some scripts
in the near future but that's out the window now.
I'll start work on the campaign in aday or two
and LBA can start on a map.To be honest
I'm pretty tired now and going on reserve for awhile
working on this.So this set back has
kind of knocked the wind
out of me.I'm going to get some rest and get back
to you guys in a few days when I will be
in better shape I hope.
Thanks
Regards
Lord Krazy.
good job LK , The new cav look really good, i also like the new range graphic, it works well and looks the part. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif
Is there a guide any where on how to edit the graphics, i would like to help u out with this but need pointing in the right direction. i would love to see a scottish regiment in there. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/idea.gif
Also ive been trying to find some music to replace the medieval stuff, does any one know where i can find some (i.e bag pipes/ pipes and drums etc )
Also im triyn to create some new speech sounds instead of the latin, which might make it abit more authentic.
btw did u get the file i sent u with the unit icons ?
Lord Krazy, hei
I played a custom battle yesterday as the French against the British in a cavalry + infantry scanario.
Loved it. It was wonderful to see my chasseurs charging pell mell at the green jackets.
We must think of a way for the infantry to form square though. The way it is now, cavalry would just rule the battlefield.
Regards,
Cuirassier
LK ,You are my hero, thanks for the auto install feature on the latest update 1.4 I am thorughly enjoying this, without all the unzip hassles, I think it will make more accesible to others also , Good job...http://www.emotipad.com/emoticons/Big%20Thumb%20Up.gif http://www.geocities.com/bat3193/smiley6/firework2.gif
More Cavalry have been done
They just need to be compiled.
We will do that later today.
Scots Greys and Inniskilling Dragoons
plus Cossack lancers and maybe a few more.
I have noticed while I'v been gone the
last couple of days that only
two of the Lords have posted in this thread.
Is there something going on I should know about
or is everybody just war spotting on CNN? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif
LK http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ons/smokin.gif
Hello total war-ers
at day i am at war protests at night i am making war mods
Like you all know Thelordz and many friends are building new mod Napoleon...and is coming on.. I am thinking of cannons in bif at a moment. Do not misanderestemate me. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wave.gif
Combined Arms Tactics:
********************
Sorry for the long delay. In the previous posts I discussed the infantry, cavalry and the artillery arms separately. We would have a look at the combined arms tactics in this post.
Napoleon was a firm believer in the massed firepower of the guns. A gunner at heart and in training he observed that “it is with artillery that one makes war”. French tactics invariably favored a massed bombardment of the enemy troops prior to the grand assault. Napoleon’s adversaries initially tended to distribute artillery throughout the infantry divisions and even brigades. This scattered employment was never able to counter the ferocity of the French massed onslaught. In the later campaigns Napoleon’s adversaries learned to mass artillery into “grand batteries” of their own. Wagram and Borodino are notable examples of this.
Usually it was the relatively immobile foot artillery that was being used in the grand battery role. Horse artillery almost always galloped with the charging horse.
If the strengths of the opposing armies at the start of the battle were more or less equal, the immediate objective was to gain cavalry superiority. Because any unbroken enemy horse that was marauding in the field would severely hamper the mobility of the attacking infantry.
Provided the enemy horse was willing to engage, the infantry would march forward. For the French , it would almost always be in attack column formation (with a frontage of two companies, approximately 240 muskets wide). Cavalry would march either directly behind or on the flanks with the horse artillery galloping ahead.
Assuming that enemy infantry is met without any cavalry support nearby, all the three arms would work in unison to bring the enemy infantry down. First the supporting horse would feign a charge or in some cases actually charge. This would force the enemy infantry into square as this was the only formation that the infantry could use to defend against charging horse. But the square was terribly vulnerable against infantry or cannon fire.
Thus once the enemy infantry had been forced into square, the attacking infantry would deploy into line and start blasting off. Worse still, the compact enemy infantry square would present an almost unmistakable target for the artillery that would unleash devastating blasts of canister into the square. When the square was seen to be wavering, waiting cavalry would charge home to execute the coup de grace.
This was the theory at least. Many things could and did go wrong. A successful combined arms coordinated attack demanded very skillful timing from a commander wrestling with the battlefield control problems of the Napoleonic era.
-Cuirassier
Very interesting stuff C66 what went wrong at Waterloo? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif BTW if you want any help with this mod give me a shout http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/smile.gif
Very good work LK.
Ah, that Mr.Egg, is a different discussion altogether that warrants a thread of its own. But since you touched a topic that is one of my prime periods of interest in Napoleonic warfare, here is my two cents on why Napoleon could not crack the thin red line.
*Lack of his personal tactical control of the battle. He had taken direct tactical control of the battle many a times before, Wagram being a good example. If Marshal Ney’s impetuosity was never in doubt, his battle judgment could at times be a bit rash.
*Committing a better part of an army corps ( 3 divisions) into the futile struggle for Hougoumont. It could have been surpassed. At worst Jerome could have kept the Guards inside honest with just cannons and howitzers.
*Lack of cavalry support for the powerful first corps attack ( 4 divisions) by
Count d Erlon. A puny brigade of cuirassiers was the only flank protection awarded. With the cavalry superiority that Napoleon enjoyed over the Allies, at least a corps of heavy cavalry (2 divisions) should have gone in with the first corps infantry attack. Napoleon would still have had 2 more divisions of heavy cavalry in reserve ( not counting the powerful division of the Imperial Guard heavy cavalry division that is!http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif
*When the massed cavalry charges did press home, total lack of infantry and horse artillery support for the cavaliers. Had Napoleon been in direct control, he would have immediately rectified this fatal omission.
*Failure to spike the Allied guns, when the French horse was controlling the ridgeline for the 3 hours that the cavalry charges raged on. Not a single cavalryman thought about dismounting and spiking the guns that were abandoned with the cavalry swirling around.
I could go on and on. It is, as I said, a separate thread. You could email me separately if you want to discuss this.
