what i meant was that ive seen some wierd graphical glitches in the byz inf and fuedal foot knights if i field an army of them against 1 or 2 units of line infantry.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/smile.gif
Printable View
what i meant was that ive seen some wierd graphical glitches in the byz inf and fuedal foot knights if i field an army of them against 1 or 2 units of line infantry.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/smile.gif
KY,Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
As LK rightly pointed out - dont worry about that for now in terms of this Nap mod. If your concerned post it on the "Request to Community" thread.
Considering the amount amount of work that is manually required to create MTW bifs (and correct image-rectangles/actions/frames/XY-origins) it's hardly surprising there may (and I say MAY because no has any idea how YOU have modded YOUR version of MTW) be some glitches. As I've said I am busy writing a utility to automate this process so when the 1st offerings are released you won't see any glitches - unless, of course, you've f****d something up.
If you are at a loose end for something to do, and are interested in this Nap mod then here's your starter for 10 -
- we need a short list of different types of Scottish units that fought in the Napoleonic wars. NOT regiments but types of units (maybe 4/5 infantry and 2/3 cavalry). For each different type -
- Line Infantry
- Light Infantry
- Highlanders
- Light Cavalry (hussars/dragoons)
- Heavy Cavalry (scots greys) ... and so on
We need to know the basic differences in dress, weaponry and morale/effectiveness. Hence -
- kilts or trousers etc
- what type of headgear (shako/busbee etc)
- rifles or muskets, effective ranges, reload times etc
- elite unit or line unit?
... and so on
Do you want this research on?
Welly
Battalions discharged their guns in a mass volley at targets within 200 yards normaly.
Often men would continue their fire at the rate of one to two rounds per minute. They could fire three or four, but many weapons also misfired, and the smoke from previous discharges often obscured the target from view.Not that they aimed much but it was still nice to see where
the target was.Seen as they fire in mass at large numbers
of troops, it was kind of hard to miss altogeather.
Rifle was more accurate and longer ranges but took longer
to reload, so only really had an advantage atlong range.
Once musket units closed to effective range they were the
one with the advantage with a more rapid rate of fire.
Beyond 100 yards smoothbore musket
was not accurate to say the least.
The first volley was often the most effective because it was loaded with more care and fired with less smoke.
Every soldier had about 50 rounds of ammunition. Musket fire caused most casualties in battle.
This was pretty much standard for the period.
These things vairied from weapon to waepon
and regiment to regiment but not vastly I believe.
The battalion was the main unit of manuver.
It normaly lined up 3 ranks deep.The first two ranks
firing and the third rank passing forward loaded muskets
and filling in the gaps left by casualties.
The British often used two ranks to maximise
firepower but was weaker in defence as a result.
Wellington used 3 rank lines at Waterloo
and 4 ranks at times.
LK http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ons/smokin.gif
The only troops int eh British army that were issued with rifles were the 60th and the 95th. They wore the green jackets. Also certain elements of the Kings German Legion (one or to of the Light infantry regiments) also wore the dark green and carried rifles. The rifles they were issued with were all the standard Baker Rifle, that could be accurate at up to 400yard, but were most effective between 200 and 300 yards. They took nearly twice as long to reload as the normal Brown Bess musket. The rate of fire for British regiments was noted to be hire than that of any other army as they were the only force to train with live amunition and so had more experience when it came to battle situation. The british soldier could average about 3 shots a minuite with other continental armies averaging about 2 shots.
here is an excellant site on napoleonic things, and this link will take u to the interestign stuff about the weapons
link
I did no such thing ... I'm not so old http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/frown.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by [b
I did play Naps at the Sheffield Triples (UK figure wargaming championships/knockout) 3 years running, 1986-88, and fielded my Russian Army on all 3 occasions - just because I was impressed with how I'd painted them (figure wargamers will know what I mean - not always the best policy). Lost in the 1st round all 3 times, once to an Austrian army and twice to British armies http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/frown.gif
... which is why my monacle is Wellington - British Naps always seemed to win at the Triples
Still have 2000+ 15mm Naps in the attic, that have been there gathering dust for 12 years. Since moving to Holland I never had the opportunity to play figure wargaming again ... but could'nt never bear to part with armies that took me 5 years to paint.
