reduced artillery movement

[Oaty]

I wonder if artillery will still have reduced movement in empire. Kind of annoying in Rome and medieval especially when they were on ships. I'm guessing the only reason they did it in rome/medieval was so you cant sack city after city. I don't think artillery should slow down an army especially sine they were horse drawn.

[CBR]

I'd say the heavy guns and mortars belonging to the siegetrain should be slow.


CBR

[Martok]

Can't say I disagree with you there. My understanding is that artillery was pretty ubiquitous in this period (at least among the European powers), so at the very least I think all armies should move at the same speed regardless.

[Fisherking]

I am sure someone at CA has thought about it already, at least I sure hope they did.

Artillery of this time would have better road movement than infantry and almost as good as cavalry but the off road movement would be slower than infantry. Ever try taking a wagon cross-country? Or any wheeled stock for that matter. And in forest it would mean cutting a road for the whole army and trains to get through. Coehorns could be manhandled through the woods but larger pieces needed much more time and manpower to be moved through wilderness.

So it would mean artillery moved at different speeds in different locations.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

^^ That would be a good gameplay mechanic, and give an even more tangible benefit to building roads in your provinces...

[CBR]

Foot artillery only used horses for pulling the guns and wagons while the gunners were still on foot. So they were not faster than infantry.


CBR

[Elmar Bijlsma]

I am sure someone at CA has thought about it already, at least I sure hope they did.

Artillery of this time would have better road movement than infantry and almost as good as cavalry but the off road movement would be slower than infantry. Ever try taking a wagon cross-country? Or any wheeled stock for that matter. And in forest it would mean cutting a road for the whole army and trains to get through. Coehorns could be manhandled through the woods but larger pieces needed much more time and manpower to be moved through wilderness.

So it would mean artillery moved at different speeds in different locations.

Almost as good as cavalry? May I point out that is damning with faint praise? Cavalry was typically slower then infantry other then in short operational manoeuvres. Any serious marches and they'd be trailing the column or slowing it down.
Infantry could leave their baggage train behind and forage off the land for weeks on end if needed, cavalry couldn't because of the horse feed.

[Polemists]

Yes calvary is slow has anyone ever ridden a horse


...No....stop eating the shrub....napolean is coming and we need to get back in formation

[Fisherking]

The point was that the artillery pieces themselves were drawn by teems of draft animals. Outside of Europe with a decent road network, long cross country moves might require that they be moved by sledge rather than by their wheels but on good roads they were of little encumbrance. Foot artillery and most wagons in the trains would have been pulled by oxen which were good at hauling loads but not noted for their speed.

Up to this point in TW games supply has not been a factor of movement. In fact the whole idea of moving with artillery prior to gunpowder is a bit silly. Most of the machines were built on the site rather than transported and artillerists had a whole different skill set. Some may have been disassembled and moved.

You can march a column of horses at about 60 miles a day (100 km) and Infantry about 20 miles (roughly 34 km) sustainable. Living off the land slows this progress considerably. Drinking water was not an option in most places and the troops had to brew their own beer as well as bake their bread. Foraging off the land is one thing when it mean robbing peasants and another when it is finding food in a wilderness, while being watched by an indigenous force, likely hostile…

Diseases killed hundreds and sometimes thousands in campaigns, usually about twice what the enemy could manage.

There is good reason why we can accomplish in a game what no one did in these times. I don’t think we would like it so well if it were truly realistic, even in the age of reason.

[Wausser]

You can march a column of horses at about 60 miles a day (100 km) and Infantry about 20 miles (roughly 34 km) sustainable. Living off the land slows this progress considerably.

Why could Napoleon's army march over 40km's a day while living off the land? Because they didn't need anymore waggons loaded with food....

Diseases killed hundreds and sometimes thousands in campaigns, usually about twice what the enemy could manage.

Yeah diseases were the biggest enemy in a campaign..

Up to this point in TW games supply has not been a factor of movement. In fact the whole idea of moving with artillery prior to gunpowder is a bit silly. Most of the machines were built on the site rather than transported and artillerists had a whole different skill set. Some may have been disassembled and moved

Try the Europa Barbarorum mod for RTW

[CBR]

You can march a column of horses at about 60 miles a day (100 km) and Infantry about 20 miles (roughly 34 km) sustainable.

Cavalry has about same speed as infantry when looking at sustainable march rates. Forced marches could be faster than 100 km/day (very rare) but would be only for a few days and for smaller units. And then we have to compare with infantry forced marches of 80+ km/day

There is good reason why we can accomplish in a game what no one did in these times. I don’t think we would like it so well if it were truly realistic, even in the age of reason.

Armies in Total War actually moves slower than real life. The reason why we can do more than back then is mainly because there is so little to conquer(few sieges) combined with bad AI and yes a little to do with no supply to worry about. With 2 turns/year it is not possible to do the fast campaigns that for example Napoleon did.


