Hey guys, i was wondering about few aspects of the coming game.
1)
What will one element represent?
A battalion , 500 - 800 people? It seems as it would be the most logical way as number of battalions was seen as best way to compare size of armies those days. It would give fanatsic historical touch and would be easy to build new scenarios
2.)
Will there be a difference in statistics between same kind of unit but different nationality?
For example - will the be a difference in stats of one elemnet of Prussian and french infantry? I would strongly advocate for no difference in stats but rather in experience and training.
There was ongoing discussion on what was better tactic - line or column, or whether new revolutionary infrantsry was per see better then old regime one and it seems that there is no easy answer. While trained units of grand army in 1805 and 1806 could move fast in column their usuall tactic was to deploy in line. And their success was not based on better tactic but rather being very well trained - through 1804 preparation for the invasion on England.
I recently read very interesting description of french and Prussian Napoleon tactics .
Author was pointing that during battles of jena and austerdat prussian infrantsry performed well and marchal Lannes called its voley fire devastating. Prussians were capable of deploying significant corps of schrutzen that fought french tirraliuers. They used the tactic of using third line of their infrantsry as tirraliuers.
What worked bad in Prussian army was command control system - lack of proper organizations, permanent divisions, lack of proper coordination between different columns.
These is something that can be well represented by current agood system with the low statistic of Prussian officers and bad structure of the army.
3.
Will game mechanics represent reality of the battlefield?
What seems to be cruccial during napoleonic wars was having the right mix of weapons for right needs. Combination of light ifrnatsry to clear woods, line ifnrantry to hold the line, light cavalery to scout and Cover and heavy to charge was crucial. And there was no "perfect" mixture as one needed something diffeenrt in russia while it was not tranferable to the plains of north germany, and very defferent to the wood of schwarzwald...
My point and question is whther there will be a mechanism that will make it worth to look for that mixture insted of having one magic element.
What i did not like in AJE was that roman legions were capable of winning war against every enemy everywhere. Perhaps it should be done this way that only with enough light elements you can have enough frontage, while when you have enough light cavalery you get innitive, while when entering woods and having extra light infrantry you willl have better performance of other elements
4.
how will corps, army, mtsg work?
what was a real napoleon revolutiom was his command structure - permanent divisions, corps, army. cooperation, synhronized movement allovowed to cover big area snd conterte army in one specific place when needed.
this was essential for the victorirs at jena , at austerlitz.
coaltion forces managed to rich such a level of coordition at later stage - lepzig 1813 or in spain bit earlier.
i guees the right way of giving bennefit for the right structure should be granted by giving french earlier higher cohesion benefit for forming corps.
the big wuestion is whether coaltion forces should bd denied corps structure in 1805 or in revolutionary work extrnsion.
i would say thats not the right choice. austrian, russian or prussian armied were all using "columns" - an XVIII century version of corps. the big difference was that thay were not that well organised and structured as the french ones.
allied armies did march to the sound of the guns, when led by cappable army and column commanders they did it reasonably well
One way of solving these could be giving all 2 star generals possibility to do MTSG.
other way would be giving french corps some kind of higher probality of doing right MTSG in early stage of campaign and some cohesion bust....
Anyway, i am really looking for that game....
To continue on your point no:2.
The Russian usually had bigger Battalions and hence bigger division/corps, by as much as 20-25% (they had excess manpower available as always), but their POWDER was awful which meant till about 1808-09 their rifle fire was awful, on the other hand they were fierce in defensive battles and the better trained regiments like Guards, Grenadiers etc had awesome BAYONET power. Something which scared other infantry.
Also Russian Light Cavalry esp. Cossacks were the best light cavalry and should have good "out of supply" bonus, i.e. say you send a light cavalry division of 2 regiments to scout, it is normally ok for 2-3 turns before being out of supply; so what you do is scout on turns 1&2 and return on turn 3, rinse and repeat.
but a Cossack should be able to survive turns 4 or even 5 also, it should have better scouting ability (line of sight).
