Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: serious combat bugs

 
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 >> RE: serious combat bugs Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: serious combat bugs - 8/11/2005 1:37:04 AM   
carnifex


Posts: 1295
Joined: 7/1/2002
From: Latitude 40° 48' 43N Longtitude 74° 7' 29W
Status: offline 		The disadvantage lies in armor. Heavy cavalry typically wore a front and rear body armour and a steel helmet. Lancers were lightly armored (the Poles didn't even wear helmets). Historically there are only a few recorded instances where light cavalry defeated heavy cavalry.

(in reply to Mynok)
Post #: 31
RE: serious combat bugs - 8/11/2005 2:33:36 AM   
ian77

 

Posts: 627
Joined: 4/27/2004
From: Scotland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok


I don't have any problem with lancers having a "light vs heavy" disadvantage if they are truly a light cavalry unit. Again, my fading memory is whispering that there were lancer units that would classify more as medium in the game.

I just don't agree, and still don't, that the lancer has a disadvantage against a heavy due to armament. Most lancer units carried sabres too, and a lance certainly outreaches a sabre.



It would be difficult to use an eight foot pig sticker when the guy fighting you is boot to boot with you..... lancers, IMHO, have light cav movement, with heavy cav impact, but after the initial coming together would be out weighed and out muscled by regular heavy cav in melee................

Ian

(in reply to Mynok)
Post #: 32
RE: serious combat bugs - 8/11/2005 10:49:32 AM   
plasticpanzers

 

Posts: 67
Joined: 7/20/2005
Status: offline 		On column vs line i have noticed a number of times when i melee with a line from the rear with a column i can
sometimes get my clocked cleaned! evidently facing
does not matter with the programing sometimes or the
fellows in the line are shooting over their shoulders!
LOL!
Tim

(in reply to ian77)
Post #: 33
RE: serious combat bugs - 8/11/2005 11:13:16 AM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline 		think that is still more the formation rule, units can fire 360 degrees, only they do better to the front, not as good to the sides and worse to the rear

that fact that they are still in formation is what is clobbering you

you want to charge, disordered units, or units on the run

now in real life, I think I could see a simi trained unit, while in line, being easier and faster to change faceing and fire, then to change from line to square, while it might be easier for a column to change to square, then to form a line and change the facing



_____________________________


(in reply to plasticpanzers)
Post #: 34
RE: serious combat bugs - 8/11/2005 2:10:40 PM   
ian77

 

Posts: 627
Joined: 4/27/2004
From: Scotland
Status: offline 		It could be you attacked the Gloucesters! In Egypt they formed line,and alternated facing front and rear, firing disciplined volleys in both directions at the same time.. they survived and ever afterwards they wore their cap badges backwards... now if one of Hard Sarges art corps had been there I think they may have struggled to even find a cap badge!

Ian

I think in the montage on the set up screen there is a picture of them, the 28th, in square facing French cav at Quatre Bras.

< Message edited by ian77 -- 8/11/2005 2:18:50 PM >

(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 35
RE: serious combat bugs - 8/11/2005 2:48:59 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline 		with soild training and good NCOs that should be easy to do

one reason in peace time, you drill so much

I think it was the movie Zulu (about Rookes Drift) that shows what training can do

HARD_Sarge



_____________________________


(in reply to ian77)
Post #: 36
RE: serious combat bugs - 8/11/2005 3:19:03 PM   
ian77

 

Posts: 627
Joined: 4/27/2004
From: Scotland
Status: offline 		Rorkes Drift, a .303 miracle...

Ian

(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 37
RE: serious combat bugs - 8/11/2005 4:00:03 PM   
MarcelJV


Posts: 343
Joined: 5/9/2005
From: Mohrsville, PA
Status: offline 		In the game lancers have a 40% chance to break a square, never had a chance to try it as I just shoot until the infantry is disordered and then charge. No point in chancing the failed to form square, did not disorder, and now you get killed for your charge.

NOTE: in some weather conditions this chances goes to 80%.
quote:

ORIGINAL: carnifex

Edit: interesting note about Lancers. Wellington created several Lancer regiments in the post-war British army after taking note that at Quatre Bras the Lancers were able to penetrate and stand up to British squares due to the extended reach of their weapons. So maybe Lancers should retain their fire against squares


(in reply to carnifex)
Post #: 38
RE: serious combat bugs - 8/11/2005 4:02:40 PM   
MarcelJV


Posts: 343
Joined: 5/9/2005
From: Mohrsville, PA
Status: offline 		Should be noted the British Cavalry were not Heavy Cavalry in the true sense of the word, that is they did not have Breast Plates or back Plates and are some times considered medium cavalry (ie normal Cavalry) by some purists. I believe in the game they should be marked as Cavalry and given very high morale.
quote:

ORIGINAL: carnifex

quote:

Lancers were good against cavalry. I'll have to find my references now,...