CBR

[Fisherking]

I guess we will see what game conventions we are given on 6 Feb.

We can all sight examples of long quick marches,, and some of us know of campaigns where you couldn’t get more than 2 miles a day with no fighting.

In six months time you could put ships and troops almost anywhere in this time period. Even in Roman times there were few places in the known world you couldn’t send a legion to.

Somewhere nearer to topic though…I don’t have any figures on ox-drawn wagons, and that is the basic speed of the trains as well as much of the artillery.

Can some of you enlighten me?

[CBR]

For the large convoys used by Marlborough and Frederick the Great I have only seen horse-carts and horses mentioned. Same thing with the heavy siege trains. I know of one British battery forced to use oxen in the Peninsular War at one point but thats it. What makes you think oxen were used?


CBR

[Fisherking]

In North America and India you will be very short on horsed for transport. Buffalo ,oxen, and donkeys are what comes next. The Caribbean won’t require much transport other than the larger islands but it is mostly short distances. It is likely a good thing we don’t have sub-Saharan Africa because horses just died there and you were stuck with what you could get…of course it is just a game and it may not take such things into account.

[PBI]

I actually think it would be good if rather than having different movement speeds on the campaign map, artillery simply had areas that they can't go. As it is the different campaign map speed introduces an imbalance between unit types; as it is including artillery at all is a big liability due to the reduced movement it causes, while all-cavalry stacks are much more useful than they should be. With the obvious exception of the Mongols, it was my understanding that cavalry were not utilized for having greater mobility over long distances (outside of smaller raiding operations), but for their value on the battlefield itself.

I like the idea that all units should have equivalent movement speed at least on roads, it would make the value of building good infrastructure better (especially if railways make a significant appearance). Perhaps artillery could only have a movement penalty for moving cross-country, while really tough terrain such as swamps or mountains, would only be passable for infantry.

Try the Europa Barbarorum mod for RTW

So are ranged siege weapons built the same way as rams etc in EB? I always thought that would make more sense, or else for them to more common as mercenaries since I believe that was generally how siege engineers operated, i.e., for the highest bidder.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

For the large convoys used by Marlborough and Frederick the Great I have only seen horse-carts and horses mentioned. Same thing with the heavy siege trains. I know of one British battery forced to use oxen in the Peninsular War at one point but thats it. What makes you think oxen were used?


CBR

Well, I'd certainly disagree with Kingfisher foot artillery were issued oxen with any frequency worth modelling in TW. It was not doctrine in any European army I know off to do so. Maybe in an "Oh dear, half our horses have died and hussars took the rest" emergency.
There is this common misconception that foot artillery is what you get when the artillery runs out of horses. Not true at all. The guns as well as the guncrew were transported on horses (the crew sitting on their caissons) The main difference was in their roles.
Horse artillery was intended to be used in a vastly more flexible way on the battlefield. This mean large horse teams, larger gun crew and/or smaller guns then foot artillery. This to keep up with the tactical movement of cavalry and quicker deployment of the guns.

But to my knowledge oxen were not uncommon for heavy siege artillery. If you want something truly heavy to be moved, it's hard to beat oxen. It would certainly explain why in my reading the siege train was never where it was needed. Normal artillery? I'd like to see a gun crew try to rapidly re-deploy with oxen during a battle. That'd be a sight to see. :)
Wouldn't like to hazard a guess on oxen in the bagage train or supply columns. TBH I spend more tiime studdying the parts of armies that went *bang*! ;)
Were horses really that widely used in transport? I guess those big brutish farmhorses sure could pull their weight (sorry) but how finicky are they about food? AFAIK you can feed mules and oxen pretty much anything. I'm pretty sure Oman wrote a few lines of how happy Wellington was with the durability of his mule train, unlike horses that needed a never-ending replenishment to keep the numbers up.

[CBR]

But to my knowledge oxen were not uncommon for heavy siege artillery. If you want something truly heavy to be moved, it's hard to beat oxen.

They might have been used on some occasions. But David Chandler has tables for equipment and number of animals used for artillery/siege trains (late 17th to mid 18th century) and only horses are mentioned. Late 17th century French supply services were handled by horse carts as mentioned by John A Lynn. Christopher Duffy's books on the Prussian and Austrian armies of the SYW only mentions horses for both artillery and logistics, even providing tables with number of wagons and horses hired for each year in the war. Mules could be used as pack animals in mountainous areas.

Oxen were used in the AWI but when I can find actual numbers it still seems horses were used more.

I know next to nothing about what happened in India but just going through some of the battles there seems to have been numerous cavalry involved. But from what I can find yes oxen were used in transport roles.

Now I admit I don't know that much about the advantages and disadvantages with the different animals but it is my understanding that oxen are rather slow and cannot work that long (and overheating easily because of lack of sweat glands)

It does seem oxen are better at living on grass only compared to mules and horses that need grain to sustain their weight. Mules are a bit slower than horses but more durable so less losses during a campaign.


CBR