Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Formations

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Age of Muskets] >> Horse and Musket: Volume I, Frederick the Great >> Formations Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Formations - 11/14/2006 4:50:10 PM   
Tim Coakley

 

Posts: 457
Joined: 1/28/2005
Status: offline
Any recommendations on formations to include in the game?

I have:

March Column
Attack Column
Square
Open (routed)
2 Rank Line and 3 Rank Line
Defensive (all around defense when in a fort, town….
Working (for pioneers)
Dismounted (cavalry with fire weapon)
Skirmish
Embarked
Post #: 1
RE: Formations - 11/15/2006 11:10:10 AM   
Iñaki Harrizabalagatar


Posts: 825
Joined: 12/11/2001
Status: offline
I think you included almost all possible, I would like to have a "deep line formation" for more than 3 ranks for earlier battles, like those of the Spanish succession war. Maybe another could be a line formation with a skirmish detachment at the front but still being the same unit (I would hate to see hordes of skirmish detachment invading the map)


I have a few questions
1) Would be attack column for cavalry? BTW I recall that cavalry units had regularly half the size of infantry units in original scenarios, I did them the same size in the scnearios I designed because it is another factor that made cavalry weak.
2) 2 ranks line means there would be late XVIII century battles included?

(in reply to Tim Coakley)
Post #: 2
RE: Formations - 11/23/2006 1:00:49 PM   
teutoburgiensi saltu

 

Posts: 8
Joined: 8/9/2006
Status: offline
Maybe my suggestion goes a bit too far.  But would it not be nice to include pike formations or mixed pike/musket formations.  The wargaming comunity is still missing a simulation of 16th./early 17 th. century warfare.  One of the reasons I like the H&M series is because its one of the rare games (or is it the only one?) that simulates 18th century tactical combat.  That alone already makes it quite unique.  Why not take this one step furhter .. and we would really find ourselves in uncharted waters => " Horse & Pike & Musket "

(in reply to Iñaki Harrizabalagatar)
Post #: 3
RE: Formations - 11/28/2006 5:07:04 AM   
Tim Coakley

 

Posts: 457
Joined: 1/28/2005
Status: offline
Can you expand on what you would like to see with the pikes?
My period of choice is Napoleonics so I have little background in the pike age.

What would the formations look like? The figures can be arrange in any fasion in the unit editor...so I am looking for the comparison to other historical formations.
How would the figures be arranged?
What is the relationship between pike formations and current line, column, attack column formations?
Could it be simulated by modifying other factors?
What special capabilities...movement, fire and melee combat?

Appreciate the input.

Tim


(in reply to teutoburgiensi saltu)
Post #: 4
RE: Formations - 11/28/2006 5:11:24 AM   
Tim Coakley

 

Posts: 457
Joined: 1/28/2005
Status: offline
1) would have to develop the formations by inf and cav. I see Cavalry in line as line of squadrons, while attack column is column of squadrons. Would have to develop the game data differences.


2) The 2 rank line if for future use :)

--- Like the skirmish idea with a company deployed...will develop that.

---"deep line"...is there a historical name for this formation? How would you relate it to the current line, march column, and an attack column?
I would see a melee benefit, perhaps slower to move. any ideas?

(in reply to Iñaki Harrizabalagatar)
Post #: 5
RE: Formations - 11/29/2006 12:49:47 AM   
Iñaki Harrizabalagatar


Posts: 825
Joined: 12/11/2001
Status: offline
1) I would suggest to use the cavalry regiment as basic unit, instead of cavalry squadron, because the game penalized small units, and cavalry is already heavily penalized in the game.

2) By "deep line" I meant anything deeper than 3 ranks, for instance the 4 ranks used by Swedish and Russians in the Great northern war, of the 5 ranks used by the French at the start of the war of Spanish Succesion. In general, I think this "More than 3 ranks" could be a convenient way to represent these and the 6 ranks deep formations of late XVII century wars.

(in reply to Tim Coakley)
Post #: 6
RE: Formations - 11/29/2006 1:01:29 AM   
Iñaki Harrizabalagatar


Posts: 825
Joined: 12/11/2001
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tim Coakley

Can you expand on what you would like to see with the pikes?
My period of choice is Napoleonics so I have little background in the pike age.

What would the formations look like? The figures can be arrange in any fasion in the unit editor...so I am looking for the comparison to other historical formations.
How would the figures be arranged?
What is the relationship between pike formations and current line, column, attack column formations?
Could it be simulated by modifying other factors?
What special capabilities...movement, fire and melee combat?

Appreciate the input.

Tim



I will throw my opinion here, as I am very much interested in this period as well.
I would represent pike, musket and arquebus units as separated units. Pikemen formations could be represented by non hollow squares (I don´t recall the word in english for "non hollow"), musket by the deep line formation if implemented, if not by normal line formation, and arquebussiers in skirmish. To simulate the different performance pikemen would have high close combat and no fire power, musket would have a 2 hexes range fire power and very low close combat, arquebus just 1 hex range combat. In general I think it is not difficult to simulate this period, or in fact any period before WW1 with the editor. The hardest part would be probably to provide adequate graphics for the figures, I tried to mod some uniforms in the game but with little succes, it is true I am not very gifted in relation to graphic management

(in reply to Tim Coakley)
Post #: 7
RE: Formations - 11/29/2006 2:33:00 AM   
Panama Red

 

Posts: 147
Joined: 9/14/2005
Status: offline
Tim:
I am glad that you talk about the "Attack Column" as in cavalry and not infantry. The "Attack Column" for infantry did not come about until the Napoleonic Era, not the Seven Years War Era (Horse and Musket Era).

During the Seven Years War Era, lines were used in infantry combat and infantry columns for marching only, infact cadence marching was not "invented" until early 1750's by the Prussians to help them in their line movements.

(in reply to Iñaki Harrizabalagatar)
Post #: 8
RE: Formations - 2/2/2007 8:36:38 PM   
anvl

 

Posts: 259
Joined: 11/1/2005
Status: offline
Tim,,

sorry for the late post here, but thought i would answer your question on pike formations.

during the GNW, Swedes had a ratio of around 3:1 muskets to pikes, and the Russians had a 2:1 ratio. Pikes were inboard,and musketeers were on the flanks. With the setup of battalions in the editor as it is, this can be easily done. It would look much better for all gaming,, if unit size were upped to l2 figs or so per battalion.

So other than the addition of pikes, very little has to be done for the game to cover the GNW.

anvil

_____________________________

Deus subrisum stultusi et ferrari

(in reply to Panama Red)
Post #: 9
RE: Formations - 2/2/2007 10:13:47 PM   
Panama Red

 

Posts: 147
Joined: 9/14/2005
Status: offline
Anvl:
The only other thing needed with the pikes are:
1. Game wise: pikemen are not calculated as musketeers during the fire phases and musketeers are not calculated during the assault phase (since these musketeers did not use bayonets because they had the pikemen)
2. Graphicaly: pikemen do not show the smoking musket/reloading animation during the fire phases

(in reply to anvl)
Post #: 10
RE: Formations - 2/2/2007 10:25:27 PM   
anvl

 

Posts: 259
Joined: 11/1/2005
Status: offline
Panama Red,,

Absolutely!! Lol,,, and It would be really cool to be able to show the Swedish "Secret Weapon",,, GaPa,,,. Even at this early time in the developement of firepower,, the Great Debate was Firepower vs Cold Steel!! Other than the graphics for this charge,, i think most of this can be done in the present editor,, not sure,, tho about that

Edit: Oops,, I have been doing a lot of looking into this of late,,,, and by this time,,1700 or so,, the plug bayonet was gone,,and the socket bayonet was pretty well in common use..so i think, atm,, still checking,, that the Swedes did have the socket bayonet,,and would count in melee as having this.. Thats why the GaPa was so ,, hehe,, shocking...

Maby,, not sure here,, again still checking,, the Russians or some of their lesser troops early on still had the plug bayonet, which is one reason why the Swedes kicked such Russian Butt in the first half of the GNW...

anvil

< Message edited by anvl -- 2/2/2007 11:21:15 PM >


_____________________________

Deus subrisum stultusi et ferrari

(in reply to Panama Red)
Post #: 11
RE: Formations - 2/2/2007 10:34:21 PM   
Panama Red

 

Posts: 147
Joined: 9/14/2005
Status: offline
Anvl:
If Tim gets this into the game (pikemen) than the game can go back even further in time to the Musket and Pike time frame. 

At that point Tim just needs to add the Carrocol (bad spelling) cavalry to the mix and he has a whole another century of combat for the game.

< Message edited by Panama Red -- 2/2/2007 10:46:48 PM >

(in reply to anvl)
Post #: 12
RE: Formations - 2/2/2007 11:38:29 PM   
anvl

 

Posts: 259
Joined: 11/1/2005
Status: offline
Panama Red,,

yea,, cav is a little problem,,even for the GNW. there were three types of cav attacks used,, caracol(sp), all out Swedish Charge, and the French? way of firing pistols,,than trotting into a charge.. So i guess it depends on the depth of changes they want to make. I will be really happy with a major overhaul of the command and control in the game,, and all the rest in another release..

anvil

_____________________________

Deus subrisum stultusi et ferrari

(in reply to Panama Red)
Post #: 13
RE: Formations - 2/3/2007 2:49:23 AM   
DeadInThrench

 

Posts: 318
Joined: 12/27/2006
From: NE Pennsylvania, USA
Status: offline
In the HPS games.... they allow light infantry a 'line' formation as well as an 'extended' (e.g. skirmish order) formation and.... assuming that light infantry indeed formed line at times during this period... I don't believe it would have been anything like the lines that line infantry formed. Maybe a one line line, I dunno.

But... in fortifications and the like.... one could see light infantry in such a formation as it would increase their firepower and, with the fortification, they wouldn't need the defensive advantages of being dispersed. So, maybe line infantry as well formed lines along the same way when in forts. Again, I am just guessing here.

But... what I would really like.... are there any real history buffs out there... that ideally can give source and page references.... as to EXACTLY what formations units were trained in and used during the period??

In particular... when either light or line infantry were in fortifications.... were they given orders to go into this formation or that? Or.... basically... were they told 'OK, defend over there'... and just handled it ad hoc (my guess is this is what we are talking about here).

Again, would be nice if we had some real references here instead of shooting in the dark.

DeadInTrench

P.S. As others have pointed out, I don't believe the attack column came into existance until the Napoleon era... unless we are talking cavalry.

P.S.2. If there is indeed a 'defensive' or 'ad hoc' or 'ad hoc line' formation.... then there has to be fire and defensive modifiers so that things go as they would historically and... it is advantagous to go to it where it was advantageous to go to it hisgtorically. So, that is why, IMO, it would be nice to know exactly what we are looking at here.

(in reply to Tim Coakley)
Post #: 14
RE: Formations - 2/3/2007 3:18:55 AM   
anvl

 

Posts: 259
Joined: 11/1/2005
Status: offline
Dit,,,

glad to see you are interested,, here is a small list from my library.. sorry, but i don't have time to find page and paragraph, but i highly recommend any or all of these. the first two are by Frederick himself,, all the rest other than the third one are contemporary and avalable. I highly suggest anything by Duffy as he is prolly the formost contemporary historian on the SYW,,particularly Prussia and Austria.

Lol,, if I gave you page and paragraph,, it would not matter unless you got the book,,and if you get the book you should read the whole thing,, .

Hopefully these will answer your questions particularly about light infantry. light infantry was a rare bird during this timeframe. Regular line battalions were not trained as light infantry and only under duress did they act in any formation other than line,,etc,, When they did, they must be considered as severly disordered. It is one of the primary differences between the time of Nappy and now,,


FREDERICK II, KING OF PRUSSIA. MILITARY INSTRUCTION FROM THE LATE KING OF
PRUSSIA TO HIS GENERALS.(by Frederick the Great)

Secret Instructions by Frederick the Second, King of Prussia

The Life of Frederick the Great,a complete history of the Silesian Campaigns and the Seven Years War, Kugler, Francis, (great prints by Menzel)

Frederick the Great, a Military Life, Duffy, Christopher

The Army of Frederick the Great, Duffy, Christopher

The Army of Maria Therea, Duffy, Christopher

Russia's Military way to the West, Duffy, Christopher

Nosworthy's Tactical Studies series, Oh Practical Tactics (avalable from www.adsigna.ca)

A German Way of War, from the thirty years war to the third reich, Citino,Robert M.

Firepower,Weapons effectiveness on the Battlefield, 1630 - 1850, Hughes, B.P.

From Flintlock to Ramrod, Infantry Tactics, 1740 - 1866, Ross, Steven

Fighting Techniques of the Early Modern World AD 1500 - 1750,Equipment, Combat skills, and Tactics, Jorgensen,Pavkovic,Rice,Schneid,Scott



I have lots more if you need,, I am not a historian,, just an avid hobbiest for this era,,and a few others as well.. enjoy,, the pursuit of knowledge is a precious gift,, and freely given..

anvil



_____________________________

Deus subrisum stultusi et ferrari

(in reply to DeadInThrench)
Post #: 15
RE: Formations - 2/3/2007 3:23:46 AM   
anvl

 

Posts: 259
Joined: 11/1/2005
Status: offline
Dit,,

sorry i forgot,,if you are interested in tactics,,i have a number of tactical\training manuals like the nosworthy one covering many armies from 1700 - 1900. These are original manuscripts,,not contemporary assumptions.. It is amazing how similar all of them are.. they show formations from the company level thru grand tactical army maneuvers,, how to set up camps.. how irregulars and lights operated, cav,artillery etc,,etc..

anvil

_____________________________

Deus subrisum stultusi et ferrari

(in reply to anvl)
Post #: 16
RE: Formations - 2/3/2007 3:37:31 AM   
anvl

 

Posts: 259
Joined: 11/1/2005
Status: offline
Dit,,

And one more,, this one is one of the best books on Frederick the Great,, and it is avaliable online,, History of Friedrich II, by Thomas Carlyle.

Lol,, i was looking for this one earlier,,in my Bookmarks,,but couldn't find it...

http://carlyle.classicauthors.net/Friedrich/


anvil

_____________________________

Deus subrisum stultusi et ferrari

(in reply to anvl)
Post #: 17
RE: Formations - 2/3/2007 6:25:45 PM   
DeadInThrench

 

Posts: 318
Joined: 12/27/2006
From: NE Pennsylvania, USA
Status: offline
Hmmm.... I wasn't asking for references as a matter of 'go look yourself'... rather a matter of those making assertions matter of factly (and particularly when contradicting others)... backing up their assertions... for those that WANT to follow up on them.

Also.... with all these references... didn't get an answer to my question.... What in fact were the formations that units were trained in during this period? ... and in particular.... were they trained in an 'open line' or any other formation that they would use in fortifications and the like... other than an 'ad hoc' approch. Hmmmm.... guess Duffy doesn't cover that.

If you were playing Mollwitz... and the AUSTRIANS.... you just might be best getting your line infantry behind a stream (if you can) what with the Prussian infantry marching across the field. But, there's a town there.... and in game turns it is advantageous to get your units into the town. But... in practice... did this really happen? Putting line infantry into a space with a farmhouse or whatever... did that really buy them anything? Sure, light infantry would be firing from the windows and what not but... line infantry? Might cause enough problems with the disruption of the line (I am talking that the line here can't go through the farm house) that it would be better to stay in the open.

So... one such concern for this era. Line infantry is way different from anything else.

DeadInTrench

< Message edited by DeadInThrench -- 2/3/2007 6:38:44 PM >

(in reply to anvl)
Post #: 18
RE: Formations - 2/3/2007 7:42:39 PM   
anvl

 

Posts: 259
Joined: 11/1/2005
Status: offline
DiT,,

With all due respect,, i just don't know what you mean here,,,

"Hmmm.... I wasn't asking for references as a matter of 'go look yourself'... rather a matter of those making assertions matter of factly (and particularly when contradicting others)... backing up their assertions... for those that WANT to follow up on them."

the best i can say is that perhaps there is a definition of terms needed. Line infantry at this time was not trained to be or operate as light infantry. Light infantry was not used to any degree during the SYW. There were a few units in the prussian army,and the Austrians had the Grenzers and a few other light units, but they were not highly thought of and were new in the evolution of infantry and tactics.

