French cavalry beating fortress defenders

[Pocus]

Wow... Walloc you made my brain blow, don't forget that I'm not a native english reader

So if I have understood and to summarize, we would need to add counter-battery feature?

There is also a new feature not yet in the current version, which is 'Combat Signature', more on that when the patch is released.

[Jabberwock]

This could be a good addition for ACW as well, not so much in terms of cavalry charges, but in terms of artillery casualties in field battles, which are IMO generally too low. The effects could be tied in to the new posture buttons that were added for NCP.

[Walloc]

Wow... Walloc you made my brain blow, don't forget that I'm not a native english reader

Lol, neither am i and it shows.
If u brain is fried i better start looking out for angry AGEOD fans comming my way. :niark

So if I have understood and to summarize, we would need to add counter-battery feature?

Yes if it can be made, there are possibilties for making things worse ill come to that later.
I would envious working it some thing like this. Ur the master so u gota translate it into code.

After deployment has happens.

If both sides has art in frontline, which is usually the case.
Checks on each sides deployed batteries with X% to see if it will target the other sides batteries and possibly the same for other side.
Shouldnt be 100%, but a sizeble chance.


This should lock those batteries in counter battery fire, so they keep shooting at each other. If possible, in such a way, that there a chance of changing target if inf/cav comes close. Else not, unless u win the battery duel, More on that later.

When under this no chance of advancing those batteries, making for standoff counter fires.
Possibly extending this to batteries in general not advance, read have a low chance of happining, if unsuppresed art is on opposing side.

Very importand and else it for sure wont work. There cant be any casulties in those counter battery fires. Else batteries will be dead and gone by first battle. Thats not my intension in any way. Possibly u could make casulties but then very reduced in the neighbohood of 95% i guess. To represent that not as much ppl die, but permantly damaged/destroyed guns. I assume we cant it hit guns instead of men and thats fine. U could represent lost guns by reducing men and that i think would work better within the system as is.
Just gota make sure its a very low ratio.

Outcome if a battery to battery counter fire should be if it can be so that batteries win this contest by other side not routing, but "retiring".
Could it be that instead of casulties u damage other sides cohesion and then if a battery reaches a given threshhold that battery retires out of the line.
If the side with the retired battery has batteries in reserve that couldnt be deployed cuz of frontage or other wise, it can now take the retired battery's place, or at least have a chance. Read more % checks. If it can be made possible.

Effects if such can be implimented or the way i envious it.

U get less fire on inf/cav on opposing sides. Meaning less "chances" of situasion where cav thinks its a good idea to charge. Which would lower their overall casulties.

If u have enough art superiority u can possibly win a art duel facilitating the switch so firing on other targets, read inf and cav. So having an art superority pays.

All the counter battery fire, if it can be that it damages cohesion, should then lower the effectiveness of the affected batteries. A sorta quasi implimentation of a suppresion effect.
So when attacks are made, be it inf or cav those would be less bloody.
This might have to be looked over for its effect in game. While i wana lower cav casulties my intend isnt the same in general for inf.

Again i stress that the chance of counter battery fire shouldnt be 100%, but it lets say u dont pass a chance of x% chance u should fire on opposing art if any present. If the check is done battery by battery u still have art firing on inf and cav.

All this should in my mind help forge some features of combines arms. I have suggestions for more but that in a later post.

As far as reducing the overall cav casulties im not sure that this will do it all.
The chance of the charges happening might still have to be tweeked independantly of this but its hard to say before hand.

Im happy to have ppl critize or come with suggestions for alterations.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[Walloc]

This could be a good addition for ACW as well, not so much in terms of cavalry charges, but in terms of artillery casualties in field battles, which are IMO generally too low. The effects could be tied in to the new posture buttons that were added for NCP.

I agree that it would make a good addition to AACW.

2 notes. If done in way i descripe about i all things given if art fires on art more they will cause less inf casulties. Tweeking that might have to be done to find the the right balance.

2nd note. Counter battery fires certain was a part of ACW too. Getting it right in NCP feels to me more of a problem than it didnt in AACW. Nappy age is battle wise more multifaceted in many way. Simplistic said but non the less with alot of truth in it. ACW only really battle wise had 2 arms. Inf and art. Cav acting more like inf most tho far from it all the time. Still never seemed much of a problem battle result wise for me in AACW.