Combined arms tactics continued:
**************************
As I mentioned in my previous post, during the Napoleonic Wars, all the three arms were beautifully balanced and a combined arms attack was vital for a successful outcome.
The challenge for us MTW modders as far as the combined arms tactics is this: “How do we make the AI use proper combined arms tactics?”
It is one thing with clever modding to simulate a square formation. But how do we make the AI put the infantry in square formation when being threatened by cavalry? And again how do we make the AI make feigned cavalry charges so that infantry goes into square so that the AI artillery could blast them apart?
I saw the other day a battalion of French light infantry in line formation charging a regiment of Russian dragoons I have no explanation for their behavior
So the challenges are :
*How do we give the infantry a square formation?
*How do we make the AI use this square formation when being threatened by cavalry?
*How do we make the AI realize that enemy infantry is in square and could be blasted away by cannon fire?
I have looked at some of the Crusaders_Unit_Prod11.txt file entries.
Some of the unit attributes look interesting.
These are the
“CavAttackBonus”
"CavDefenseBonus” and
“Units this unit is fearful of”.
Obviously “CavAttackBonus” for infantry should be set to 0. Infantry does NOT charge cavalry. Period.
"CavDefenseBonus” for infantry could be set to maximum. But I don’t know how we could qualify this bonus depending upon the formation the infantry is in. Clearly an infantry unit in skirmish formation would be much more nervous looking at a regiment of charging horse than a battalion of infantry in solid square. I would need some input from veteran modders as to whether we could change this bonus depending upon the formation type.
Regards,
Cuirassier
Does anybody know how to decipher the formation templates in the FormationData folder?
I found some interesting stuff in the HistoricFormations.txt
The SQUARE formation is described as follows: Could somebody help me to deipher the fields?
;****************************************************************
;Square
;This a three sided rectangle actually.
;For those occasions when you're feeling insecure
;****************************************************************
Template Square
;;; Flags
HistoricalTemplate
Defend
Priority 0
Slot 0 ;Unused
MaxUnits 0
XPos 0 absolute
ZPos 0 absolute
EndSlot 0
Slot 1 ;Unused
MaxUnits 0
XPos 0 absolute
ZPos 0 absolute
EndSlot 1
Slot 2 ;Central cavalry mass
;;; Restrictions
;; MaxWidth 30
MinWidth 30
;;; Slot position
XPos 0 absolute
ZPos -30 absolute
;;; Unit Info and hints
General
;; Unit Types
UnitType GeneralOnly 1.0
UnitType HeavyMounted 1.0
EndSlot 2
Slot 3 ;Left side light cavalry
Optional
;;; Restrictions
;; MaxWidth 30
MinWidth 30
;;; Slot position
XPos -3 relativeTo 2
ZPos 0 relativeTo 2
;;; Unit Info and hints
NotGeneral
;; Unit Types
UnitType LightMounted 1.0
UnitType Mounted 0.5
EndSlot 3
Slot 4 ;Right side light cavalry
Optional
;;; Restrictions
;; MaxWidth 30
MinWidth 30
;;; Slot position
XPos 3 relativeTo 2
ZPos 0 relativeTo 2
;;; Unit Info and hints
NotGeneral
;; Unit Types
UnitType LightMounted 1.0
UnitType Mounted 0.5
EndSlot 4
Slot 5 ;Dummy slot spanning 2 and 3
Spans 2 and 3
EndSlot 5
Slot 6 ;Dummy slot spanning all three cavalry slots
Spans 4 and 5
EndSlot 6
Slot 7 ;Left side outward facing archers
Optional
Priority 0.5
;;;Restrictions
MaxUnits 2
;;; Slot position
XPos -15 relativeTo 6
ZPos 0 relativeTo 6
;;; Unit Info and hints
NotGeneral
Angle -90
NumRows 3
;; Unit Types
UnitType MissileInfantry 1.0
UnitType MissileMounted 0.5
EndSlot 7
Slot 8 ;Left side outward facing infantry
Optional
Priority 0.6
;;;Restrictions
; Width fixed 20
; Depth fixed 20
MaxUnits 2
;;; Slot position
XPos -5 relativeTo 7
ZPos 0 relativeTo 7
;;; Unit Info and hints
NotGeneral
Angle -90
NumRows 3
;; Unit Types
UnitType HeavyInfantry 1.0
UnitType MediumInfantry 0.5
EndSlot 8
Slot 9 ;Right side outward facing archers
Optional
Priority 0.5
;;;Restrictions
; Width fixed 20
; Depth fixed 20
MaxUnits 2
;;; Slot position
XPos 15 relativeTo 6
ZPos 0 relativeTo 6
;;; Unit Info and hints
NotGeneral
Angle 90
NumRows 3
;; Unit Types
UnitType MissileInfantry 1.0
UnitType MissileMounted 0.5
EndSlot 9
Slot 10 ;Right side outward facing infantry
Optional
Priority 0.6
;;;Restrictions
; Width fixed 20
; Depth fixed 20
MaxUnits 2
;;; Slot position
XPos 5 relativeTo 9
ZPos 0 relativeTo 9
;;; Unit Info and hints
NotGeneral
Angle 90
NumRows 3
;; Unit Types
UnitType HeavyInfantry 1.0
UnitType MediumInfantry 0.5
EndSlot 10
Slot 11 ;Dummy slot spanning entire width of square
Spans 7 and 9
EndSlot 11
Slot 12 ;Artillery
Optional
;;; Restrictions
Width relativeTo 6
;;; Slot position
XPos 0 absolute
ZPos -20 relativeTo 6
;;; Unit Info and hints
InterUnitSpacing 5
;; Unit Types
UnitType Artillery 1.0
EndSlot 12
Slot 13 ;Defensive Infantry line
;;; Restrictions
MinUnits 2
Width relativeTo 11
MaxDepth 5
;;; Slot position
XPos 0 absolute
ZPos 0 absolute
;;; Unit Info and hints
NotGeneral
NumRows 2
;; Unit Types
UnitType HeavyInfantry 1.0
UnitType NonMissileInfantry 0.8
EndSlot 13
Slot 14 ;Missile line
;;; Restrictions
MinUnits 2
Width relativeTo 13
WidthFactor 0.95
;;; Slot position
XPos 0 absolute
ZPos -10 relativeTo 13
;;; Unit Info and hints
NotGeneral
NumRows 2
;; Unit Types
UnitType MissileInfantry 1.0
UnitType MissileMounted 0.5
EndSlot 14
EndTemplate Square
With regard to the Waterloo, IMHO the Prussians
showing up on the flank as they did was the only thing
that stopped Napoleon on the Day.
Seen as the rest of Europe was preparing to march on France it would not have made much difference in the long
term, even if he did win the battle of Waterloo.
If anyone thinks the Prussians did not make the difference
Would be happyy to simulate the battle playing as the Allies without the Prussians. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif
This would be nice as I always wanted to know how
the French could have been beaten soly by the British forces on the day.Even with the amount of stupid
things the french managed to do in a single morning
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif
French Millitary planning at the time did
not take into account, whole armies
showing on your flank by surprise
half way through a battle.
If it did I'm sure it would have
pointed out. that you were in a bad sitution
no matter who you were fighting.
LK http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ons/smokin.gif
Thank you KD.Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
Don't forget LBA and the other Lords.
This is not a one man show http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif.
LK http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ons/smokin.gif
LK,
Do you have any inkling as to how to make this square formation available under the group formations option?
-Cuirassier
Cuirassier, remember the MTW combat model looks at the difference between the attack and defence stats, with each one differential raising kill probabilities by 20%. Given this, you probably don't want to raise infantry's cav defence bonus too much.
I would start with the basic stats for a spear and cav_sword (available in the CA crusaders_unit.prod11.xls file in the downloads section):
spear: 0 attack, 1 defence, 2 rank bonus, 1 cav att bonus, 4 cav def bonus
cav_sword 2 attack, 0 defence
These clearly favour the spear over cavalry in a frontal clash (infantry attacks at +1, cavalry at -5!http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif. This might not be too silly - forcing the cavalry to go for the flanks. But you probably want a little more powerful cav, so you might want to reduce the cav defence bonus from 4 to something lower. You could even try setting it to 0, so that the infantry needs to rank up (and fire!http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif to prevail frontally.
BTW: I think the AI responds to the numbers - in Shogun and MTW it was common for me to see AI spears chasing my cavalry around the map It seems to crunch the numbers better than we do.
Welcome oh Demon of Light,
A cheerful salute from a Napoleonic nut to a fellow one.
We may yet see the "factions" merge So do not loose heart.
Thanks for your support.
Best Regards,
Cuirassier
Command and Control, Order of Battle etc
**********************************
In the previous posts I discussed the infantry, cavalry, artillery and combined arms tactics. This one would be about how to model large Napoleonic armies using MTW engine.
For starters let me recapitulate the command structure of a Napoleonic army. I will use the French army structure as an example. But this would, with minor variations apply to most of the armies of the era.
The battalion was the basic unit of maneuver in the infantry. A battalion had between 6 and 9 companies. Each company had approximately 120 muskets. Thus at full strength (which was a rarity), a battalion could number between 720 and 1080 muskets. The average was somewhere between 600 and 800 muskets.
I believe that the MTW Napoleonic mod (hereafter referred to as MTW-N Mod) should use a battalion as the basic unit. Thus I would not get into the sub units structure in a battalion (like the grenadier companies, fusilier companies and the light companies). So we could use a 60 man unit to abstract a 600 man battalion. So far so good.
A regiment usually consisted of 2 battalions, sometimes 3 and very rarely 4 field battalions. It would be safe to assume that a regiment had two field battalions. Usually a regiment consisted of soldiers from the same geographical area. (Flanders regiment, Tiralleurs du Corse etc etc). A full colonel commanded a regiment. Battalions were usually commanded by lieutenant colonels, sometimes by majors.
A brigade usually had two regiments and would be commanded by a brigadier. A division usually had two brigades, very rarely three. The French, at times would have two brigades of line infantry and a single regiment of light infantry forming its own brigade. Leaving such exotic examples aside, it would be safe to assume that a division would have two brigades. A major general would normally command a division.
An army corps would have between 2 and three divisions and be commanded either by a lieutenant general or by a marshal. An French army corps would invariably be a combined arms force (infantry, cavalry and artillery) and indeed this combination was one of the secrets behind Napoleon’s operational flexibility. In the later stages his opponents too would try to emulate his corps system with some reasonable success. So before dissecting an army corps we have to look at the command and control structure for the cavalry and the artillery.
The regiment was the basic unit of maneuver in the cavalry. A regiment had between 3 and 5 squadrons. Each squadron had approximately 150 sabers. Thus at full strength (which was a rarity), a regiment could number between 450 and 750 sabers. The average was somewhere between 300 and 500 sabers.
I believe that the MTW-N Mod should use a regiment as the basic unit for cavalry. Thus I would not get into the sub units structure in a cavalry regiment (like the individual squadrons). So we could use a 50 man unit to abstract a 500 man cavalry regiment. A full colonel commanded a regiment.
A brigade usually had two regiments and would be commanded by a brigadier. A cavalry division usually had two brigades, very rarely three. A major general would normally command a cavalry division.
Napoleon was a firm believer in the shock action (at the right time of course) after he had witnessed the spectacular charge by a body of heavy cavalry led by Kellerman at Marengo. He took care to mass the heavy divisions into reserve corps of cavalry, with 2 to 3 divisions per corps.
The battery was the basic unit of maneuver in the artillery. A battery, foot or horse, almost always had 4 guns and two howitzers. Each infantry division usually had an artillery complement of one battery of foot artillery and was under the division commander. This would invariably be comprised of 6 pounders. In addition to this the corps commander would have an artillery reserve of a heavy battery. This would normally have 12 pounder guns. A battery of artillery needed around 120 highly trained gunners. In a pinch, the line grenadiers and the Guards could man the batteries (and in many occasions they did). The line grenadiers and the Imperial Guardsmen were the only footsloggers that had some basic artillery training.