You have created a no win situation here,, with all due respect... If i make a statement contrary to you,, all i can do is either make this statement or give you a list of sources to back up what i say,,and hopefully, give you something to go look into. If you dont have the book i mention,,and i name a page,, sheesh,, what difference does it make if you don't go check it out?

If you are asking how Line infantry at this time moves thru a town,, or crosses an obstical, then in my rules,,and in this game,, i believe, the line unit does not change to light formation,,ie open order,,because they were not trained to do this. In my rules,,and this game, they become disordered, but remain in line. the scale of the game here is not really suited to have them do anything else.

If line infantry is to occupy a village, then in my rules,,and in this game i believe, they remain as line infantry and are disordered as above,,but they have the defensive modifiers given by the buildings.

light troops, irregular troops or grenz as an example, operate in open order or skirmish order in my rules,,and in this game. If they enter a village and tend to occupy it, they remain in open order and do not become disrupted whilst defending a village or other terrain features. bercause they are in open order or skirmish order, fewer troops are in the village compared to line,, this is one of the tradeoff between the two. I believe its the same in this game.

But i have to stress,, during this timeperiod,, line for all practical purposes was not in any way trained to act or operate as light infantry as was done during the time of Nappy. they do not change to open order or skirmish order to cross obsticals of any type,, they can form road column or column and line but thats about it.

Light infantry at this time was not usually put into close order line, as they were not,,according to the thoughts of the times,, disciplined enough to handle this formation, so they were used on the flanks of the army,,not put into the front in a skirmish type formation as was done durint the time of Nappy. The way this is handled in most rules of the time,,if it is allowed, is to make sure that they are fragile enough so that if put into line,,they will break and run before being of any use. OTH,, if left in open order\skirmish order,,they are not so fragile,and can serve the purpose of the era... to screen the flanks,,hold buildings,and operate in rough terrain.

hope this answers your questions,,

Google has a great service btw,, you can go to their site,,and search for old out of print books and down load them in pdf format.

http://books.google.com/bkshp?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&tab=wp&q=

select full view books,and search for what you want.

It is a great on line library of very hard to come by sources

the only other thing i can say, is man,, ya gots to do the work,, or ya gots to accept what others say,, at least i list sources for you to check out,, much better than,,"I read it somewhere" or referring it to an HPS game, or "maby i read it from FtG" sorry for the paraphrase.

anvil

< Message edited by anvl -- 2/3/2007 8:00:38 PM >


_____________________________

Deus subrisum stultusi et ferrari

(in reply to DeadInThrench)
Post #: 19
RE: Formations - 2/3/2007 9:53:39 PM   
anvl

 

Posts: 259
Joined: 11/1/2005
Status: offline
DiT,,

Lol i must have more time than sense today.. oh well..

You asked about line infantry,or infantry in fortifications,, here is my input on that.. first,, do a google search for Vauban,, master of fortifications during the age of blackpowder...


Please forgive if i misquote you here,, your posts are very numerous,,and long,,, but i think you said something to the effect that line should be penalized in fortifications due to not being able to fire over high walls and well,, not being in line.

these fortifications,,large and small followed a similar pattern. there were openings for the cannons to fire out of,,and what was called a firestep for infantry to stand on to fire over the walls. lets say this gave them protection from about shoulders down,,and a good place to rest their muskets comfortably and fire as safely as possible. they could, and i imagine they did stand shoulder to shoulder here when needed. say the front rank of a battalion was on the firestep,,and the other rank or two was behind and in total cover loading for the first rank.. So i would say they had a fair chance of having perhaps even a higher rate\volume of fire than standing in the open. So I would say that in Fortifications, Line infantry would be in line, not be disrupted,and recieve all the benefits hard cover can give. no light infantry needed here at all,,

But more importantly,,, the infantry actually had a secondary roll in a siege situation. the real battle was between the attackers artillry and the defenders walls. The attackers ran their saps foreward perpendicular to the walls,,then ran "parallels" lol parallel to the walls. here they built gun emplacements ever closer to the walls,,and still well out of musket range. this is why sieges took months to complete. while this was happening, the defenders would "sally forth" and assault these parallels and saps and fill them in, thus delaying the artillery from breaching the walls. The archtype fortification is a "star fort" so imagine if you will the walls of the star and the killing ground inbetween the arms of the star!! awesome and terrifying for the attackers...so the last thing the attacker wanted was to actually assault this fortification!!