In nappy age u have 3 arms. This means combined arms gets more complicated. If 1 or 2 of those arms doesnt quite work right in the game it affects how the others work.
Chances are greater that battle result might get unhistoric. Especially ofc if a battle occures where 1 of the arms is some how predominant.

As is the case in NCP IMO.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[Jabberwock]

I agree that iw would make a good addition to AACW.

2 notes. If done in way i descripe about i all things given if art fires on art more they will cause less inf casulties. Tweeking that might have to be done to find the the right balance.

2nd note. Counter battery fires certain was a part of ACW too. Getting it right in NCP feels to me more of a problem than it didnt in AACW. Nappy age is battle wise more multifaceted in many way. Simplistic said but non the less with alot of truth in it. ACW only really battle wise had 2 arms. Inf and art. Cav acting more like inf most tho far from it all the time. Still never seemed much of a problem battle result wise for me in AACW.

In nappy age u have 3 arms. This means combined arms gets more complicated. If 1 or 2 of those arms doesnt quite work right in the game it affects how the others work.
Chances are greater that battle result might get unhistoric. Especially ofc if a battle occures where 1 of the arms is some how predominant.

As is the case in NCP IMO.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

I think we are in agreement.

1. It is more important to get this right for NCP than for ACW.

2. Care should be taken to find the 'best balance' for each period.

3. ACW cavalry was more like mounted infantry or dragoons than in the Napoleonic era, especially in the later stages of the ACW.

[Walloc]

1 more thing i would like to see added to battle engine to achieve a sense of combined arms.

Counter charges.

The most used way, ofc according to given circumstances, to counter cav attacking is to counter attack the attacking cav with our own. In general too u'd see many times cav facing cav on a larger scale in battles.

Such a counter cav attack might not be succesfull but it many times gives u that extra min or 2 it would take ur inf to form square or other wise prepare for a enemy cav charge.

I'd like to see implimented a counter cav charge in the engine.

Working some thing like this.

Side A attacks with cav. Be the target inf, art or cav. If side B has cav in its line there is a chance that cav will counterattack the cav charge.

A procedure could be like this.

Side A charges, B checks for counter charges.
If side B has cav in position and succes, 1 more check is made to see if contact is made of not. In general i'd say contact wouldnt be made in some 80-90-95% of cases. Stuff like possible flank attacks where some casulties could again happen should be taken into account.
If contact isnt made the casulties shouldnt be very slight.
If contact is made melee can happen and casulties can occur tho again not to high.
Whether contact is made or not but possibly more if contact is made, regardless of who attacks the 2 cav elements involved should lose a deal of cohesion. This is importand as this representing the time bought from the counter charge, which in RL the inf could have used to retreat, form squares or what ever in teh given situasion. So if a check is made after a counter charge if original charging side is made whether to continue to attack the lost cohesion should make it harder to win over the inf or what ever the original target wass.
Plus it might tho im not sure it will work like that induce the see saw nature of cav vs cav combat.
Side a charging and winning getting, charged by side B's next regiment and losing for side Bs cav reg to be yet again be charged by another regiment and so on and on.

If succesfully attacking counter charges, could be checked for them selfs being counter charged, assuming cav is present u could end up in a very historical situasion.

2 sides gradually exhausting its cav, if non of the sides is superior and can win it out right. Assuming such a cav vs cav battle ever starts.


Kind regards,

Rasmus

[Arnaud_Bouis]

What is exactly the nature of this bonus for you, I mean practically on the battleground?

Simply, in a napoleonic battle :

- a side very weak in cavalry would be unable to pursue (eg Lutzen Bautzen: not a gun taken), would be unable to screen his retreat (turning defeats into routs), would be unable to attack enemy cavalry, would be quite blind and would have to move in squares (as at Lutzen), becoming highly vulnerable to enemy fire and unable to manoeuvre.

- a side very weak in infantry would be unable to do much harm to the enemy infantry , who could form squares to resist cavalry charges (example: Battle of the Pyramids).

- a side weak in artillery would be unable to attack enemy squares, would be unable to respond to enemy artillery, and would find it very difficult to attack an enemy in villages or field fortifications (example: Hougoumont).

Therefore, a side which was severely unbalanced in one of the three arms was historically penalized. This is why Napoleon concluded in July 1813 that he could not win for want of cavalry, and agreed to an armistice.

The lack of artillery was maybe the least penalizing. Except for sieges, but this is another topic.

I'm open to debate, really, but be sure to discuss something (combined arms) which is not an artificial construct done in games which don't have enough details in their combat engine to innately represent it.

I did my best to base my post on historical facts.

In game terms, in a fire-based combat system such as that of NCP, the above could be translated into bonuses alongs the lines of :

- an infantry/artillery fire bonus against a side weak in cavalry (because they would have to form squares),

- a "forming square check" bonus for a side which has infantry or artillery superiority (because there is little enemy infantry and artillery to disrupt the squares).

"Weakness" could be defined as 1:2 numerical inferiority.

This is a quick idea, but naturally it would require some deeper thinking.

[Walloc]

With a sad heart cuz of the recent news.

If my idea's are deemed unpratical or rejected for what ever other reason.

I then suggest some how else some thing seriously needs to be done about cav casulties. Perhapse even with implimentation of my changes, tweeks still needs to be done.

In the now infamouse Arnaud battle example. Charging and routing or charging the routing enemy what ever of those 2 things specificly happen. u would know better than I Pocus. Still, the french cav toke 3500 casulties.

This is more casulties than what the entire french Cavalry force toke at Liebervolkwitz. The largerst Cav battle of the era, that lasted alot longer and had many more troops involved. While this cant be directly compared as Arnaud's battle example isnt a duplicate operational/tactical situasion, It still tells about the ernomous proportion those 3500 cav men are in that battle example and this is every day life in NCP when i play, not a freak occurance.

Not that cav should be made stronger than it is atm. Quite the opposite.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[Clovis]

Counter battery feature would be needed in AACW, it was one of the primary function of rifled guns over smoothbores, especially the 20 ' parrots.

[Walloc]

Simply, in a napoleonic battle :

- a side very weak in cavalry would be unable to pursue (eg Lutzen Bautzen: not a gun taken), would be unable to screen his retreat (turning defeats into routs), would be unable to attack enemy cavalry, would be quite blind and would have to move in squares (as at Lutzen), becoming highly vulnerable to enemy fire and unable to manoeuvre.

Therefore, a side which was severely unbalanced in one of the three arms was historically penalized. This is why Napoleon concluded in July 1813 that he could not win for want of cavalry, and agreed to an armistice.

I second that whole heartedly.
This is IMO a seperate issue than the to many cav casulties, but non the less as importand.

We briefly discussed this before else where, so i very much agree with that cav superiority should matter much more than now in the operational phase. Including retreat casulties.
1806 is a great example of what u can do winning battles and having cav dominance/superiority. In terms of retreat/pursuit casulties
Just as the 1813 spring is a great example of what happens when u win battles and the opponent has the superiority/dominance. In terms of retreat/pursuit casulties or in this case the lack there of or at leased lowered.

The retreat from Dresden in the fall of 1813 wasnt uncostly for the allies. If the allied didnt had happend to have the cav superiority there, my guess is it would have been much worse.
Several of the allied columns Nappy are totally unaware of, 1 of the reasons why Kleist by chance turns up in St. Cyr's rear ar Kulm.
If he had, had a much clear picture and the means comparitibly speaking for an effect pursuit i can only specluate the losses would have been much worse.

This isnt per say as much a combat issue as a dectection and retreat issue on the operational scale, tho the retreat losses are tied into the combat engine some how i assume since its calcuated right after/part of the combat, right?
How exactly to represent that in the game other than a more direct comparison of the sides light cav as Arnaud wisely suggests, i dont see atm. Modified for quality some how, but even that is tricky. For example Cossaks which in generally are shown as of bad quality cuz they are battle wise, are quite usefull in this.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[Fouche]

Hello Pocus....hmm..."There is also a new feature not yet in the current version, which is 'Combat Signature', more on that when the patch is released."...ok I wonder what that is?
I think the counter battery fire and counter cavalry charges if implemented (depending upon the construct of the game engine--based upon how much artillery and cavalry is present and what types) into Napoleon's Campaigns for the battle sequences/rounds would be beneficial.