Again Russian Artillery was Awesome as always. Even Russian commanders (though most of them were Germans in Russian Service) were above average or good.
The only problem was that Rifle Fire was bad due to afore mentioned POWDER problems, also the Russians weren't OFFENSIVE minded, perhaps lethargic to go on the offensive, maybe lacked the initiative. Otherwise Russian Armies were based on Actual Combat Performance equal to the French till 1812 and better from 1812 onwards.
On the other end of the spectrum, you had the British.
Now this was one army which was simply AWESOME in RIFLE FIREPOWER, the perfect shooting, aiming, rate of fire, quality of Powder and weapons were unparalleled by anyone. All they lacked was numbers (average Regimental sizes were smaller and replacements fewer).
Even the artillery was quite good, nearly equal to French and Russians but lacked the huge numbers.
The main problem was CAVALRY. Esp. good Heavy Cavalry, but this was a problem of leadership more than anything else, when UXBRIDGE came to command the English Cavalry in the 1808-09 Spanish Campaign and charged repeatedly at the French, the French cavalry after some heavy losses rarely agreed to charge at the English Cavalry for nearly a year; and again in the 1814 Flanders campaign their performance dramatically improved so much so that the fast-declining French Heavy Cavalry was caught short by the English.
So, how to showcase these two extreme view-points without breaking the game-play is the key question.
The Russian usually had bigger Battalions and hence bigger division/corps, by as much as 20-25% (they had excess manpower available as always), but their POWDER was awful which meant till about 1808-09 their rifle fire was awful, on the other hand they were fierce in defensive battles and the better trained regiments like Guards, Grenadiers etc had awesome BAYONET power. Something which scared other infantry.
Also Russian Light Cavalry esp. Cossacks were the best light cavalry and should have good "out of supply" bonus, i.e. say you send a light cavalry division of 2 regiments to scout, it is normally ok for 2-3 turns before being out of supply; so what you do is scout on turns 1&2 and return on turn 3, rinse and repeat.
but a Cossack should be able to survive turns 4 or even 5 also, it should have better scouting ability (line of sight).
Again Russian Artillery was Awesome as always. Even Russian commanders (though most of them were Germans in Russian Service) were above average or good.
The only problem was that Rifle Fire was bad due to afore mentioned POWDER problems, also the Russians weren't OFFENSIVE minded, perhaps lethargic to go on the offensive, maybe lacked the initiative. Otherwise Russian Armies were based on Actual Combat Performance equal to the French till 1812 and better from 1812 onwards.
On the other end of the spectrum, you had the British.
Now this was one army which was simply AWESOME in RIFLE FIREPOWER, the perfect shooting, aiming, rate of fire, quality of Powder and weapons were unparalleled by anyone. All they lacked was numbers (average Regimental sizes were smaller and replacements fewer).
Even the artillery was quite good, nearly equal to French and Russians but lacked the huge numbers.
The main problem was CAVALRY. Esp. good Heavy Cavalry, but this was a problem of leadership more than anything else, when UXBRIDGE came to command the English Cavalry in the 1808-09 Spanish Campaign and charged repeatedly at the French, the French cavalry after some heavy losses rarely agreed to charge at the English Cavalry for nearly a year; and again in the 1814 Flanders campaign their performance dramatically improved so much so that the fast-declining French Heavy Cavalry was caught short by the English.
So, how to showcase these two extreme view-points without breaking the game-play is the key question.
Rascals, would you live forever? - Frederick the Great.
-
CheerfullyInsane
- Private
- Posts: 25
- Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 1:34 am
Good points, but do #2 and #3 really belong in what is basically an operational game?
Not that I wouldn't like to see them integrated, I'm just not sure this is the right scale to do it on.
One of the things that have always annoyed me a little bit about the AGE games is the lack of clarity as to what goes on under the hood when battle is joined. I know there have been a ton of posts from users describing the effects of frontage vs. number of artillery batteries vs. terrain and so on, but I still don't really get it, to be honest.
Usually I just form what are largely historical formations and trust to luck for the rest.