When a breach in the walls was finally made,, the usual course was for the defenders to surrender at this point,,tho not always. The breach was always done at a point to minimize the fire of the defenders if an assault was to be carried out,,and for the artillery to be able to cover\supress musket fire for the final assault by firing at the most threatening opposing walls.

these sieges were very mathematical,,and both sides knew nearly to the day when the breach would open. the variable here was how successful that the defenders sallys would be. The "game" if you will, here was for the defenders to delay the assault until a relieving force could come and attack the besiegers from without the fort... but when the breach happened,, the outcome was written in blood,,so to speak,if an assault followed.

The thing to consider here is that this kind of battle is really not within the scope of the game,,and is in fact a game of its own,,,So instead of spending lots of time on rules,programming,graphics here,, it is only dealt with in a minor way.

a good example of a siege is in the movie "The Last of the Mohecians(sp)". This is a very small fort during the FIW. Sieges against full blown fortifications happened as well on the Continent...

hope this helps

anvil

_____________________________

Deus subrisum stultusi et ferrari

(in reply to anvl)
Post #: 20
RE: Formations - 2/4/2007 6:04:14 AM   
DeadInThrench

 

Posts: 318
Joined: 12/27/2006
From: NE Pennsylvania, USA
Status: offline
anvil....

I composed a reply to your post but... then just deleted it.

To make a long story short.... I am NOT IMPRESSED with your posts... and would prefer if you did not reply to my posts in the future.

In any case... I am not wasting any more time on any disagreements with you.

DiT

< Message edited by DeadInThrench -- 2/4/2007 6:18:54 AM >

(in reply to anvl)
Post #: 21
RE: Formations - 2/4/2007 5:06:44 PM   
anvl

 

Posts: 259
Joined: 11/1/2005
Status: offline
Lol,,

Incredible,,but expected,, so no problem.. however, i will continue to post here as i see fit..

May your journey thru this Great Era be as rewarding to you as it is to me,,

anvil

_____________________________

Deus subrisum stultusi et ferrari

(in reply to DeadInThrench)
Post #: 22
RE: Formations - 2/5/2007 5:10:58 PM   
Sumter

 

Posts: 62
Joined: 10/19/2005
Status: offline
I think the purpose of a special formation for units defending a fort or town is the ability of such units to cover their flanks and rear. A unit posted in line in a fort can defend to its front, but any unit attacking from the flank or the rear can carry the fort with no casualities. That is not very realistic. A unit occupying a fort should be able to cover any approach. Yes, a battalion defending against attacks from multiple directions would do so with reduced fire/melee strength, but the benefit of fortifications should counter that at least in part. It seems that siege warfare could be better represented by improved graphics that provided for ditches, pallisades, bastions, curtain walls, glacis, etc. All of these features should have strength points that could be reduced by bombardment. The ability to actually construct field works while playing the game could enhance this as well. More varied artillery would also be a plus.

Sumter

(in reply to Tim Coakley)
Post #: 23
RE: Formations - 2/5/2007 5:40:24 PM   
sol_invictus


Posts: 1961
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Kentucky
Status: offline
I believe a while back that it was stated that units would be able to assume a Defensive Order or Loose Order; I forget the exact wording; when defending in a Town or Fortification, in order to provide all around defense capability.

_____________________________

"The fruit of too much liberty is slavery", Cicero

(in reply to Sumter)
Post #: 24
RE: Formations - 2/5/2007 10:38:58 PM   
anvl

 

Posts: 259
Joined: 11/1/2005
Status: offline
Yea,, i think they called is either a defensive order or an special formation in towns\fortifications.. It will interesting to see how they handle this.