[Pocus]

I'll think about that within some days, then add it to our TODO list. This should be done in a few weeks.

Combat signature is something you can read about in the modding forum:
http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=7417

[ncsu90]

I find this whole thread pointless. In effect I see that some players want to rationalize the results of a battle, such that each battle's results roughly corresponds to their expectations. The truth is that most historical battles/campaigns never went according to plan and HIGHLY variable results (sometimes extremely strange results) occurred. The list of battles where some small factor resulted in completely unexpected result would be too long for a single post.

The game engine is operating at a high level and abstracts battle results through probability. The fact that improbable results occur shouldn't be suprising, since that is VERY historical. It is how one deals with adversity or good fortune that separates the good leaders from the bad, and I find the AGEOD engine tprovides enough randomness in results to account for those strange results, which are fairly common in the historical record.

A game that never produces the strangeness we see in the historical record, is in fact very unrealistic. And I argue that the strange occurances in warfare is exactly what interests people in the topic. By the way, Napolean's own legend was caused by a historical fluke with his victory at Morengo


Daniel

PS. Just a few Napoleonic battles that have results that defy logic if analyzed at only a high level.

Marengo - Napolean's legend should never have started
Auerstadt - Davout wins outnumbered 2:1
Austerlitz - Thousands of troops drowning isn't in any Nappy game engine
Waterloo - The Brits were beaten until two lucky incidents - The Charge of
the Scots Greys - and the Coldstream Guards beating back the Old Guard

[Walloc]

I find this whole thread pointless. In effect I see that some s want to rationalize the results of a battle, such that each battle's results roughly corresponds to their expectations.

IMO ur missing the point.

The game engine is operating at a high level and abstracts battle results through probability. The fact that improbable results occur shouldn't be suprising, since that is VERY historical.

As i pointed numerous times i have no problem with odd results.
Its when the majority of results are odd there is a problem.

Just played a 1813 campaign today to test some leader stats changes

I wrote down every result of all the battles. In 9 out of 12 battles where there was a normal ratio of cav to infantry, there was near equal or more dead cavalry than infantry.
In 2 of the battles, 1 or more cav corps was entire eliminated. Even if starting at 95%+ strength.

This is not the occational oddness. Its a trend.

A game that never produces the strangeness we see in the historical record, is in fact very unrealistic. And I argue that the strange occurances in warfare is exactly what interests people in the topic. By the way, Napolean's own legend was caused by a historical fluke with his victory at Morengo.

I certainly agree that several battles in the era if not defy logic have impressive results, that certainly wasnt to be expected at the time. That said i see many times in the battles u descripe a perfectly understandble reason for the result in hindsight, tho not in all. Drowning men at Austerlitz being a perfect example of the totally unexpected happening.
Problem is that ppl tend to remember the odd/unexpected and forget the ordinary. Simply how the human brain works. Forgetting the hundres of battles where the result was more to be expected. If u do a comparison the odd things happens and so it should in a game. Just not all the time. That is why i make use of statistic to try and remove that in my own opinion forming when doing testing.

So equal to a engine that never produce an odd results, an engine that uncommonly produce expected results, within reason, is just as unhistorical.

To me having 9 out of 12 battles with the above descriped result which is so unusual/unlike for the periode is a trend. Not a oddness u can just write of as the occational unexpected happening.
If its a trend produced by factors within the engine, the question is what can u change to make it less likely.

Ppls opinion differs on such, where do u draw the line. I can only speak for me, but keep seeing such results destroy any immersion of the game for me.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[Pocus]

Rasmus, about the cavalry dying in drove, this is fixed now, as Brigade Infernale, the NCP coordinator is using a new feature I coded named Combat Signature.

We will fix 'common oddities'

[Walloc]

Happy to hear that, Pocus.


Kind regards,

Rasmus