Just ask Ponsonby



"We shall match them with our Lancers!"

Edit: by the way, Ponsonby's cavalry was a Heavy Cavalry unit. It's true that they were somewhat disordered by their effective charge against d’Erlon’s Corps, but the Polish Lancers reamed them just the same.


Heh, this makes me laugh: "The Poles were recorded to have been one of the only French cavalry units to have charged in full dress uniform." No wonder the textile requirement is harsh.


Eric: request the following sound effect be added for any successful Lancer charge www.blackbellamy.com/sound073.wav


(in reply to carnifex)
Post #: 39
RE: serious combat bugs - 8/11/2005 7:31:47 PM   
Mynok


Posts: 12108
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline
quote:

The disadvantage lies in armor. Heavy cavalry typically wore a front and rear body armour and a steel helmet. Lancers were lightly armored (the Poles didn't even wear helmets). Historically there are only a few recorded instances where light cavalry defeated heavy cavalry.


Agreed, but there is already a disadvantage in the game for light vs heavy. I disagree with any additional disadvantage for lancers against cavalry.

(in reply to MarcelJV)
Post #: 40
RE: serious combat bugs - 8/11/2005 8:45:13 PM   
carburo

 

Posts: 108
Joined: 7/8/2005
Status: offline 		My original idea was more concerned with a game balance issue than with historical accuracy.

I thinks there are strong reasons to make lancers weak against regular sabre/sword armed cavalrymen, but "proving" this is not my main interest. We all have different interpretations, usually heavily biased by selective readings or more overt prejudices, and the "truth" is usually half way between them.

What I don't like in a game is superunits. Currently, I think lancers are. I haven't done a lot of testing, but lancers are fast, have a strong charge and rally faster than any other cavalry.
I think the whole cavalry concept in the game needs to be revised. As it is now, calvary works too well in the role of infantry. Lancers are just one type of unit that in my opinion needs some drawback.

By the way, I also think the light vs. heavy disadvantage have no effect in the game, even if it works as intended. I never use my cav to charge other formed cav, no matter the type, as they would become disordered for the rest of the battle. I only charge against disordered units, and then it really doesn't matter that much if they are lights or heavies or inf, they normally get trounced by my fresh formed cav.

We should start a thread about the changes we would like to see in each arm from a strictly game balance perspective. Historical accuracy would benefit at the end too.

(in reply to Mynok)
Post #: 41
RE: serious combat bugs - 8/11/2005 9:43:23 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline 		Well there is one good disadvantage to Lancers, who can build them ?

if you take over the Poles, you may get lucky and have a few in the build order, but once they are built, Warsaw will not build them anymore

so, I tend to Use them like the Old Guard, only when really needed

HARD_Sarge


_____________________________


(in reply to carburo)
Post #: 42
RE: serious combat bugs - 8/11/2005 10:00:30 PM   
carburo

 

Posts: 108
Joined: 7/8/2005
Status: offline 		Well, there is no good answer to that. You are 100% right. Eric willing, we should be able to build them someday.

(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 43
RE: serious combat bugs - 8/11/2005 10:14:45 PM   
Joram

 

Posts: 3198
Joined: 7/15/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: carburo

Well, there is no good answer to that. You are 100% right. Eric willing, we should be able to build them someday.



You can build them. I noticed it for the first time when I got my barracks to level 8 in Paris. Rifles came at the same time (and incidentally take a whole freakin year to build!).

I think there is also a culture requirement too in the province, but I think it's low like maybe 5?

(in reply to carburo)
Post #: 44
RE: serious combat bugs - 8/11/2005 10:23:35 PM   
ian77

 

Posts: 627
Joined: 4/27/2004
From: Scotland
Status: offline 		Yeah it seems to be level 8 not 7, Poles seem to schedule two lancers every year, the build queue gets a bit drawn out, but they keep scheduling more lancers.

Ian

(in reply to Joram)
Post #: 45
RE: serious combat bugs - 8/11/2005 10:40:14 PM   
carburo

 

Posts: 108
Joined: 7/8/2005
Status: offline 		Yes, we can build them. At level 8 barracks. I think Sarge was joking about how hard it's to get them.
My idea is they shouldn't be so strong, nor so difficult to build.
BTW, I like rifles. Especially because in the game with get the good part (better range and accuracy), while the drawback (slow rate of fire)is not modeled.