But stuff like gaining an advantage through e.g. a larger number of light cav, doesn't really belong in the battle-phase IMO.
You already have an advantage through better recon and flank security (assuming that you've actually used your cavalry as intended).
And as for Light infantry gaining an advantage in woods......
Well, if the Light infantry is attacking a force of only line infantry and artillery in a wooded province, wouldn't it stand to reason that the defenders probably wouldn't be situated in a forest in the first place?
The areas are fairly large, and presumably they'd be able to find a place or two that wasn't entirely arboreal.
Same with #2. Whether a nation usually deployed for battle in line or column isn't really the point on this scale.
I would imagine there'll be some national differences, like discipline and cohesion, but when you're at this scale it is much easier to use the leader-system to show the gaps between a ponderous Prussian army and a more nimble French one.
Give the Prussians lower activations, throw in a few Slow Mover traits, and you get the general effect.
I do agree on #4, there has to be some sort of Corps structure for all nations.
If for no other reason than the logistical nightmare it'll be to lead a Russian Army without Corps containers.
As for MTSG, as far as I remember (been a while since I played AGEOD), MTSG is linked to the initiative-rating of the commander, so once again you'd be able to simulate the national differences using the leader-traits.
I also agree that the battalion will probably be the basic building block in the game.
I'm less sure of the historical names though. Granted, it would be nice to have for the scenarios, but I will bet vital parts of my anatomy on the fact that most players will be far more interested in the Grand Campaign.
And since that will presumably give the player control over what kind of units he decides to raise (within man-power limits), the idea of historical unit names gets a little moot.
In my opinion, what will make or break this game isn't so much the war-engine itself, but the strategic diplomatic system.
Without the ability to e.g. form Coalitions, enforce demands through a peace-treaty and so on, it will descend into a game of 20th century total warfare using 19th century armies.
Paradox does is pretty well with EUIV, where you can enforce a limited peace once you've achieved your war-goal, without needing to utterly destroy every last settlement in the country.
To capture the flavor of Napoleonic warfare, the diplo-system HAS to work, otherwise the whole thing falls flat.
But that's a whole 'nother kettle of aquatic life-forms.
Not that I wouldn't like to see them integrated, I'm just not sure this is the right scale to do it on.
One of the things that have always annoyed me a little bit about the AGE games is the lack of clarity as to what goes on under the hood when battle is joined. I know there have been a ton of posts from users describing the effects of frontage vs. number of artillery batteries vs. terrain and so on, but I still don't really get it, to be honest.
Usually I just form what are largely historical formations and trust to luck for the rest.
But stuff like gaining an advantage through e.g. a larger number of light cav, doesn't really belong in the battle-phase IMO.
You already have an advantage through better recon and flank security (assuming that you've actually used your cavalry as intended).
And as for Light infantry gaining an advantage in woods......
Well, if the Light infantry is attacking a force of only line infantry and artillery in a wooded province, wouldn't it stand to reason that the defenders probably wouldn't be situated in a forest in the first place?
The areas are fairly large, and presumably they'd be able to find a place or two that wasn't entirely arboreal.
Same with #2. Whether a nation usually deployed for battle in line or column isn't really the point on this scale.
I would imagine there'll be some national differences, like discipline and cohesion, but when you're at this scale it is much easier to use the leader-system to show the gaps between a ponderous Prussian army and a more nimble French one.
Give the Prussians lower activations, throw in a few Slow Mover traits, and you get the general effect.
I do agree on #4, there has to be some sort of Corps structure for all nations.
If for no other reason than the logistical nightmare it'll be to lead a Russian Army without Corps containers.
As for MTSG, as far as I remember (been a while since I played AGEOD), MTSG is linked to the initiative-rating of the commander, so once again you'd be able to simulate the national differences using the leader-traits.
I also agree that the battalion will probably be the basic building block in the game.
I'm less sure of the historical names though. Granted, it would be nice to have for the scenarios, but I will bet vital parts of my anatomy on the fact that most players will be far more interested in the Grand Campaign.