A heavy division of cavalry almost always marched with an elite battery of horse guns comprised of 6 pounders. Light cavalry divisions did not have the luxury of accompanying horse artillery. The batteries would have been an encumbrance anyways for the swift marching light cavalry
An army corps invariably had a brigade of light cavalry for scouting work. Sometimes it would have a full division of light cavalry.
Thus we see that an army corps would have 3 divisions of infantry, 3 light batteries and 1 to 2 heavy batteries and a division of light cavalry.
So much for the actual organization. In the next post I will discuss how we could model the army and command structure using the MTW engine.
-Cuirassier
just downloaded new mod. Great start LK ARe you updating it?
Here are 2 small problems I've encountered:
- all Napoleonic units don't have a death animation, they all stand for a minute, and then appear on the ground
-the infantry units seem to have no life, they just stand there
Are you working on sharpening the sprites, they seem kinda rough? Hope I'm not being too critical, but for the most part it's a great mod and I cant put it down
Hi
Remember me? Well i'm back (more or less anyway)
I love to help you out if there's anything you need help with.
I tried making units in 3d, rendering them in different poses, but it was a little too much work for me (I gave up during the final toutches on the model).
Anyway if there is anything I can do to help, I'm here.
I know more about late 17th-century warfare, than napoleonic, but I have developed a taste for some napoleon action lately.
By the way, does someone know any good books or pages on this subject? Not too deep on the subject to begin with.
Emp. Conralius,Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
Well if only consider them small problems then we share a point of view. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif
The Stuff you downloaded and the next several updates
will be very rough (thanks for understating the facts) http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif
They are just example of what we are trying to achieve.
If I were to list all the known defects of said units
it would be longer than most peoples I whould think.
They will be sharpend up and improved.
Seen as they could not be any more basic then they
stand at present.Just like all things the better you
desire it to be the longer it takes to achieve it.
Also please bare in mind we are top class amatures http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif
So our idea of improvment my not be yours.
But we will try http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...s/rolleyes.gif
Thanks for the feed back
BTW you don't sound critical just realistic. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif
regards
LK http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ons/smokin.gif
Hi Alex,Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
My memroy is not that bad http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wave.gif
I remember the very promising work you were doing.
I understand how it became too much.
The methods we are using now may be more suited to you.
It's not as nice but more realistic in human resources.
Mail me at TheLords@thelordz.co.uk
I'd be glad to hear from you.
Thank's.
Regards,
LK http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif
I thank Lord Krazy and Cuirassier66 for their replies to the post I placed here but I should note that the words were not mine. I was posting that message on behalf of hal269091. Next time I'll italasize the part of the message where I say this. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...s/rolleyes.gif
great stuff JUST GOT 1.5 its great
LK, Great Work
I love the new cav units. I just played a massive Britian v France game.
I limited the amount of Cav though, cos without the option of square yet they are a little powerful.
Keep up the great work, I expect to see some cannon next http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif
Hi all,
Since Napoleonic era is the first time that artillery regiments were formed and mass artillery was used ... have you found a way to do it or you will simulate it ... an how?
In one word
AMAZING
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif
@LK
Got the first some 15 portraits ready. Wellington would be a nice avatar for Welly http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif .
But one question. Where did you get the bmp's from you sent to me? I noticed that some of them are done after original portraits but some others I couldn't identify - is there a list with names you could send to me.
Should I post some oft the portraits here?
I'm as well thinking about changing the UI (Text boxes, window frames, backgrounds etc.) from the medieval to a more "Nap-like" style. Do we have a need for that or is it already done (or at least begun) by someone?
BTW - I 've been promoted I'm senior patron now - just a few steps from galactic emperor http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif .
Best wishes
Hal
The Lords thank you http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by [b
Do you mean artillery soldiers or cannon?Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
If you mean soldiers, the answere is yes.
Yes by making the cannon a unit like the rest.Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
So if the unit contains ten men it cotains ten
guns.It's still being tested for dynamics
and practicality.
You should like the rest of it so http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by [b
Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
Well done and yes it would.Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
Good I hope no one else does neither.Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
If they do we will just deny it ok http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif
One of them looks my grand dad http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif
It's part of the plan so if you can do this great http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by [b
Ye sure http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by [b
You reep what you sow.Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
I'll be touch very soon.
Thanks.
regards,
LK http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ons/smokin.gif
Continuing on the theme of army organization and orders of battle:
I believe The MTW engine does not allow more than 16 units per army. I also think that you could bring in multiple armies to the battle at various times as reinforcements and each army still has the 16 units restriction. Apparently there is no limit on the number of armies being brought in as reinforcements as far as the program logic is concerned. But the HW capabilities of the PC config may place limits on this number.
Ubermodders, correct me if I am wrong on this.
I am going out on a limb and assuming that multiple armies on the same battlefield are possible. If such is the case, we could model each DIVISON as an army in MTW engine terms. I am also assuming that the battalion is the basic unit for infantry and the regiment is the basic unit for cavalry. For the artillery I think a battery of artillery should be represented by a single cannon (and its attendant gunner figures).
Let’s look at a typical army corps in the French army. (The discussion could easily be transported to British, Prussian or Austrian armies of the era). As mentioned earlier, the corps would consist of (typically) 3 infantry divisions (each with accompanying artillery) , a light cavalry division and a battery of heavy guns as the corps artillery reserve. How do we model this in MTW?
An infantry division (typically) would have two brigades of two regiments each , the regiments in turn having 2 battalions each. Thus we have (typically) 8 battalions per infantry division. These could be modeled by 8 musketeer units of 60 figures each. Each figure in the unit would represent about 10 actual soldiers. This nicely reflects the typical average infantry battalion field strengths of 500 to 600 muskets.
In addition we should have a cannon unit that represents the divisional foot battery. I believe that using 6 separate figures for the 6 individual cannons/howitzers would clutter the battlefield too much. We are representing a 600 man battalion by a 60 figures unit. Thus we should scale down the artillery as well. A battery typically had a 120 man gunner company serving it. This company could be abstracted by a unit that has 10 figures.
Thus an infantry division would have 8 units of musketeers (60 figures per unit) with each unit representing a battalion and one unit of artillery (10 gunner figures and a single cannon image) that would represent the divisional foot battery. That makes up 9 units per army in MTW parlance. It is well below the 16 units limit.
Exotic cases like some divisions fielding three brigades or some regiments fielding more than two filed battalions could also be accommodated by this model.
The army general should have the divisional battery as his own unit in MTW parlance. Close presence of the army general in MTW boosts army morale. In real life the close support of divisional guns boosted the morale of the infantry. So this jells nicely.
The three infantry divisions could be represented as three armies, each with their battalion and foot battery abstractions and each with their divisional general unit.
The corps cavalry division (having 4 regiments usually) and the corps artillery reserve could be represented as a separate army. Each cavalry regiment would be represented by a 60 figures of mounted men (nicely abstracting a regiment of 500 to 600 sabers). The corps artillery reserve of the heavy foot battery would again be represented by a single cannon figure and 10 gunner figures. The corps commander would have to have the corps reserve battery as his “own” unit.
Unfortunately I don’t see any means of representing the brigade commanders. Nor do I foresee any means of giving individual names to battalions and regiments etc. The MTW army organization forces us to use generic names such as French Guard Infantry, English Elite Infantry, Prussian Landwehr Cavalry and Austrian Cuirassiers instead of specific unit names like 1 Battalion/Ist Guard Grenadiers, 2nd Battalion Black Watch, 2nd Regiment Pommeranian Landwehr Cavalry and Leib Cuirassiers etc. But I guess we will have to just to live with it.
Heavy cavalry divisions could be modeled along similar lines. A division of heavies usually had 4 to five regiments that could each be modeled by 60 mounted man figures. The divisional horse battery that always galloped with the heavies could be modeled as a single cannon with ten MOUNTED figures representing the gunner company.
I do not know if leaders like Napoleon, Wellington and Blucher could be modeled using the Hero figures that MTW uses ( Charlemagne, Salahuddin etc). It would be great if we could do that since the presence of legendary leaders such as the Emperor and the Duke lifted the morale of the armies to fever high pitches. Again, I would like to have some inputs from Ubermodders on this
In the next post I would enumerate all the challenges that I have listed of using the MTW engine for a Napoleonic mod.
-Cuirassier
Before I jump to the specific challenges let me take a French army corps that participated in the battle of Waterloo (mother of all battles IMHO!http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif and try to model it using the method outlines above. The corps in questions is the second corps of the French army commanded by General Reille. The order of battle (OOB) for that particular corps is given below:
II Corps
General Reille (Corps Commander)
Corps Artillery Reserve
12 pounder heavy artillery battery
6-pdr foot artillery battery
6-pdr horse artillery battery
Corps commander and the corps reserve artillery is to be modeled as an army in MTW
5th Infantry Division
Division Commander : General Bachelu
1st Brigade (Husson)
3rd Line Regiment(2 Bns),
61st Line Regiment (2 Bns)
2nd Brigade (Campi)
72nd Line Regiment (2 Bns),
108th Line Regiment (3 Bns)
Divisional commander, the individual battalions and the divisional artillery is to be modeled as an army in MTW. 9 units of 60 musketeers each for the 9 battalions. No divisional artillery here. Div commander should be associated with the first battalion of the first regiment in the first brigade. Brigade commanders could not be modeled.
6th Division
Division Commander : Prince Jerome
1st Brigade
1st Light (3 Bns)
2nd Light (4 Bns)
2nd Brigade
1st Line (3 Bns)
2nd Line (3 Bns)
Divisional commander, the individual battalions and the divisional artillery is to be modeled as an army in MTW. 13 units of 60 musketeers each for the 13 battalions. No divisional artillery here. Div commander should be associated with the first battalion of the first regiment in the first brigade. Brigade commanders could not be modeled.
9th Division
Division Commander : General Foy
1st Brigade (Gauthier)
92nd Line (2 Bns),
93rd Line (3 Bns)
2nd Brigade (Lamin)
100th Line (3 Bns),
4th Light (3 Bns)
Divisional commander, the individual battalions and the divisional artillery is to be modeled as an army in MTW. 11 units of 60 musketeers each for the 11 battalions. No divisional artillery here. Div commander should be associated with the first battalion of the first regiment in the first brigade. Brigade commanders could not be modeled.
2nd Cav Division
Division Commander : General Pire
1st Brigade (Hubert)
1st Chasseurs,
6th Chasseurs
2nd Brigade (Wathiez)
5th Lancers,
6th Lancers
Divisional commander and the individual regiments are to be modeled as an army in MTW. 4 units of 60 mounted men each for the 4 regiments. No divisional artillery here. Div commander should be associated with the first regiment in the first brigade. Brigade commanders could not be modeled.
-Cuirassier
Battle Sounds for testing
Let us know what you think.
Thanks
LK http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ons/smokin.gif
The new units and the sounds are absolutely terrific LK. I love my Carabiniers a Cheval and Cuirassiers.
I have an old machine (Pentium 3, 455 MHz). MTW would not let me use any other resolution than 800 x 600. Do you have any clue as to why?
Best Regards,
Cuirassier
The challenges of using MTW engine for a Napoleonic Mod:
************************************************
In the following I shall list some of the challenges that would be encountered by any modder to adapt the MTW engine for Napoleonic battles.
I have (partial) solutions for some of the challenges. For others I don’t. I would be thankful to get some inputs from other modders.
Challenge #1: How to make infantry form square when being charged by cavalry? The square formation should be nearly impervious to a cavalry charge but should be vulnerable to volley fire from deployed infantry and should be very vulnerable to artillery.
Challenge # 2: How model light infantry being deadly in woods, forests, broken terrain and built-up areas? A unit of light infantry in skirmish formation in the terrain types mentioned above should receive extra morale and sharpshooting bonuses.
Challenge # 3: How make infantry form attack columns? This formation should reduce the firepower by 60% but should greatly increase the morale and the melee strength of the attackers.
Challenge # 4: How to model artillery that moved on the battlefield?
Challenge # 5: How to model large Napoleonic era battles under the limitations of the MTW engine? A battle like Waterloo had approximately 70000 combatants per side and there were 3 sides / factions (The French, Anglo-Dutch-German and the Prussians).
Challenge # 6: How to build the orders of battles for the Napoleonic era battles under the limitations of the MTW engine? It would be nice if we could give specific names to individual 60 man units like : 1 Battalion 13th Legere, 1st Battalion Coldstream Guards, 2 Battalion 2nd Grenadiers etc.
Sounds like you need to update your vid card drivers mate...Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
[QUOTE]Challenge # 5: How to model large Napoleonic era battles under the limitations of the MTW engine? A battle like Waterloo had approximately 70000 combatants per side and there were 3 sides / factions (The French, Anglo-Dutch-German and the Prussians).
my solution to this (as with many battles i have recreated) is to accurratly represent the units present at the battles, i.e 70000, would become 3000 and the forces in the 70000 would be given a percent value and then the same percent value would be used to create the units on the mtw battle field, thus keeping the accuracy but in smaller numbers.
Or smaller senarios can be created , such as the siege of le hay sainte .
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif
Thanks Kyodai
I was thinking along those lines myself. Refer to my earlier posts on the army organization and OOB.
I suggested that each 60 man unit reprsent a battalion with 600 muskets. Even with this 10:1 scaling we might run into a problem.
The French had around 70000, the Anglo-Dutch-German had around 70000 and the Prussians appeared later in the flank with another 60000 or so. With 10:1 rule that makes around 20000 figures to animate.
Would the MTW system be able to handle that?
-Cuirassier
It is possible to reduce the size of the spritesQuote:
Originally Posted by [b
and that would give you other options.
I have yet to hear anybodies views on this.
I have mentioned it before but no takers yet.
Why? Is it that mad an idea?
I have a sample, they would be in
scale with the houses and tents
at the size I refer to
btw 20000 figures is not a problem
for mtw.
LK http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ons/smokin.gif
Stormer, hei
Glad to see your enthusiasm. But we just have this little business of unfinished units (like a paltry 30 more units), the means to make the infantry form square etc etc.
Once we are done with the units and their behaviour, we have to do some battle maps , leader portraits and battle sounds and commands.
Then we have to start on the campaign maps with different graphics for the buildings of the period.
We are at the units making phase right now. So you see, we have a wee bit more to do before the mod is out.
So keep checking.
LK, your idea of scaling down the sprites to 60% of the current size would be worth a try I think.
Cuirassier
Yeah, the new cavalry units, rocks
Just seeing the French Cuirassiers charging knee-to-knee right into that thin red line is amazing.
THANK YOU
Be thankful Lord 66 answered the questionQuote:
Originally Posted by [b
before I did. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif
LK http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ons/smokin.gif
I have compiled a list of the units that need to be made. I am thinking of the 1815 Waterloo campaign to begin with. So this would give us three factions : French, Anglo-Dutch-German and Prussian.
Here it goes :
French Units:
*************
Infantry
*******
1* Old Guard Grenadiers
2* Old Guard Chasseurs
3* Middle Guard Infantry
4* Young Guard Infantry
5* Line Infantry – Elite. A good example would be the 57th of the Line, "The Terrible 57th"
6* Line Infantry – Veteran. Almost all of the French line infantry could be classified as veteran.
7* Light Infantry – Elite. A good example would be the 13th Light.
8* Light Infantry – Veteran. Almost all of the French light infantry could be classified as veteran.
Cavalry
******
9* Grenadiers a Cheval de la Garde
10* Empress’ Own Dragoons
11* Chasseurs a Cheval de la Garde
12* Lanciers de la Garde
13* Carabiniers a Cheval
14* Cuirassiers
15* Line Dragoons
16* Hussars
17* Chasseurs a Cheval
18* Line Lancers
Artillery
******
19* Guard 12 pounder heavy foot battery. Guard artillery batteries should have higher mobility than line guns due to the fact that the guard guns had more horses per team and were better trained.
20* Guard 6 pounder horse battery (Volante). Guard artillery batteries should have higher mobility than line guns due to the fact that the guard guns had more horses per team and were better trained.
21* Line 12 pounder heavy foot battery.
22* Line 6 pounder foot battery.
23* Line 6 pounder horse artillery battery. One way to distinguish foot and horse batteries could be to let the figures accompanying horse guns be mounted.
So all in all 23 units to do and animate for the French. LK has already done 6,8,9,11,13,14 and 17.
-Cuirassier
Here are some of the new portraits.
First British:
Collingwood
http://www.finupdivers.com/mtw/british/admiral04.jpg
Nelson
http://www.finupdivers.com/mtw/british/admiral05.jpg
Wellington - now we finally know, what Welly looks like http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif (Must be a picture showing him in his younger days http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif )
http://www.finupdivers.com/mtw/british/general04.jpg
Russian:
Kutusov
http://www.finupdivers.com/mtw/russian/general07.jpg
Barclay de Tolly
http://www.finupdivers.com/mtw/russian/general09.jpg
Bagration
http://www.finupdivers.com/mtw/russian/general25.jpg
I now have finished 26 russian and 11 british portraits.
If anyone who reads this would have pictures of colored portraits of any kind of Officers from the Napoleonic period (1790-1820) please send them to me. Size and quality don't matter because I can do a lot in Photoshop.
All the ones I have I'm sure will be built in some future download Lord Krazy is working on.
Best wishes
Hal
PS: Quality is poor because I had them converted to .jpg's a bit hasty - Original .tga's a far better.
Hal, I found this site, http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian.../787/Napoleon/ and it has alot of Portaits that you might be able to use. Check it out. LOS http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian...leon/index.jpg
@Lord of Storms
Thanks for your help - I have this one already - loaded it down for offline use.
Actually some of my austrian portraits are from this site. But unfortunately very few are colored - it would be a big pain to color them by myself so before I start with this I want to be sure that there a no colored ones available.
I'm as well looking for the not so famous leaders - its easy to find portraits of the few famous ones. But I found it quite hard to research regimental commanders and "2nd rank" leaders.
Any help is greatly appreciated.
Best wishes
Hal
Those are fantastic portraits hal
I have a book with quite a few French and Russian portraits in it (its for the battle of Borodino) most of the commanders from the battle. I will see if I can scan them for you. Unfortunatly most are Black and white but a few are colour.
Nice to hear you like them.Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
As for the portraits in your book - try to just get me the colored ones - I already have loads of black and white ones.
Best wishes
Hal
PS: I'm also interested in womens and members of clerus's portraits from the Nap period.
Doh My scanner is not working
Anyway i have had a bit of a search on the net (trying to make up for a broken scanner) and have found 1 or 2 sites that may be helpful/
http://www.napoleonguide.com/napgal_index.htm -Has pics of Napoleon from the begining to the end of the wars.
http://www.lombardmaps.com/napoleon.htm -Has a few pics of Napoleons Generals
http://www.napoleonguide.com/asitemap.htm - Each biography of Napoleons Enemy's and Marshalls has a portrait with it.
Sorry again that I can;t scan in the portraits I have at home. Hope that those sites help.
I realy wish i could do more for this Mod, but I have no modding skill.
found this also on Nap. period flags, has a large selection of all the colors used in the Nap.period by various countries and units, thought someone might find it useful www.warflags.com
What a pityQuote:
Originally Posted by [b
YOU CANQuote:
Originally Posted by [b
Just keep on researching. Try to use creative search terms. If you know the names of a certain person (ie Mack, Wurmser, Bellegarde, etc. - you can take them from Orders of Battles, which can be found easily via google or here: http://www.histofig.com/ - do not go for the well known like the french marshals - I already have all of them) search for the person.
You could also search for pages about the history and military history of involved nations and countries or for military regiments veterans associations - they sometimes have portraits of regimental commanders.
You could as well try to research painters active in the Napoleonic period and then search for their paintings.
I.e. I was looking for "Goya" and on the 8th Google results page I found the name of a General portrayed by Goya. But the link was dead. So I started a search with the generals name and "Goya" and found this AMAZING site: http://www.artehistoria.com/frames.....tm?http
The have ALL the paintings by Goya which means loads of portraits to use for Generals, Emissaries, Princesses and Bishops.
Everything you find you can send to: webmaster@finupdivers.com
The sites I already have:
www.napoleonseries.org
www.1789-1815.com
www.ehmke-art.de/de/main.html
www.histunif.com
members.xoom.virgilio.it/murat/
www.grosser-generalstab.de
Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...s/confused.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...s/confused.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...s/confused.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...s/confused.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...s/confused.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...s/confused.gif
"Ich weiss nicht was soll es bedeuten...." http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif
Best wishes
Hal
here is the exact url http://www.warflag.com/napflags/html/flags.htm and I was just at the site it has all the colors (Flags) used by the countries and units of the Napoleonic wars...
Prussian Line infantry colors circa 1806 http://www.warflag.com/napflags/flags/pr1806_1.gif
http://www.warflag.com/napflags/flags/pr1808_gn.gif 1st East Prussian Grenadier Battalion
Staff colour: White
2nd East Prussian Grenadier battalion
Staff colour: Black
West Prussian Grenadier Battalion
Staff colour: White
Silesian Grenadier Battalion
Staff colour: White
Pommeranian Grenadier Battalion
Staff colour: White
Lieb Grenadier Battalion
Staff colour: Black
Just a small "s" - and what a difference http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif
We will probably make good use of them
Today was a very successful day: I made good business in my shop and found loads of spanish and british portraits - and you found the flags. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/joker.gif
Did you have a look at LK's art test? I liked it
Hi to all,
I have been working on creating historical battles for the Napoleonic mod that the lords, Wellington and other are making.
The main problem I am facing is the scale. The map that is used in in MTW is a little small to account for the battles (Marengo for example). Does anyone know if it is possible to increase the size of the battles map (beside choosing it in the map editor) ?
Also the napoleon campaigns are constituted of many battles and some help is needed…Anyone interested in making maps?
If so, post a reply
Thanks
Lord Le Bob
Welcome LeBob,
why not reduce scale. Due to the limitations of the MTW enginde we will not be able to place as many troops as took part in the real battles.
Also when mapmaking we will not be allowed to place to many buildings.
So may be a reduction of scale of the landscape will create something like an original relation unit sizes/ landscape dimensions?
best wishes
Hal
LeBob,welcome
Please see my earlier posts on the Nap Mod Thread.
I have suggested that we keep the current map scale but use some abstractions for the troop numbers.
In a nutshell: a 60 man musketeer unit represents a battalion of 600 infantry soldiers. A unit of 40 horsemen represents a cavalry regiment of 400 soldiers. In short a ratio of 10:1.
I have several maps of Nap battles. Especially of the Waterloo campaign. Ask away if you need me to scan anything.
-Cuirassier.
(You may want to post this in the Nap Mod Thread!http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif
I'd just like to say thanks for a great mod.
hi,
I have decided how i can help this mod (if you will let me)
I can make battle maps for you of many of the major battles. I have numerous books on the battles of the Napoleonic wars to use as reference.
I can;t promise the Maps will be brilliant, and i will scale them down to roughly 10:1 as Curassier sugested.
Are there any battle in particular you would like me to do?
I have plenty of good references for the early battle agains Austria (Marengo, Aspern-Essling) and against russia (Borodino).
Brother B.
I am almost done with the battle of Marengo. Please contact me by email so we can work together at the battles. I am also working on a website to post all the historical battles done for this mod.
it will be bad that several people make the same battles. For all the other people who read this and are interested to make hisotrical battles please contact me
Lord Le Bob at cte_fan@yahoo.com
Thanks
ah , looks like you have stolen my job http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif lebob , i was waiting till the mod was completely finished so that i could get the historical accuracy correct for the historical battles , but as u have started already i will leave it up to you http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif and get my notes and maps ready for historical battles from the v.I era http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/joker.gif
If anyone is interested, and if you're still doing units for this mod, I found a whole shitload of jpg's that would be great for uniticons. if anyone is interested in using them for this mod let me know and i will email them to you. Or if you're in need of someone to do some uniticons for this mod, as my mod has hit a pot hole and been put on hold for a bit i have spare time and can do some uniticons if you like. anyways just let me know if anyone is interested
No you just got a partner or two.Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
Your job is very secure.
LK http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ons/smokin.gif
Ok i put together a list of pics i have that i can do icons for, if anyone wants them let me know which ones.
Sapper, Infantry of the Line
Drum-Major, 4th Regiment, Infantry of the Line
Drum-Major, 67th Regiment,Infantry of the Line
Grenadier, Infantry of the Line, Prussian Campaign, 1806
Officer, Infantry of the Line, Prussian Campaign
Voltigeur, Infantry of the Line, Prussian Campaign, 1806
Voltigeur, Infantry of the Line, 1806 (Shako)
Corporal Drummer (with mace),18th Regiment, 1805
Fusilier, Infantry of the Line, 1804-7
Line Infantry, Grenadier in campaign dress, 1806
Voltigeur, Officer in surtout, 1806
Standard Bearer, 1807
Fifer of the 3rd Regiment,1809
Drummer of the 42nd Regiment,1807
Sergeant of Fusiliers, 1807
Brigadier 12th Regiment of Dragoons 1808, undress
Dragoon 19th Regiment of Dragoons, 1805
Sapper 30th Regiment of Dragoons, 1809
Grenadier Drummer, 18th Regiment, 1809
Sapper of Engineers, 1807
Fusilier in white uniform,1807
Officer of Dragoons 1807
Officer of Grenadiers 1806
Cornet of Voligeurs 1809
Officer Artillery 1809
Corporal of Artillery 1807
Drummer of Artillery 1809
Carabinier 2nd Regt Isemboug 1806
Officer Batallion Neuchatel 1808
Voltigeur 8th line Regt 1813
Officer foot Grenadiers of the Guard 1809
Grenadier of the Guard 1809
Trumpeter 1st regt Hussars Elite 1806
Hussar 4th Regt 1807
Hussar 10th Regt 1808
Light Infantry Carabinier 1809
Light Infantry Corporal of Chassuers
Light Infantry Officer of Voltiguers 1809
Officer of Cuirassiers 10th Regt 1809
Officer Polish Guard Lancers 1810
Trumpeter Polish Guard Lancers 1810
Voligeur of the Guard 1810
Sergent of Fusiler-Grenadiers Guard 1812
Drummer Dutch Guard Grenadiers 1812
Officer of the Young Guard 1809
Flanquer Grenadier of the Guard 1813
Corporal of Voltiguers Line Inf Italy 1859
Carabinier Bataillon Irlandais. 1807
Gendarme de Elite a pied de la Garde 1806
Capitaine de Chasseurs du 1.Rgt. Inf. Legere Royaume d'Italie 1807
Sergent de Chasseurs a Pied de la Garde Imperiale 1806
Napoleon franchissant les Alpes le 20 May 1800 ( VIGNETTE)
Mounted Trumpeter, 19th Regiment of Dragoons, 1807
Mounted Cuirassier of 7th Regt 1805
Mounted Trumpeter 1st Regt Cuirassiers
Mounted Hussar 7th Regt 1808
Mounted Dragoon 25 Regiment 1809
Napoleon Mounted
Mounted Superior Officer Polish Guard Lancers 1810
Colonel du 6eme Regiment. Hussards 1809
Chevau-léger Lancier de la Ligne Cie d'elite / 6º. Regt.1811
Zouave. Crimée 1854-1856
Caporal de Voltigeurs d'Infanterie de Ligne - Italie 1859
Brigadier de Chasseurs d'Afrique (4ème Rgt) - Crimée 1854
French Dragoons Officer .1870
Kyodai,
LK is right http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/smile.gif we work all together, I will be more than happy (maybe I will cry a little of joy) to work with anybody on the historical battles....the more we are the better the work (and the faster!http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif
A plus
carry on with your battles lebob, i look forward to playing them, i will wait until the mod is nearly complete before i try to do my own. I am looking at making a series of skimishes relating to a large battle I.E waterloo, i would make 5,6, 7 or 8 "battles" , each one an area of the battle, i.e the centre , can the english hold the french (Neys ? ) cavalry charge etc , i think these will play well considering the massive scale of the major battles. I am going to start on the maps this weekend and then beta test the "battles" next week but keep them as beta until the mod is finished incase of any future changes to units etc http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif
Also i have changed the battle music to authentic pipes and drums , which adds a good feel to the game now. I found that i had to put music in which was of 1411 quality otherwise it wouldnt play or was very quite in the battle.I dont think the size of the music files being replaced have to match to the new ones , i think its just the bit rate which has to be correct.
but as the bit rate is so high the sound file is about 60 meg so might not appeal to all, i will try and upload it to my server so it can be tested out http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wave.gif
Lk, V1.6, what can i say? FANTASTIC
Those cannon are just perfect, they completely alter the way the game flows. I love the way they limber up to move and stop to fire. Perfect.
Well Done
Once again LK, great job Those new French Grenadiers (infantry) are devastating.
The other day, I saw a great movie called "Napolean" on A&E, it was great They actually had an actor who looked like and was as short as Bonaparte (was played by Christian Clavier). Unfortunately, the Russian Czar in the film had a English accent http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
Those grenadiers and Highland Infanry are mynew fav units