Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Cav Question

 
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.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Crown of Glory >> Cav Question Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Cav Question - 7/13/2005 5:51:19 AM   
ahauschild

 

Posts: 118
Joined: 7/8/2005
Status: offline
I was wondering, how come Cavalry has range, and how come it uses supplies.
Ok, I can see if you had some Dragoons with carbines, those may actuly fire back, at very reduced rate.
But Hussars, Curasiers, Lancers and such, this guys had absolutly no way of firing back at range. They also had absolutly no reason to resupply, unless you consider lancers possibly breaking their lances in a charge.

Just want to understand the what I consider odd aspects of the game versus my experience with miniature battles and such.
Post #: 1
RE: Cav Question - 7/13/2005 5:57:23 AM   
Uncle_Joe


Posts: 1985
Joined: 8/26/2004
Status: offline
I was wondering about that myself. My guess is that in full divisions of cav, you are assumed to have some mix of different types. I'm not sure if it was really done that way at the divisional level or not though.

_____________________________


(in reply to ahauschild)
Post #: 2
RE: Cav Question - 7/13/2005 4:37:40 PM   
ericbabe


Posts: 11927
Joined: 3/23/2005
Status: offline

I think I've mentioned before in the forums that I considered the cavalry's range attack also to include probing charges against localized points of disorder. At the division level charge/fire are fairly abstract anyway.


Eric

(in reply to Uncle_Joe)
Post #: 3
RE: Cav Question - 7/13/2005 5:55:07 PM   
ahauschild

 

Posts: 118
Joined: 7/8/2005
Status: offline
Bit to abstract for me, I guess its not a game breaker for me, but it is certainly a damper. That combined with the fact how cav is almost useless against formed units, EVEN if it is heavy and manages to charges them in the rear. All they do is make them form square or if the inf dont form, causes the cav to lose massive troops.

One of the Game problems now against the AI is that he rushes with his cav ahead of the ground troops, and charges any formed unit. This causes him to lose his fresh rating, only to have units out of range of his inf to form square. All I do then is next round reform to colum or line and have the non affected units blow the crap out of the cav. 90% of the time the enemy cav is shacken, out of fresh or even disordered or routed before the enemy inf and art ever show up in range.

Everything I have read so far about Nap times is that the following happend in general.

Infantry was used to wear down and lock other infantry in position, causing them to waver or to be non manuverable. Artillery was used in general to soften up defensive positions, wear down advancing troops and such.

Heavy Cav and Lancers where used to break enemy formations, especialy if they where tied down by infantry one way or another. Heavy was not designed to pursuit, as the horses tired vey fast.

Light Cav (Hussars) where used in general to pursuit fleeing enemy elements, giving the coupe de grace.

Irr. where used to harraz the supply lines or to pursuit a fleeing army on a stratetic level.

Of course scouting was a big part of the cav, they where the eyes of the army in the stratetic level.

This does not seem to happen currently, again, not a game breaker, but not a accurate depiction of nap warfare as I understand it. But then again, I could be wrong.

(in reply to ericbabe)
Post #: 4
RE: Cav Question - 7/13/2005 6:45:07 PM   
Reiryc

 

Posts: 4991
Joined: 1/5/2001
Status: offline
quote:

One of the Game problems now against the AI is that he rushes with his cav ahead of the ground troops, and charges any formed unit. This causes him to lose his fresh rating, only to have units out of range of his inf to form square. All I do then is next round reform to colum or line and have the non affected units blow the crap out of the cav. 90% of the time the enemy cav is shacken, out of fresh or even disordered or routed before the enemy inf and art ever show up in range.


I don't think I've ever seen an AI in any game act in a manner except something similar to this.

Now if one were to play a human, then I'd bet you wouldn't see too many charges out in front of the main body without the infantry being in reach. Maybe the AI could be tweaked to only charge when X number of infantry units could be in range to either fire the same turn or move and fire in the same turn on the unit being charged. I don't know how easy that would be to code however....



