Questions about artillery in the game

[aryaman]

Hi

1) Would infantry guns be counted as separated subunits? would they need separate replacement points from infantry

2) The Austrian 6pdr was the star of the war, being the first gun produced under the Griveaubal system, is that taken into the game?

3) Are howitzers represented as separated models with different statistics?

4) Is there a siege train? and the Prussian Horse Arty?

5) Is the battery the basic Artillery unit? is it composed of a single model, or more?

6)Are there any mixed units of Artillery and infantry or cavalry?

Just to start...

[Bern]

Hi

1) Would infantry guns be counted as separated subunits? would they need separate replacement points from infantry

2) The Austrian 6pdr was the star of the war, being the first gun produced under the Griveaubal system, is that taken into the game?

3) Are howitzers represented as separated models with different statistics?

4) Is there a siege train? and the Prussian Horse Arty?

5) Is the battery the basic Artillery unit? is it composed of a single model, or more?

6)Are there any mixed units of Artillery and infantry or cavalry?

Just to start...

Wonder if I can add to this. Frederick did seem to have a blind spot when it came to artillery - he always preferred the massed ranks of infantry. Whilst he did introduce horse artillery, he never really exploited this arm to its potential. His involvement in artillery was often described as 'meddlesome' even Napoleon, who learned much from the Great's art of war, suggested that Frederick was a great man who never understood artillery.

Would there be any penalties in the game to reflect this?

Bern

[Florent]

The Austrian artillery was much better than Prussian artillery after the reforms taken after 1748.
The calibers were standardized like everything.
3 lb, 6lb, 7lb howitzer and 12 lb guns placed in central battery.
Actually the prussians used their artillery for good effect too.
Starting with Rossbach the heavy artillery supported well the attacks, as it was the case at Leuthen.
And at the end of the war, Fred tried his artillery as a breakthrough weapon.
At Bukersdorf(21.7.1762), "... a single monster battery of 45 12 lb and 10 howitzers was brought to bear against the front of the austrian right wing, and represented probably the heaviest concentration of firepower up to that time."
The tactics changed during this war as well in infantry.
I hope that it will be in the combat system.
I also hope that the main ennemy leaders will not be at a disadvantage against a super-super Fred.
Fred values should help him winning battle with a very aggressive attitude and win despite appaling losses. This was the main difference : this will to win.
At Zorndorf the prussians lost 35.5% of their effective (killed/wounded/stragglers/deserters) against 42.7% for the russians.
Torgau respectively 37.8% against 29.9%.
Even at Leuthen they lost between 18.7% Dorn, 35% (Duffy) depending the initial strengh of Prussians against 33.8% for the 50-55000 (Duffy : many sicks in the army) or 60-65000 (Dorn).
At Prague 21.9 vs 22.3, Kölin 40.4% !! vs 17 %for austrians.
At Künersdorf, 38 %(prussians), 23.7 (russian) and 12 %(austrian).26% for coalition.
As can be seen the definitive advantage for Fred is accepting to lose a great number of men of any cause for the victory.
And perseverance or agressive posture (in game terms) is his mottto.
I think that the real values for Fred will be more or less after intensive playtesting.

[rogs]

the loss figures for the prussians are appalling

maybe this means frederick always chose the red high-intensive assault button? instead of the orange attack button . . .

maybe any army commanded by frederick should automatically have the red button set to 'on' . . .

[Sol Invictus]

Will the Brummer guns be a seperate Unit from the lighter Prussian 12 pdrs? These things sound like a real morale-breaker.

[orca]

At Künersdorf, 38 %(prussians), 23.7 (russian) and 12 %(austrian).26% for coalition.

Not sure how the Russians could have suffered 23.7% casulaties and the Austrians 12% and yet the total for the allies was 26% - higher than each countries losses.

Wikipedia tells me that the allies lost fewer than 15,000 while the Prussians lost some 45,000. Either way the battle was a complete disaster for Frederick.

Looking at percentage losses is a little misleading inasmuch as Frederick was usually outnumbered. SOrt of like looking at Lee and Grant's losses as percentages in 1864 - Grant's army was so much bigger that it's inevitable that his percentage losses would always be lower and that's no reflection on Lee as a general.

[Bern]

Good point regarding percentage losses. However, this does not detract from the fact that Frederick was an aggressive commander and a touch profligate in terms of his manpower. It will be very interesting to see how the outcome of battles is calculated in this game. On the one hand it will be necessary to accept that Prussia will take serious losses whilst on the other ensuring that combat values for Frederick do not make his army invincible.

Bern

[Sol Invictus]

It is very difficult to get an accurate tally of casualties since the commanders at the time didn't even have accurate numbers and any official number was almost certainly underestimated for friendly forces and inflated for the enemy. Duffy puts the breakdown for the losses as 19,500 and 172 Artillery pieces for the Prussians and 15,500 for the Allied forces. Wikipedia losses for the Prussians is much too high since their total forces only amounted to 50,000 according to Duffy.

[anarchyintheuk]

Battles also tended to be a good time to eliminate those extra soldiers carried on the rolls to justify extra ration/uniform/weapon allowances given regimental commanders. Especially those battles occuring at the end of a campaign season when commanders knew that inspections would occur during winter quarters.

[aryaman]

any official number was almost certainly underestimated for friendly forces and inflated for the enemy.

This is something I am telling everyone since I started to focus on Military History, about 10 years ago. You should always count forces with friendly data, not with those provided by the enemy. However, by lack of sources or less justifiable causes, that has been too many times the norm, giving birth to many myths very difficult to dislodge, like the lethal longbow, massive Asian (or Russian) armies, mediaeval armies larger than many modern ones...to cite some.

[Sol Invictus]

Yes, history is full of distortions. My favorite is Xerxes' 1,000,000 man army that invaded Greece and how 300 Spartans held him up for three days.

[orca]

It is very difficult to get an accurate tally of casualties since the commanders at the time didn't even have accurate numbers and any official number was almost certainly underestimated for friendly forces and inflated for the enemy. Duffy puts the breakdown for the losses as 19,500 and 172 Artillery pieces for the Prussians and 15,500 for the Allied forces. Wikipedia losses for the Prussians is much too high since their total forces only amounted to 50,000 according to Duffy.

I'll have to dig up my copy of Duffy, because that sounds like an underestimate. The Prussian army was pretty much gone at the end of the battle - so yes casulaties of 85% or something like that. Of course most of those casualties were missing rather than dead or wounded, so they were made good over the next few weeks. But they were casualties none the less - the units had simply disintegrated.

[Sol Invictus]

I'll have to dig up my copy of Duffy, because that sounds like an underestimate. The Prussian army was pretty much gone at the end of the battle - so yes casulaties of 85% or something like that. Of course most of those casualties were missing rather than dead or wounded, so they were made good over the next few weeks. But they were casualties none the less - the units had simply disintegrated.

I have never seen any statistics for a battle during the Seven Years War that came close to approaching 85%. The highest numbers I have seen were Prussian casualties at Kolin at around 40% and Russian casualties at Zorndorf at 42%. Duffy gives the Prussian casualties at Kunersdorf at 38%. Those are still devastating numbers. I got these stats form The Army of Frederick the Great by Duffy.

[Padreigh]

I remember reading that Frederick II. actually despised his artillery and therefore allowed non-nobles to rise quickly to officer ranks, as sign of his dislike.

[Sol Invictus]

True, the technical military vocations like Artillery and Engineers allowed non-nobles an avenue for advancement and Frederick, as well as the other arms, looked down on them. This led Prussia to suffer from a relatively weak and unprofessional Artillery and Engineer Corps that suffered from neglect in peacetime and therefore began most wars in a weak state. One of Frederick's less enlighted oversights. During the Seven Years War he finally came to realize the importance of Artillery.

[Padreigh]

Well, some lessons have to be learned the hard way.

Especially when fighting the Russians, who simply loved artillery and by 1760 had something around 800 cannons, "unicorns" and howitzers, if I'm not mistaken (field artillery units plus regimental pieces).

[Sol Invictus]

Yeah, the Russian did love their big guns and still do to this day. I think that Frederick's tangle with the Russians was quite a shock. The Germans always seem to underestimate the Russians.

[Padreigh]

Yeah, I don't understand why.

Huge country, lots of soldiers, well known for having massive guns (and lots of them), always willing to share Poland with you ... sounds like someone you shouldn't underestimate and try to be friends with.

By the way, can't wait to see how Ageod will "rate" the units of the different nations.
The Prussians will probably have good "discipline" and "musket fire" ratings, while the Russians will probably be more into bayonet charges and hard to break by musket fire alone.

[aryaman]

Yeah, I don't understand why.

Huge country, lots of soldiers, well known for having massive guns (and lots of them), always willing to share Poland with you ... sounds like someone you shouldn't underestimate and try to be friends with.

By the way, can't wait to see how Ageod will "rate" the units of the different nations.
The Prussians will probably have good "discipline" and "musket fire" ratings, while the Russians will probably be more into bayonet charges and hard to break by musket fire alone.

Russians were considered "cold" infantry, good at firing volleys. For bayonet charges French, Irish, Swedish, Hungarians and Highlanders.

[Sol Invictus]

I guess the greatest strength of the Russian soldier has been his determined ability to stand against deadly fire an his ability to brush off unfortunate events and come back for more. They were almost unmoveable at times and would die almost to the man. Very deadly foe. When led by brilliant commanders they were truely fearsome. Luckily for Frederick, the Russian commanders during the SYW were not their historical best. Imagine if Suvarov had been leading their armies. In spite of less than stellar ledership, they were still able to stand to to toe with the Prussians. Their units will be rated highly I am guessing and tend not to rout easily.

[Florent]

Aryaman and Sol Invictus summed up perfectly the Russians, very good for volleys, some said better than the Prussian.
They aim at the ennemy rather than an area (the middle of formation).
This is Suvorov that will introduce the bayonnet as the main instrument.
Taugh in morale. Fred had difficulty to shut up the Prussian soldiers saying that 30 Russians can defend a redoubt where 1 battalion of prussians were needed.
The gunners rarely left their guns during combat to avoid to face a firing squad therafter and thus defended their guns until the end.
The main problem for the russians is supply and huge distance to cross.
They have to close if not they have to do all the travel again to winter quarters and come back again the next year but arriving late in season.
The player will have to take Kônigsberg rapidly to have a first base to avoid to come back in russia.
Historically they took Colberg too late in 1761-1762.
The player will have to take it or Kûstrin or a collective Austro-Russian taking of Breslau to avoid having to go back to Vistula.
Here the Prussian player will be in danger.

[Padreigh]

Russians were considered "cold" infantry, good at firing volleys. For bayonet charges French, Irish, Swedish, Hungarians and Highlanders.

Really? I somehow always had them marked down as close combat orientated. To (probably) misquote Suvorov: "The bullet is a mad thing; only the bayonet knows what it is about"

Okay, the esteemed Field Marshal was only a Colonel at the end of the SYW, but still ...

Or maybe I am just a victim of Prussian 19th and early 20th Century propaganda which always seems to show the Russian infantry in the SYW as a wave of green-clad madmen yelling "Urrä" and charging without regard for losses.

Edit: Ah, Florent posted while I was busy typing

[Sol Invictus]

Florent, yeah if the Russians can capture a forward base early in the war the Prussians will be in big trouble. Konigsburg will be fairly easy to grab, but as you said, Kustrin or Kolberg will be critical for the Russians.

[Florent]

"show the Russian infantry in the SYW as a wave of green-clad madmen"
Interestingly at Zornorf, the heat was so terrible that the russians left their green uniforms and had their Red waistcoat.
Perhaps Gpepper will do both counters : Standard green uniform and Red waistcoat. for variety. The corps of observation were not of the standard of the regular.
The russian mitre-cap is also different and i think from design was easier to keep on head.

[Padreigh]

That would be really nice. Different unit counters for different weather.

[Le Ricain]

Yeah, the Russian did love their big guns and still do to this day. I think that Frederick's tangle with the Russians was quite a shock. The Germans always seem to underestimate the Russians.

It is probably worth remembering that the common saying up until WWI was that 'Russians always beat Prussians'.

[Sol Invictus]

It is probably worth remembering that the common saying up until WWI was that 'Russians always beat Prussians'.

Yeah, WWI really turned that saying on its head.

[Padreigh]

Well, to be fair, it wasn't just Prussians fighting the Russians in WWI.
I'm pretty sure that the occasional Saxon, Bavarian, Wurtembergian etc was involved as well.

[Sol Invictus]

Well, to be fair, it wasn't just Prussians fighting the Russians in WWI.
I'm pretty sure that the occasional Saxon, Bavarian, Wurtembergian etc was involved as well.

True, they might have contributed a small bit.