And since that will presumably give the player control over what kind of units he decides to raise (within man-power limits), the idea of historical unit names gets a little moot.
In my opinion, what will make or break this game isn't so much the war-engine itself, but the strategic diplomatic system.
Without the ability to e.g. form Coalitions, enforce demands through a peace-treaty and so on, it will descend into a game of 20th century total warfare using 19th century armies.
Paradox does is pretty well with EUIV, where you can enforce a limited peace once you've achieved your war-goal, without needing to utterly destroy every last settlement in the country.
To capture the flavor of Napoleonic warfare, the diplo-system HAS to work, otherwise the whole thing falls flat.
But that's a whole 'nother kettle of aquatic life-forms.
CheerfullyInsane wrote:
I do agree on #4, there has to be some sort of Corps structure for all nations.
If for no other reason than the logistical nightmare it'll be to lead a Russian Army without Corps containers.
As for MTSG, as far as I remember (been a while since I played AGEOD), MTSG is linked to the initiative-rating of the commander, so once again you'd be able to simulate the national differences using the leader-traits.
Just about that point, I think it would be a mistake to use leader traits. For a long while there was this romantic vision of the french grande armée with all those brilliant young generals and at their helm the best of all Napoleon, running around those plodding old austrian/russian/prussian generals.. but the way the other european countries slowly adapted their doctrines and started winning against even the supposedly best french generals showed that sure those 1805 generals were on average good, but not crazy good. One shouldn't make Lannes or Davout or Soult into great generals because they mainly benefited from Napoleon's operational brilliance and the knew how to execute the more flexible campaigning and battling methods in use in the french army. I would much rather french original advantages were ingrained in the military structure or unit stats or traits at certain periods of the game rather than having french leaders too beefed up.
I think- Nappy should start 1805 in near God mode i.e. 6-7-7 and with a bunch of attributes including - very fast mover and master of logistics and also offensive doctrine. Plus start as strategic genius- giving all corps commanders- 1 Strategic, 1 Attack and +5 frontage. he should also have Surprise and Artillery commander benefits in early years - all these i am assuming TEAW attributes continue.
This will make Nappy move 25% faster and consume 25% less supply/ammo. also make him near invincible with equal troops. Also make him fire first and fire better.
as the years go by, he should lose his very fast mover to become fast mover and finally totally lose it. Also his stats should progressively decline to 6-5-4 (6 Strategic as he was Emperor).
Now to his generals, Davout and Messena were the only 2 generals who could fight independently and successfully in the long run, so except them the rest should have low base stats but be boosted by Nappy.
The French were helped by three main things-
1. France had a huge population of ~20 Million in ~1800, when the highest was Russia with 35 Million and most European Powers had less than 10 million, this meant a lot of conscripts recruited. Revolutionary armies laid the base with conscription on massive levels.
2. The standardisation of artillery, guns etc meant a lot of guns of same type produced using the GRIBEVAL system. This meant better guns, more guns and Grand Batteries!.
3. Nappy's use of Corps and logistics and his fast movement and surprise hits. Eg: Hitting in Northern Italy when it wasn't expected and then hitting in the Ulm-Austerlitz campaign again with surprise, repeats it in the Prussian campaign and keeps the pressure in all 3 cases till the end.
Also compared to Austrian, Russian and even Prussian armies, the French were better supplied and had better infantry weapons and more ammo. It was only after the English went back to the strategy of Old Mr. Pitt and started massive subsidies on the continent from 1809 onwards did the continental armies have good guns and plenty of ammo- this needs to be showcased somehow. Esp. Poor Russian gunpowder from 1801-1809.
Post 1807, the advantage of "3" slowed and then stopped.
Also advantage of "1" was lost as a lot of allies combined to form large armies in tandem.
So, maybe France can have more Guns, Better Guns, better Leadership in early part due to Nappy and allies must suffer from some deficiencies.