_____________________________


(in reply to ahauschild)
Post #: 5
RE: Cav Question - 7/13/2005 7:07:49 PM   
Mr. Z


Posts: 1048
Joined: 3/24/2005
Status: offline

quote:

Bit to abstract for me, I guess its not a game breaker for me, but it is certainly a damper.

Just to touch on this point for a second, remember that it's the representation of the units on the map that's a little abstract. In other words, units are "really" spread out a bit more than they appear to be. The hex they're in more-or-less represents the center-of-mass, if you will, of the division--so there is "really" a bit of ebb-and-flow that you're not seeing. That's why you see "ranged" lancer "fire"-attacks against "distant" units.

(in reply to ahauschild)
Post #: 6
RE: Cav Question - 7/13/2005 9:08:06 PM   
ahauschild

 

Posts: 118
Joined: 7/8/2005
Status: offline
No problem there, just takes some getting used to that this would be the case. I think that is one of the reason most Nap games on a tactical level are more played out at Brigade level.

Divisions consisted on paper with 2 to 4 Brigades of 2000 to 3000 man. In reality most Divisions had 2 combat Brigades at probl 1000 to 1500 man strength while a 3rd division was actuly used for training recruits and often never expected or even be present in battle. This is hard to reflect in the game at the moment. To often we see complete full 10k brigades make their appearance on the battlefield.

Also Cav was very very expensive to muster and to maintain. Maybe overall Horse Production needs to be reduced, but cav itself needs to be more usefull from its current point of route chasers and square builders. This of course would mean that Inf should not need horses to be build.

Also I think units that get depleded should take a long time to replenish. Posssibly to half strengh easy, to 75% strength hard, and then from 7500 to 10000 men it should almost never happen unless they sit in the capitol for a long time.

could look like this.

up to 5000 they will replenish 1000 men max per month maximum
from 5000 to 7500 they will replenish 500 per month maximum
from 7500 to 10000 they will replenish at 100 per month maximum

A system like this would ensure that battles are more often fought with partial divisions, rather then with the current 90 to 100% full divisions.

I dont know, just ideas I am throwing out there.

(in reply to Mr. Z)
Post #: 7
RE: Cav Question - 7/13/2005 9:18:09 PM   
Alaric_31

 

Posts: 65
Joined: 7/5/2005
Status: offline
greetings, i do not agree with this replenish rate, because the given attrition system is very tough already, is what i think, i like more the default replenish rate from draft, if the replenish is so limited, then attrition is much more tough, you can lose in one month easily what you have got in many months.

with regards,

alaric.

side note.- Also remember that a unit at 4k or less men in quick combat automatically takes a morale check each turn.

< Message edited by Alaric_31 -- 7/13/2005 9:19:45 PM >


_____________________________

There is no plan of battle that survives the contact with the enemy.

(in reply to ahauschild)
Post #: 8
RE: Cav Question - 7/13/2005 9:33:03 PM   
ahauschild

 

Posts: 118
Joined: 7/8/2005
Status: offline
Maybe my proposed numbers are to harsh, but it still feels wrong that very often armys meet with full divisions, something that hardly ever happend historicaly.

(in reply to Alaric_31)
Post #: 9
RE: Cav Question - 7/14/2005 1:03:30 AM   
Naomi

 

Posts: 654
Joined: 6/21/2005
From: Osaka
Status: offline
Simply reduce (or remove) the fire-back ability of saber-wielding units, to further distinguish dragoon-like units from them.

(in reply to ahauschild)
Post #: 10
RE: Cav Question - 7/14/2005 2:49:15 AM   
Ralegh


Posts: 1557
Joined: 2/1/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Naomi
Simply reduce (or remove) the fire-back ability of saber-wielding units, to further distinguish dragoon-like units from them.


Hmm - how about we give saber units an even shorter range? If musket fire is effective to 4 hexes, perhaps saber units should only be effective to 2 hexes (on fire back as well as normal fire).

quote:

ORIGINAL: ahauschild
Heavy Cav and Lancers where used to break enemy formations, especialy if they where tied down by infantry one way or another. Heavy was not designed to pursuit, as the horses tired vey fast.


