http://www.totalwar-zone.de/index2.php?g=etw&id=5
(found link at TWC)
Some pretty good land battle shots there.
Some show 2 ranks firing & I think at least one is showing 3 ranks.
Printable View
http://www.totalwar-zone.de/index2.php?g=etw&id=5
(found link at TWC)
Some pretty good land battle shots there.
Some show 2 ranks firing & I think at least one is showing 3 ranks.
Well, looks like Russia is confirmed.
I can only hope those are very early-era screenshots, though. I cant say as I fully approve of the odd headgear. I'm fairly sure that by 1700 Peter had most of the army in tricorns and wouldnt've tolerated any sillyness involving funny hats which werent approved by western europe :P
Somebody can feel free to correct me, and I am no expert on the period, but something seems odd about riflemen in a formation 12 across and 8 deep, give or take. Those shots of deep formations seem very strange.
I must admit I'm starting to get tired of watching formations in 6+ ranks...
What about showing off the uber size of the ETW battlefield instead of all the soldiers bunched up in a small field.
CBR
Riflemen, maybe, but I've heard that the reason people didnt use musketeer formations more than three men deep was because people occasionally got shot in the back of the head with four-man deep formations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
Although it might just be a game mechanic, and only the first three ranks are firing. Its kind of hard to tell from the screenies.
they probably did it for marketing reasons.
Quote from Jack Lusted
Or as has been said before they are just in a block for the screenshot. By default line infantry deploy in thin lines.
I can barely make out what I think was a drummer in a screen shot, but no standard bearers? Maybe he hasn't been implemented yet.:idea2:
Overall, cool screens.
In the overhead shot of the battlefield, I can see the smoke of the gunfire, and a somke 'trail' of the musket-ball...........which seems really unusual, as I never knew the smoke from muskets used to spout to such a long distance and that musket balls left smoke trails!!
Tracer musket balls :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by india
Well, we could leave out the trails, but then you might have some difficulty in figuring out why your elite unit was losing a dozen men every 5 seconds... gameplay > realism, in this case, anyway ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by india
Could we perhaps have a toggle option for trails in the config file?
Ahhhh right, well that's a good idea, but all the same a toggle option would be nice........Quote:
Originally Posted by JeromeGrasdyke
And thanks for the quick response :beam:
Which one do you think has Russia in it? I see one with Turks though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheogorath
Hm, you might be right. I just saw green and assumed it was Ruskies, since it was sort of the dominant color in their military.Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
Of course, that begs the question of what color they intend to make the Russians >_>
I see a rank and file formation of Red Indians in one of the screens, anyone else notice this?
Yep saw those too. I suspect that you need to turn on the fancy light infantry formations.
They could be Kossacks too. I also noticed a shot of what could be dismounted Dragoons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheogorath
N2TW looks better graphically than those ground battle shots if you ask me.
Or militia, maybe. Dammit, CA, next time caption your screencaps! >:(Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
The up close shots show guys with detailed models for heads. RTW's models just have cylinders.Quote:
Originally Posted by comrade_general
Overall, I'd say that the long-distance shots look roughly on-par with MTW2, maybe a little better, and the up-close shots show significant improvement.
EDIT:
Although, in terms of uniforms, you might be right. But it looks as though most of those screencaps are from early eras, with cheaper units.
I agree with having a toggle. That is one of the things that you as a commander will have to figure out. If it is toggleable (which I sincerely hope it is) I will certainly play with it off.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeromeGrasdyke
I can't see the screenshots, some weird unclosable german(?) ad pops up, anyone know how to stop this?
That thing is damn annoying if one doesn't know German, I know, I don't.........Quote:
Originally Posted by Xehh II
Click the lowest option on the top right corner, that'll do the trick.
The ship combat screeenies still don't look right to me. Too many ships fighting with neatly furled sails, when that's the engine that makes maneuver possible. You'd furl 'em in rough weather, but in that case all ships would be fighting that way. You wouldn't have this mix of some ships with sail on, and others fighting with bare sticks. Look at any of the great paintings of sail combat, Trafalgar, etc where all the ships are flying as much sail as possible, for tactical advantage. Maybe the screen shots are set up this way to show a clearer view of marines on deck or something, but it's still a bit worrying.
I hope there's more to sail combat in this game than eye candy.
Normally they furled the lower course of square sails before battle to reduce the chance of loosing masts if the rigging was damaged & to reduce clutter on the decks.
I'm a bit surprised by all the pics with all the square sails furled & only the fore & aft sails flying though, I don't think they did that :inquisitive:
Trafalgar was fought in light wind & with the English fleet following a very unorthodox tactic, heading directly for the middle of the French line, a rather dangerous place to be so its not surprising if the English carried more sail to help close that gap as quickly as possible.
& really, most pics of Trafalgar seem to be showing the lower course furled on most ships eg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Trafalgar1.jpg
(BTW, sorry about the ads, I don't see them myself with Firefox, adblock & noscript)
In the fifteenth shot, the huge flags kill any aesthetic pleasure that shot would otherwise have given me. Aside from being a failed attempt to integrate the information of faction allegience into the environment (50 foot man-held flagpole?), they occlude far too much. Make it half as big on each axis and I'll still recognize it at a glance even at a more achievable resolution. Also, the option of just using a small transparent out-of-perspective icon drawn at the middle of the unit would be nice.
I know units' standards have never been realistic in TW games but they've never been this offensive.
They're just markers, like in every other TW game thus far. They aren't supposed to 'actually' be there, but are intended to help distinguish units and make selecting individual units in a chaotic melee much easier.Quote:
Originally Posted by cannon_fodder
'Sides, within a week there'll be a mod out to turn them off, if they haven't included that option already.
In Rome:TW (& M2:TW?) we have the SHOW_BANNERS: option, set to FALSE to have no banners.
Yes, the option is in M2TW.
As I said, I know it's been done in every Total War game so far, just not this badly (maybe in Medieval, only played that very briefly). I'm also aware that they're not actually meant to be there, but they are of course closely integrated with the environment- they're supposed to look like flags on poles, and are in correct-ish perspective. Which is damn ugly. IMO everything should either be fully part of the world or an abstract GUI element.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheogorath
I thought the second part of my post made it clear that I believe the flags serve an important function. That same screenshot highlights the fact that units from opposing factions can look very similar at a distance, and there's the selection difficulty you mentioned. I don't want to just turn them off, I want an alternative option for their display.
I think they're quite a bit nicer than some horrid flag-block-thing, myself. Smooth integration with the environment promotes immersion, while still giving you a good idea of where your guys are.Quote:
Originally Posted by cannon_fodder
Like I said, there'll be a mod out for it within a week of its release. Such are the wonders of PC gaming :laugh4:
umh, those infantry units firing at each other in some of the screens look to be standing very close to each other, a lot closer than archer units in M2TW. Hope they wont stand on top of each other like that in the game.
btw, anybody does anybody here known the effective range of the muskets, and at what range they usually engaged each other?
and isnt that screen with the cavalry unit in the mists and fog beautiful.. hope its in-game.
100-150 meters appears to have been the average engagement distance. But there are examples of units waiting until much closer (50 meters or less) to fire off a devastating salvo. There are even eyewitnesses claiming of muzzles nearly touching each other.
CBR
That depends. 100-150 metres would be the max effective range for most muskets (though a crack shot might get that up too 200). And that would be in the hands of someone who knows how to shoot. The average line infantryman wasn't such a man, he'd just be burning powder. They were infact trained not to use the sights and just point their musket in the general direction of the enemy and hope for the best. Hence the 50 metre engadement distance.
A RAW line infantryman, but more experienced linesmen might have gotten a bit more training in that matter.
Still, even at fifty meters, you're hardly going to be able to hit anything. Muskets are crazily inaccurate. Like I said earlier, the reason you didnt see four-man deep lines was because the men in front apparently sometimes ended up getting shot in the back of the head. That would be rather embarrassing :P
It'll be interesting to see how long turns last, given that the campaign is 'only' a hundred years long. That'd mean to get the same number of turns as one of the previous games a single turn would have to be 1/4 of a year, which would probably mean much shorter marching distances. Something I dont object too, mind.