This will make Nappy move 25% faster and consume 25% less supply/ammo. also make him near invincible with equal troops. Also make him fire first and fire better.
as the years go by, he should lose his very fast mover to become fast mover and finally totally lose it. Also his stats should progressively decline to 6-5-4 (6 Strategic as he was Emperor).
Now to his generals, Davout and Messena were the only 2 generals who could fight independently and successfully in the long run, so except them the rest should have low base stats but be boosted by Nappy.
The French were helped by three main things-
1. France had a huge population of ~20 Million in ~1800, when the highest was Russia with 35 Million and most European Powers had less than 10 million, this meant a lot of conscripts recruited. Revolutionary armies laid the base with conscription on massive levels.
2. The standardisation of artillery, guns etc meant a lot of guns of same type produced using the GRIBEVAL system. This meant better guns, more guns and Grand Batteries!.
3. Nappy's use of Corps and logistics and his fast movement and surprise hits. Eg: Hitting in Northern Italy when it wasn't expected and then hitting in the Ulm-Austerlitz campaign again with surprise, repeats it in the Prussian campaign and keeps the pressure in all 3 cases till the end.
Also compared to Austrian, Russian and even Prussian armies, the French were better supplied and had better infantry weapons and more ammo. It was only after the English went back to the strategy of Old Mr. Pitt and started massive subsidies on the continent from 1809 onwards did the continental armies have good guns and plenty of ammo- this needs to be showcased somehow. Esp. Poor Russian gunpowder from 1801-1809.
Post 1807, the advantage of "3" slowed and then stopped.
Also advantage of "1" was lost as a lot of allies combined to form large armies in tandem.
So, maybe France can have more Guns, Better Guns, better Leadership in early part due to Nappy and allies must suffer from some deficiencies.
Rascals, would you live forever? - Frederick the Great.
I disagree.
I don't think Napoleon should start out so high in 1805. Granted at that time he had wins under his belt, but as with any commander he would still learn along the way. Who his best commanders were, who to keep, who to promote, who to toss, which units were best, etc. I don't think he was at his peak until a few years later after winning several more key battles.
Yes, I think he should start out high in 1805, but from there he should be like any commander. If he wins battles, he gains points. If he loses battles he loses points, etc.
I'd like my virtual Napoleon to have room to grow, and room to fall. Not too unlike the real person we hope to emulate when we play.
I don't think Napoleon should start out so high in 1805. Granted at that time he had wins under his belt, but as with any commander he would still learn along the way. Who his best commanders were, who to keep, who to promote, who to toss, which units were best, etc. I don't think he was at his peak until a few years later after winning several more key battles.
Yes, I think he should start out high in 1805, but from there he should be like any commander. If he wins battles, he gains points. If he loses battles he loses points, etc.
I'd like my virtual Napoleon to have room to grow, and room to fall. Not too unlike the real person we hope to emulate when we play.
csiemers wrote:I disagree.
I don't think Napoleon should start out so high in 1805. Granted at that time he had wins under his belt, but as with any commander he would still learn along the way. Who his best commanders were, who to keep, who to promote, who to toss, which units were best, etc. I don't think he was at his peak until a few years later after winning several more key battles.
Yes, I think he should start out high in 1805, but from there he should be like any commander. If he wins battles, he gains points. If he loses battles he loses points, etc.
I'd like my virtual Napoleon to have room to grow, and room to fall. Not too unlike the real person we hope to emulate when we play.
We are talking about a game starting in 1805 not 1789 or 1792.
The ULM and AUSTERLITZ campaigns done in the Fall/Winter of 1805 were the apogee of Tactical battles for Napoleon.
Treaty of Tilsit in 1807 was the Strategic Apogee of Napoleon.
After that it was all downhill and hence, the GOD like stats needed in 1805-06.
The victory at Austerlitz more than compensated for the disaster of Trafalgar so much so that PITT Jr. remarked- roll up the map of Europe it wouldn't be needed for the better part of a decade - Prophetic words.
Also Austerlitz hastened the death of Pitt Jr.
Rascals, would you live forever? - Frederick the Great.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests