Napoleonic Mod

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&#33http://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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (King David @ Mar. 24 2003,17:59)]Very good work LK.

---

Thank you KD.

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&#33http://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&#33http://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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Emp. Conralius @ Mar. 27 2003,18:10)]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

---

Emp. Conralius,
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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Axelthorpe @ Mar. 28 2003,07:44)]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.

---

Hi Alex,
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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] ]great stuff JUST GOT 1.5 its great

---

The Lords thank you http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] ]Keep up the great work, I expect to see some cannon next

---

Do you mean artillery soldiers or cannon?
If you mean soldiers, the answere is yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] ]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

---

Yes by making the cannon a unit like the rest.
So if the unit contains ten men it cotains ten
guns.It's still being tested for dynamics
and practicality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] ]In one word
AMAZING

---

You should like the rest of it so http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (hal269091 @ Mar. 31 2003,08:25)]

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] ]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 .

---

Well done and yes it would.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] ]but some others I couldn't identify

---

Good I hope no one else does neither.
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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] ]I'm as well thinking about changing the UI (Text boxes, window frames, backgrounds etc.) from the medieval to a more "Nap-like" style.

---

It's part of the plan so if you can do this great http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] ]Should I post some oft the portraits here?

---

Ye sure http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] ]BTW - I 've been promoted I'm senior patron now

---

You reep what you sow.

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