Such is life. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/smile.gif
Welly
LK , WELLY , I came across a good site that has alot of info on the regiment types, uniforms, weapons etc thought it might help www.scotsatwar.org and www.regiments.org Loads of good info...
he he, I know what you mean Welly. I played 25mm Spanish Napoleonic for a while after I painted up some Guirillo's that a mate gave me. I lost every bloody battle cos my troops always ran away.Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
I am painting 15mm Marlburian Anglo-Dutch now, they are better painted than my Spanish and fair better on the table. I am happy...
Sounds nice ...Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
... just don't rely too much on the Dutch elements http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif
Hello Wellington long time no write, In a previous post you mentioned changing the time value to each turn from a year to a week or day etc,I really would like to do this for the ECW mod I'm STILL working on but have only managed to do this by putting 4200 as the start date and changing the AD directly in front of the date on the campaign map to 16 giving 164200. As you can see it takes 100 turns to complete a year so each turn =approx 3.5 days.So what I'm saying is it possible to change it http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/smile.gif cheers MR EGG http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif
Hi Mr Egg - nice to see you back.Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
Er ... I was hoping you'd tell meQuote:
Originally Posted by [b
I noticed you'd changed the date in a screenshot of your ECW campaign - so I presumed it was possible. Also check out ECS's info (in the FAQ sticky) re- end dates in the startpos files.
My idea was simple. Change the AD to the actual year (eg '1796'http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif and set startdate/enddate to 1 and 200 (for a 200 day tactical campaign).
If you want to investigate this approach and let us know I'm all ears. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/smile.gif
Welly
This is some cavalry we have been working on.
http://mysite.freeserve.com/lordkraz...4-picture3.gif
http://mysite.freeserve.com/lordkraz...5-picture3.gif
They will added to the units beta
and some others maybe tomorrow.
Just more samples so leave me alone
with the why don't they stuff ok http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif
If they don't work tough
The idea is they will.
LK http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ons/smokin.gif
very nice cav lk http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/smile.gif im in excited anticipation http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif
We are happy you like them from a distance http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by [b
As soon as we sober up from St Patrick's Day
we'll add them.LBA looks in better shape at the moment,
well the one I can see in my left eye looks ok http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif
While your all excited KB mail me please.
kyodai_britishbeef@thelordz.co.uk
thank you
regards
LK
Just heard about the Napoleonic mod in the Entrance Hall and it sounds fun. I've been thinking about the problem mentioned in that hall about not being able to model squares.
I think one work around would be to class infantry as "spears", so they negate the cavalry charge bonus for a frontal charge and then give them 4 rank bonuses like pikemen. Players would then have a choice between going for 2 ranks to maximise firepower and frontage, or for a deeper formation for melee benefits. If you finetune the stats you should be able to get it so that cavalry would lose crushingly if taking on 4 ranks of infantry (each rank is +1 defence, so a 20% change in kill probabilities).
You would not be able to catch the idea of infantry panicking in the face of a cavalry charge (although you could make pathetic troops "swords" and vary some anti-cav bonuses to catch difference in steadfastness).
However, cavalry should still be pretty lethal in the flank or rear - cavalry in TW is sufficiently fast that it can get such chances. I would give most infantry a smaller anti-cav bonus than spearmen in MTW.
One other thought - on the cavalry, I would give the lance a higher charge bonus but lower attack rating than the sword. In MTW, the lance is just plain better than the sword, but I think that is more debatable in the Napoleonic period. I would also give heavy cavalry a higher attack rating than light, but not massively (say one point or so). British light cavalry at Waterloo stood up pretty well - in the Sid Meier engine Waterloo game, they are roughly equal to the French heavies.
I really think this mod could work and that a Napoleon:TW might eventually come from CA.
PS: Given the greater scale of Napoleonic battles, it might be best to conceive of each unit as rather a large organisation - say a brigade (or even division).
PPS: Those cavalry are beautiful, Lord Krazy; are they Imperial Guard Chasseurs de Cheval?
LK, you continue to amaze me, well done, its hard to do that http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif.
All these screenshots so far always amaze me, your units are very well made.
LK,Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
Any info on the above?
Welly
Will this mod be finished before the expansion comes out??
Just anxious.
looking good LK keep it up.
Lord Krazy,
WhoooHooo My beloved Chaesseurs a Cheval de la Garde in full splendour Wonderful work. Keep it coming.
-Cuirassier
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.