(in reply to Joram)
Post #: 46
RE: serious combat bugs - 8/11/2005 10:57:16 PM   
MarcelJV


Posts: 343
Joined: 5/9/2005
From: Mohrsville, PA
Status: offline 		If I may summerize.
Here is what I got that needs to change and the suggestions that go with it. Cavalry are not balanced. Changes below.
1. Cavalry are way to easy to charge with in column and this should not be allowed. Ie not charging if in column formation, given the description in the manual as a formation for moving then it makes sense that this is march column not attack column, which cavalry did not use.
2. Reduce cavalry to 5000 men. This is also closer to historical, even at the big battles there just where not 30000+ cavalry on one side (only takes 3 units to do that in COG).
3. Remove the ability to have cavalry fire. Other than dragoons which had a rifle but did not use it much no other cavalry had ranged fire. I do not buy the probing attack stuff.
4. Make it easier for Cavalry to reform after they are disordered as a result of a charge. This is a tough one for me as most of my reading indicated cavalry was good for one charge a battle so currently if you get them to reform you get more from them than usual. Either way it was suggested so I have included it.

Infantry formations.
1. Add another formation type called Attack Column. This should apply a penalty to fire and a increase to charge power. Again remove the ability to charge from march column. Attack column should take more casualties then line but less then a column so lets say 50% of the penalty for march column. So if the march column gets a 1.4x damage penalty then attack column would get a 1.2x penalty. This assumes line is 1.0x.
2. Do not allow charges from march column, see above in cavalry section. This is ok if we add in attack column.

Unit Upgrades.
Change Mixed Order upgrade to remove the charge after fire and instead increase the charge power of the infantry, keep the fire penalty. This way the unit either charges or fires but does not do both. You only need to change this if you do not add in the attack column formation. As it is you very rarily have a disorderd unit next to you that you can fire on and then have 9 points left to charge, so I see no one choosing it. This change would make it a choice.

I am sure I missed some thing but this is what I think we have covered.

(in reply to ian77)
Post #: 47
RE: serious combat bugs - 8/12/2005 12:09:09 AM   
carburo

 

Posts: 108
Joined: 7/8/2005
Status: offline 		I would add

Cavalry:

1. Make it more vulnerable to infantry fire, so they can’t hold the line against formed infantry.

2. Make differences between cav types more meaninful: heavies better at disrupting wavering units with a flank/rear charge but harder to reform, lights easier to reform but unable to break inf formations. This way heavies would be shock troops, and Lights mainly for scouting and pursuit.

Artillery:

1. Shouldn’t be able to move/turn and fire in the same turn.

2. More vulnerable to rear/flank charges.

After the patch, the mixed order upgrade works giving you a chance of an automatic charge after you fire at a disordered unit. Just that you only see the casualties you take from the charge, not the ones you inflict. I think it works fine in offensive, but the fire penalty doesn’t make sense qhen you fire at a target several hexes away. The fire penalty should apply only when firing at an adjacent unit you can actually charge.

(in reply to MarcelJV)
Post #: 48
RE: serious combat bugs - 8/12/2005 2:43:22 AM   
Latour_Maubourg


Posts: 90
Joined: 7/7/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MarcelJV


Infantry formations.
1. Add another formation type called Attack Column. This should apply a penalty to fire and a increase to charge power. Again remove the ability to charge from march column. Attack column should take more casualties then line but less then a column so lets say 50% of the penalty for march column. So if the march column gets a 1.4x damage penalty then attack column would get a 1.2x penalty. This assumes line is 1.0x.
2. Do not allow charges from march column, see above in cavalry section. This is ok if we add in attack column.




And if I may add, Attack column fewer moving points then Marching column but a lot more then Line formation. Something like Mc 100%, Ma 65% (70% if upgraded or guards) and Line 30% (35% if upgraded or guards)

Good summary by the way Marcel & Carburo, makes it more clear.

L-M


_____________________________

"What have you got to cry about man, you have one less boot to polish in future." L-M's reaction at his distressed valet after his leg was shot off at Leipzig.

(in reply to MarcelJV)
Post #: 49
RE: serious combat bugs - 8/12/2005 3:30:50 AM   
Malagant

 

Posts: 372
Joined: 3/13/2004
Status: offline
quote:

3. Remove the ability to have cavalry fire. Other than dragoons which had a rifle but did not use it much no other cavalry had ranged fire. I do not buy the probing attack stuff.


Wasn't it typical for a cavalry division to include horse artillery? I don't think it's inappropriate for a cavalry DIVISION to have some ability to fire at range. Since the hex scale is clearly pretty large, anything other than firing at an adjacent unit well exceeds musket range anyway, so if you take away a cavalry divison's ability to fire at range, you should take away an infantry unit's ability to fire at greater than one hex.

I think a cavalry division should be far more vulnerable to fire damage, and their firepower should be reduced. They COULD be used to engage in a fire fight, but they shouldn't be able to win...all things being equal.

_____________________________

"La Garde meurt, elle ne se rend pas!"

(in reply to MarcelJV)
Post #: 50
RE: serious combat bugs - 8/12/2005 4:01:37 AM   
plasticpanzers

 

Posts: 67
Joined: 7/20/2005
Status: offline 		A cav div may have a 6-12 gun battery of 4 or 6 pdrs
attached. not enough to make so much a difference
as is now with cavalry firepower. they were used
on squares, to attack inf the cav was engaging, or
to give the cav something to reform behind. an
average of 9 guns per 10,000 cav is not much firepower. the rules for cav melee needs to be
tweaked a bit. Lt vs heavy at a disadvantage, lancer
gets a bonus in first melee but disrupts easier, cav
vs inf more melee and less firepower.
on the inf my column hit i was engaging it from the
front with inf as well in a firefight. it just seems
odd that hitting a line of 8000 men from the rear with
8000 of equal value and morale should come out so odd.
what is the point of facing if it makes so little
apparent difference in melee?
Tim

ps: cav that did not break a square would swarm
around it or pass it allowing more than just 1/4
of the square to fire. the cav did not bunch up
just to fit in front of one side of a square.

< Message edited by plasticpanzers -- 8/12/2005 4:05:37 AM >

(in reply to Malagant)
Post #: 51
RE: serious combat bugs - 8/13/2005 2:46:55 AM   
ian77

 

Posts: 627
Joined: 4/27/2004
From: Scotland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: plasticpanzers

A cav div may have a 6-12 gun battery of 4 or 6 pdrs
attached. not enough to make so much a difference
as is now with cavalry firepower. they were used
on squares, to attack inf the cav was engaging, or
to give the cav something to reform behind. an
average of 9 guns per 10,000 cav is not much firepower. the rules for cav melee needs to be
tweaked a bit. Lt vs heavy at a disadvantage, lancer
gets a bonus in first melee but disrupts easier, cav
vs inf more melee and less firepower.
on the inf my column hit i was engaging it from the
front with inf as well in a firefight. it just seems
odd that hitting a line of 8000 men from the rear with
8000 of equal value and morale should come out so odd.
what is the point of facing if it makes so little
apparent difference in melee?
Tim

ps: cav that did not break a square would swarm
around it or pass it allowing more than just 1/4
of the square to fire. the cav did not bunch up
just to fit in front of one side of a square.


Are you sure on your numbers? I thought horse art bty was attached at Brigade level, (France), with additional artillery attached to the divisional command .... may have to dig out Chandler..

Ian



EDIT - Ooops.. two batteries at Div level only (French III and IV Reserve Cav Corps 1815) - 12 pieces only per corps, or division as we describe them in this game.... Tim is right

Sorry Tim.........

< Message edited by ian77 -- 8/13/2005 3:00:42 AM >

(in reply to plasticpanzers)
Post #: 52
RE: serious combat bugs - 8/13/2005 3:06:46 AM   
Malagant

 

Posts: 372
Joined: 3/13/2004
Status: offline
quote:

6-12 gun battery of 4 or 6 pdrs
attached. not enough to make so much a difference
as is now with cavalry firepower.


I agree, that's why I think cavalry should still be able to shoot at range, just with greatly reduced effectiveness, coupled with taking more damage from fire.

_____________________________

"La Garde meurt, elle ne se rend pas!"

(in reply to plasticpanzers)
Post #: 53
RE: serious combat bugs - 8/13/2005 3:23:15 AM   
Ralegh


Posts: 1557
Joined: 2/1/2005
Status: offline 		(from my play, I reckon that ) -

Ease of reforming cavalry is significantly affected by type: almost impossible to reform cossack cavalry (before getting the upgrade for them), very hard to reform irregular cavalry, hard to reform heavy cavalry, a bit easier to reform light cavalry, and easiest to reform lancers.

Reforming is massively improved by being out of enemy line of sight and during daylight.
Reforming is affected by terrain, and sometimes seems to improve if you move a hex or two (bug? or 'giving a formation a chance to shake out'?).
Reforming is assisted by the morale rating of leaders - so in some scenarios many leaders don't help much.
I think reforming is assisted by not being out of supply - you can't resupply a disordered unit, but they will gain supplies from being in a city.

_____________________________

HTH
Steve/Ralegh

(in reply to Mynok)
Post #: 54
RE: serious combat bugs - 8/13/2005 12:41:13 PM   
Latour_Maubourg


Posts: 90
Joined: 7/7/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: carburo

Artillery:

1. Shouldn’t be able to move/turn and fire in the same turn.



I don't completely agree with that. 1 turn is 40 minutes. Turn and shoot in the same turn yes. Napy being a former arty officer by profession, always made sure that his arty was up to date, very well trained and organized. However limber, move, unlimber and shoot in the same turn (even if it is 1 hex), no.

L-M


_____________________________

"What have you got to cry about man, you have one less boot to polish in future." L-M's reaction at his distressed valet after his leg was shot off at Leipzig.

(in reply to carburo)
Post #: 55
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Crown of Glory >> RE: serious combat bugs Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
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

5.844