It was rather annoying when the computer decided it didnt like you and suddenly showed up at your capital with six full stacks. Or, 'Suddenly, mongols!'. :dizzy2:
The Brits were noted for their ability to hold fire and Paddy Griffith has collected 19 examples that gave an average of 75 yards. That is of course not much to base statistics on but that is what we have. Both the French and Spanish were said to "delight in a long shot"
If we are to trust the eyewitness at Vitoria then one defending French unit started firing at 250+ yards and the Brits just 50 yards closer. It seems most experts of that time thought 150 meters to be the start of effective range.
Aiming was based on range but came in the late 18th century. For a Brown Bess it was 1/3/5/7 feet above ground at 100/200/300/400 paces.
Before that time you have a system like the Prussian which was like aiming at the ground 10-12 feet in front of the soldier. But they also tried to keep from firing until 70-80 paces away but could employ the "Heckenfeuer" further away.
They certainly don't hold up against modern firearms but it was not the inaccuracy of the weapon itself that caused the low number hits. Several tests back then showed around 20% hits at 300 meters on a target representing an infantry line. It was human and battlefield factors that was the main reasons for missing.Quote:
Muskets are crazily inaccurate
CBR
I've also heard that the shot::hit ratio at Borodino was something like 800::1.
I dont doubt that a trained man with a musket could make a shot, with a bit of luck, at 250 meters. But that would require a veteran soldier, with some skill, who would probably be in a light/jaeger unit, not the line.
Hell, the Russians didnt even bother putting sights on most of their muskets. Although that was mostly because they figured muskets were for wusses and REAL men used bayonets.
I remember at the Battle of Narva 1700, the swedes didn't open fire until they came within 50 meters of the russians.
It was a blizzard that day so the russians couldn't spot them until they were within 50 meters so they were surprised when the swede all of the sudden started to appear in front of their noses.
Anyway, apperently the volley that the swedes fired was devastating for the russians and broke them.
I hope that firing from such a distance will be just that, not only devastating but a severe morale blow.
If your going to be even remotely true to the period that sort of morale effect on firing range is pretty much needed.
Thats just a matter of tweaking a units reaction to how many people die at once. In NTW2 you can usually route a unit with one or two close range volleys. ('Close' being 'directly in their faces', for most units)Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
Well in NTW1 you could rout a unit easily by simply moving one unit behind them. Only took one volley no matter what distance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheogorath
I do hope CA has looked at NTW1 when making this game.
Lusted surely must have tried once.
Actually that 800:1 claim is for the battle of Vitoria which is IIRC based on a flawed assumption that the Allied army fired all its ammo as well as the spare ammo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheogorath
There were numerous opinions about how many shots it took to produce a casualty, some more outrageous than others. But having units blaze away as fast as they could without even using ramrods surely had a detrimental effect on accuracy.
Yes some armies loved the bayonet more than other armies. Nonetheless even the Russians found a use for skirmishers in their regular battalions.
CBR
I'm fairly sure I saw an estimate somewhere that said that the French Infantry fired about 1.4 million rounds (or 2,300 per minute) during the battle, resulting in 44,000 Russian casualties (some of which were wounded, but eh.) Even assuming all of those casualties were caused by musketry, and that all of them were only hit once, that's still 320 shots for every one kill.
And the French artillery were supposed to have fired almost 60-90,000 shots as well.
And one would also have to assume the Russians had a worse shot-kill ratio.
And, indeed, the Russians did have skirmishers, but they were rather neglected by the standards of other armies. They had most of their rifles taken away just prior to the Napoleonic Wars. Probably because Paul didnt think they looked good on parade or something. And there was the order issued shortly after the start of the Napoleonic Wars that all infantry (even jaegers) were to have bayonets fixed all the time.
Yes I have seen that estimate of ammo use but you have missed a zero as its 32 shots per hit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheogorath
A lot of artillery fire was as counter battery or against the redoubts which would never have produced many casualties.
Other estimates of average musket shots per hit are 100-200. But again it depends on circumstances. In the book "Firepower" by B. P. Hughes there are some examples that suggests 2-5% hit rate at distances of 50-100 yards.