Great idea! - Can we give Heavy Cav and Lancers a bonus to break the enemy formation against a formed enemy? And - perhaps - improve their ability to reform afterwards?

_____________________________

HTH
Steve/Ralegh

(in reply to Naomi)
Post #: 11
RE: Cav Question - 7/14/2005 2:54:58 AM   
Naomi

 

Posts: 654
Joined: 6/21/2005
From: Osaka
Status: offline
Such tinkering is good, really giving more colour to differing types of horsemen.

(in reply to Ralegh)
Post #: 12
RE: Cav Question - 7/14/2005 7:05:13 AM   
Uncle_Joe


Posts: 1985
Joined: 8/26/2004
Status: offline
quote:

And - perhaps - improve their ability to reform afterwards?


I'd like to see the chance for all Cav to reform accumulate from turn to turn at least to a certain level. Nothing is more frustrating than having a 20 or 30% chance and 'missing the roll' repeatedly, half the time revert back to 'shaken'.

Also, at night the chances seem to hover around 10%. So, since night turns are longer, it can take hours to reform. I would think that 'standing down' a unit at night would cause it to recover faster, but that does not seem to be the case.

I still view Cav as mostly a one-shot weapon. If they manage to reform...great. I think this might be appropriate in some instances, but I think they should reform faster in others.

_____________________________


(in reply to Naomi)
Post #: 13
RE: Cav Question - 7/14/2005 1:09:40 PM   
GreenDestiny


Posts: 177
Joined: 1/4/2005
From: Alamogordo NM
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ralegh
Hmm - how about we give saber units an even shorter range? If musket fire is effective to 4 hexes, perhaps saber units should only be effective to 2 hexes (on fire back as well as normal fire).


This is the first wargame that I've ever played in which you could saber cut and slash the other side from across a lake.

(in reply to Ralegh)
Post #: 14
RE: Cav Question - 7/14/2005 1:15:00 PM   
Reg Pither


Posts: 196
Joined: 9/19/2003
From: London
Status: offline
I can accept that, because of the deceptive scaling of the detailed battles, cavalry can have a 'ranged attack' due to elements skirmishing, but I also think that the different types should have different ranges. And that all should be reduced anyway.

(in reply to GreenDestiny)
Post #: 15
RE: Cav Question - 7/14/2005 1:19:33 PM   
GreenDestiny


Posts: 177
Joined: 1/4/2005
From: Alamogordo NM
Status: offline
Why have deceptive scaling??? If your going to go there then why not have some magic powers also.

(in reply to Reg Pither)
Post #: 16
RE: Cav Question - 7/14/2005 3:13:27 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline
Hi Uncle Joe
yes I also see Cav as a one shot affair, but with the thinking that Cav can be the winning edge to the battle if and when used at the right time in the battle, if so, then that is all you need is the one shot

if they are used for the first unit you see, and then are out of the battle, then shame on you (not meaning you)

for the rebuilding of Divs

I had one game, where I was kicked out of a country once it surrendered, I had a depot in the city I was in and one to the side of it, so I just left the armies there to rest and refit and see what was going to happen next

the next turn, both depots went poof (no enemy troops, had no ememies) I lost over 61 K in troops that month, and took over 7 months to rebuild to the point that I could leave that city and engage, the now two countrys attacking me

so, not sure if the build rate is too fast or too slow

(really, really don't like the disappearing depots)

(also, really, really and I do mean Really, dislike the idea that a Div of troops can match into a city area, that is defend by a Army with 130 K in troops, and get it's butt kicked and still destroy the depot that is supporting the troops there, if I lost the battle, yea I could see it, but not when I win and it was a oops moment for the AI)

HARD_Sarge


_____________________________


(in reply to GreenDestiny)
Post #: 17
RE: Cav Question - 7/14/2005 3:20:10 PM   
GreenDestiny


Posts: 177
Joined: 1/4/2005
From: Alamogordo NM
Status: offline
Hey... Hard Sarge lets stick to the subject of this thread.

(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 18
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Crown of Glory >> Cav Question Page: [1]
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

0.953