As much as i would like to see more detail in a siege type game,, i think the scale here is not right,, time and distance both. A separate siege mode like in RTW would be really cool,,but i suspect beyond the scope of their changes.

if you have only one or two stacked units in a hex,, and only one building,, the building represents more than one house or whatever,, So it is assumed, i suppose,, if they have the time,, then they would fortify the buildings and put up some sort of barriers between houses to get behind if possible.. then the new defensive formation would be good, with protected flanks,,etc, but if they just moved into a town, and were assaulted,,then there would be no time for any defensive improvements made,, in this case, i would call them highly disorganized line with no benefits. Just imagins 600 or so men moving into a town,, in streets,alleys,buildings,, command\control would be nonexistant,,and this is very important to our figs. So i think that a unit must have to spend a certain period of time in a town hex to gain the benefits of protected flanks etc.


anvil

< Message edited by anvl -- 2/5/2007 10:52:31 PM >


_____________________________

Deus subrisum stultusi et ferrari

(in reply to sol_invictus)
Post #: 25
RE: Formations - 2/5/2007 10:57:04 PM   
sol_invictus


Posts: 1961
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Kentucky
Status: offline
I agree, it would be nice if there was an automatic timer that starts when a unit moves into a potentially strong defensive structure and if the unit stays there until the timer runs out, they then assume the defensive formation and occupy the newly created works.

_____________________________

"The fruit of too much liberty is slavery", Cicero

(in reply to anvl)
Post #: 26
RE: Formations - 2/6/2007 4:36:09 PM   
Sumter

 

Posts: 62
Joined: 10/19/2005
Status: offline
Your thoughts about units in town or building hexes sound reasonable. I was always more concerned about the realism of units in forts being attacked from the flank without any defensive capability. I do think it was fairly common to incorporate villages into defensive lines as strongpoints (check the French deployment at Bleinheim for instance), but, as you observed, it took time to barricade and fortify.

Sadly, you are also probably right about sieges. Still, with the proper graphics, it would be possible to re-create assaults once the walls had been breeched. That would be something.

Sumter

(in reply to Tim Coakley)
Post #: 27
RE: Formations - 2/6/2007 4:38:41 PM   
Sumter

 

Posts: 62
Joined: 10/19/2005
Status: offline
I see that I was less than clear on one point. I think that units moving into forts should be able to assume the special defensive formation immediately.

Sumter

(in reply to Sumter)
Post #: 28
RE: Formations - 2/6/2007 6:22:53 PM   
anvl

 

Posts: 259
Joined: 11/1/2005
Status: offline
I agree on forts,,as they did not need anything but troops to man the ramparts,, no time needed here.

Hey Mag,, how about this for an idea for sieges? All we really need is to have a graphic or graphics of a breach,, then we could create scenarios using this to do an assault on the breach? If it could be done as "rough terrain" for adverse modifiers or "slopes" of one sort or another,, or all the above avalable for different types of "rubble" then we could create star forts,,or any of their parts,,and design scenarios for "assaulting a breach"..

Possible if we had this,, and the added "Pioneer" functions Tim mentioned above, we could even do a siege and build saps,parallels,gun emplacements,have sorties etc,,, lol a first btw as best i know,, with few changes to the rules...

So seems to do this what we would need would be "formal" fortification sections that would fill a hex,,and be joinable.. walls,ravelins,gates,gun emplacements,earthworks,etc and destroyed tiles as for all of these.

If Tims "Working (for pioneers)" figs and addition to the game had some sort of time frame to create earthworks and gun emplacements,,then we could do this in a game... Trenches would be cool,,but mayby not possible,, but raised earthworks to simulate this would work as well for saps, parallels and earthen gun emplacements...

Lol,, i gots many pics of these items if ya need and this is possible


anvil

_____________________________

Deus subrisum stultusi et ferrari

(in reply to Sumter)
Post #: 29
RE: Formations - 2/7/2007 3:22:25 PM   
Magnus

 

Posts: 299
Joined: 9/9/2005
From: Sweden
Status: offline
Anvil send them along.

_____________________________

/Magnus

(in reply to anvl)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Age of Muskets] >> Horse and Musket: Volume I, Frederick the Great >> Formations Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.781