CBR
I seem to remember reading somewhere that the omission of aiming for the firing of volleys, but just pointing in a general direction, wasnt only because the accuracy was terrible anyway, but also because it softened the moral or psychical impact warfare had on the soldiers, when they didnt aim at a single target, they werent morally responsible for the damage they caused to their fellow man in the same way they would have been if actually having an individual in their sights.
about accuracy, it would seem that if the kill rate of volleys werent so low, it would have been impossible to keep even the most well-drilled of veterans to stay in tight formations under fire.
btw, the tight firing ranks and firing of volleys must be one of the stranger inventions of warfare, it gives you a good punch, but for the punch to do much, your target must also be in a tight formation, and you put your troops in about the only position that inaccurate musket fire can do them much harm.
The expected standard of the average E:TW player is so low that CA thinks he cannot figure out that the nearby enemy units making firing noises and producing lots of smoke is the cause of the casualities? Wow.Quote:
Well, we could leave out the trails, but then you might have some difficulty in figuring out why your elite unit was losing a dozen men every 5 seconds... gameplay > realism, in this case, anyway ;)
Now that you mention it they probably could be easily modified rather than removed outright.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheogorath
I believe visible projectiles in transit makes sense in gameplay terms (remember that there'll be massed formations, it'll be nice to see who exactly is shooting who at a glance) and aesthetically. But the smoke trails don't really do it for me.
That's not a good sign.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeromeGrasdyke
Your point ignores a key fact. Humans have tendency to bunch up together in stressfull situtations. Like getting shot at.Quote:
Originally Posted by anders
i'm really digging the 10-man deep manipular formations!
I prefer the look of these screen shots to MTW2. The uber shiny thing was getting out of hand!
I'm excited. I always got a kick using "gunpowder" troops. I probably will still autoresolve the sea battles though.:beam:
Napoleon (and I read this as a little kid in another language, so I am not sure whether it's accurate or not) was the one who invented a formation of three row deep, first row lay down, second row kneel, and third row standing. First row fire while second and third rows reload, then second row fire while first and third rows reload, and then third row fire while first and second reload, and so on. Then it was adopted by the other nations during the Napoleonic Wars. Maybe that's why there are mostly rows of threes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheogorath
Those are marching formations. Combat formations don't have people firing with 10 rows one behind another. Excellent movie is Gods and Generals. It's about American Civil War in the later 19th century, but with improved weapons they still used same early 19th century Napoleon warfare. So heavy casualties. Anyway, in the movie, you see Major or Colonel Chamberlain have his men practice and repeat their changing from marching formation to battle formation. You heard his voiceover (and I don't remember verbatim): "the troops must change from marching formation of four long columns on the road, to the combat formation of two rows across the field. They must know it by heart and be able to do it without thinking. It's easy to change from a combat formation of two rows to a marching formation of four columns. But it's hard to change from the marching formation to the combat formation. And usually when it's done, it's done under fire in unexpected circumstances....."Quote:
Originally Posted by BeeSting
And of course it's the later 19th century, so it's slightly different adaptation of Napoleonic warfare, hence two rows rather than three, in the earlier 19th century.
Rank-and-File formation, I believe thats called. I'm not sure about the kneeling/laying down, since that would make it rather difficult to reload. I'm pretty sure the Chinese were the first to use the idea, though. Napoleon may've been the first to make it popular, however. I'm not sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePianist
The three-man-deep line formation was in use long before Napoleon. I think it was Frederick the Great who made it famous, but people'd been using it for a while, even by then.
Napoleon did not invent it. 3 rank formation was in use by some armies in early 18th century and most armies switched to that before or during the Seven Years War.
If anything the first rank would kneel, second crouch a bit with third rank standing normal. But that was increasingly seen as not good enough as the first rank would not always stand up to reload or charge when needed.
CBR
My general reading of combat at the time (1775-1815) put effective musket range at around 50 to 75 meters. That is to say massed volley fire in which aiming was basically possible with the first volley. Past that there was no chance due to smoke.
Aimed shots were certainly possible by good skirmish units and that put the range out to about 150 meters or less. Anything over this was simply in the realm of freakish marksmen who are not available in any decent numbers to talk about in overall combat conditions. A lead ball floating through the air became like a flying loaf of bread once even a small amount of velocity was lost.
Rifles on the other hand had effective aimed ranges out to 300 meters by the average user, and shots up to double that for top echelon marksmen. (This is only possible using the correct wadding that bits into the grooves in the barrel causing the ball to spin, therefore creating the accuracy. If you do not use the wadding then a rifle is as effective as a musket) I vaguely remember some boast of a riflemen of time hitting a target up to 800 meters. I've yet to read enough accounts of this to believe it.
The British, apparently the only force at the time to use live ammunition to practise with, were able to get off 3 to 4 shots a minute. 4 shots being Guard or Grenadiers units.
Other nations were known to be able to get off 2 to 3 shots.
There were exceptions but too few to have these averages changed.
The British used two and three rank formations to great effect and were able to use simple mathematics to defeat Napoleon. He was very famous for massing his regiments into rectangle blocks of 40 to 90 men wide and 60 to 100 ranks deep and marching them like battering rams at the enemy lines.
Likewise, the Russian's preferred columns for their mobility, since line formations were blindingly slow.
Russian units normally deployed in a sort of 'checkerboard' formation, the space between infantry columns usually being filled with artillery and officers and so forth. Hence, Russian armies usually were firepower deficient in terms of musketry, but made up for that with their artillery obsession.
Considering that the Russian infantryman was famous for not being able to hit the broadside of a barn from the inside, I can understand that sort of thinking ;)
That must be infamous myth of Thomas Plunket shooting the French general Colbert. No sources actually give any indication of it being an exceptional long ranged shot. It might come from a Sharpe's novel. The most silly thing is to check the entry on Wikipedia on the Baker Rifle and then go through the history of edits. That 800 yards range just won't go away although people have no sources for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by AussieGiant
Sorry but that is way too simplistic and columns were never that deep anyway:9-12 ranks for standard battalions and sometimes a few battalions in depth.Quote:
The British used two and three rank formations to great effect and were able to use simple mathematics to defeat Napoleon. He was very famous for massing his regiments into rectangle blocks of 40 to 90 men wide and 60 to 100 ranks deep and marching them like battering rams at the enemy lines.
The website is normally working fine but at this moment it is down: http://www.napoleon-series.org/milit...a/c_maida.html but this one explains a bit too http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/in...ycombatcolumns
edit: website is working again
CBR
Hi there CBR and Sheogorath.
Yeah the 800 yard shot just keep hanging around but I really never saw anything else to corroborate it. Seems totally impossible to me.
And yes I don't get into too much detail with things like this. There are a lot of opinions and that fair enough for me.
I've certainly read multiple accounts of columns being well over 3000 plus men. It was multiple regiments and even half divisions that were formed up to create these. At these troop levels the ranks were very deep.
The columns were famous for taking massive punishment and still marching right on.
I must say the Sharpe novels are very well research but some details are debatable. As with many things in history.
Yes a "column" could be rather big but battalions were not massed together. A brigade could form up in say 4 battalions in front and 2 in rear as support and all being in battalion column with space to deploy. 2 brigades could form up one behind the other, with each brigade in a 2 by 2 formation, but again with room to deploy and the rear brigade was acting as reserve.
At a distance it would look like a massive formation and would include thousands of soldiers but it would not be one solid mass of men.
A brigade in line could quickly be turned into a large column by having each company do a 90 degree wheel. But again not used for assaulting but to maneuver into a position on say an enemy flank.
CBR
Well then could you please give us the option of turning them off via the in-game options menu or via the config file?Quote:
Originally Posted by JeromeGrasdyke
??!! 600 m with a rifle in the 19th centuary?? 800 m??!! :O :O That's nearly a km!! I'm sure they didn't use scopes then did they? It's impossible aiming at anything that far off without one!
They did not have scopes. But the Internet is great for making legends like that circle around forever.
CBR
indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by SpencerH