[ New messages · Members · Forum rules · Search · RSS ]
Forum moderator: Daddio, EbelAngel  
Forum » Cossacks II » Modding » Questions, suggestions, remarks and wishes to C2 BfE
Questions, suggestions, remarks and wishes to C2 BfE
NowyDate: Tuesday, 22/November/2011, 4:36 PM | Message # 81
Marquis
Group: Users
Messages: 320
Awards: 1
Reputation: 1
Status: Offline
Hi, it is nice that we back to this thread. smile

Quote (aiidii)
What would all these commanders do? It's like...too much of them. A maximum of two generals with their adjutants and some cavalry for protection (15~20 men) should be enough. These two command formations would provide aditional morale to nearby troops (they could also influence accuracy of shots).

These commanders - 40 Generals and Chiefs and 70 their Adjutants can represent needed commanding structure and more complex army arganization.
I think that more than two Generals will be much better, at last few of them can be killed too.

In my proposition only suppreme commander (monarch) could be escorted with cavalry squadron. Other Generals could commanded their troops or stay in accompany with their adjutants in military bases and camps as well as in fortifications or even in tents.

I proposed earlier implement more complex army structure which coulod include brigades, divisions, corps and filed armies.
It could be groups of units which can grow in amounts of squads. If it will be not possible, then there still could be few Generals' ranks in the game.
All these organisation levels needs their own commanders. cool

Napoleonic armies aslo included many chiefs of staffs, of engineers and of artillery.
These generals were important and should/could be somehow represented in the game.

They can do something for army better organisation. They can allow organise or improve their branches and grow their abilities e.g.
- Chief of staff can gather informations, organise spies, prepare needed order of battle and help commander-in-chief.
Don't you remember how important for Napoleon was Marshal Berthier as his Chief of Staff ?
- Chief of engineer can allow to build big fortifications as forts, bastions, fortresses or temporary, pontoon bridges. Historically these men had special knowledge and they organized such works. There were many fine Chiefs of engineers at that period.
- Chief of Artillery in rank of General could organise bigger field batteries or increase artillerymen morale.
Quote
Also priests should be replaced with a medical unit which could be trained at the academy. This unit could consist of a medical wagon pulled by 4 horses and 2 surgeons/medics. Just like the priests this unit would heal formations in its range (and possibly also provide aditional morale).

Yes, it is nice idea.
Quote
Sappers should be able to construct boats big enough for one infantry company or two cavalry squadrons. Sappers should also be capable of constructing earthworks for artillery positions like they exist in the editor. But the player should be made capable of directing the length and direction of the earthworks. With enough material, a player could theoreticaly construct a sort of limes. These earthworks should be made destructable either by artillery or grenades.

Again nice idea. But sappers, pioniers, pontoniers etc. needs Chiefs of engineers in rank of General too.
Quote
Some other stuff should be improved aswell. Namely, the British should have the option to create pipers for their highlander units. All cavalry should have an officer and a trumpeteer added, not just a flag bearer (again for improved morale).

Yes, you are right.
Quote
Another formation type should be introduced. The L shaped formation. It would provide better defense on the flanks. Half of the infantry formation would simply move to a 90° angle. This could also mean that two companies instead of four could create a square.

Hmm, this is something where I do not agree.
I never hear about specific L formation. Normally such thing can existed in special circumstanses, but it can not helped too much against flank attacks.
Square formation is and should be create as battalion square. But it could be little bit bigger in size as like it is in C1, AC or HEW.
In the game aslo could be multibatalion squares, but this can be achieved even now when you form 4 battalions in line and ordered them to form something like big square.


Message edited by Nowy - Tuesday, 22/November/2011, 4:42 PM
 
aiidiiDate: Wednesday, 23/November/2011, 8:49 AM | Message # 82
Count
Group: Checked
Messages: 132
Awards: 2
Reputation: 0
Status: Offline
Quote (Nowy)
Hmm, this is something where I do not agree.
I never hear about specific L formation. Normally such thing can existed in special circumstanses, but it can not helped too much against flank attacks.
Square formation is and should be create as battalion square. But it could be little bit bigger in size as like it is in C1, AC or HEW.
In the game aslo could be multibatalion squares, but this can be achieved even now when you form 4 battalions in line and ordered them to form something like big square.


I'm not saying that such a formation actually existed during Napoleonic Wars. It could be just an aditional type of formation. And I disagree with you on its use on the battlefield. The L shaped formation can change direction quicker than a line formation. This is especially important during an enemy cavalry attack as half of the company is already facing the enemy.



Some possible battalion squares:



IMHO 2 two-company squares can move into battalion line formation easier and with less danger from a possible cavalry attack than 1 four-company square. At least in the game. I'm not talking about real historical battles (you must agree that some real-life historical stuff must be sacrificed for better and more enjoyable playability).


Cheers
aiidii


I drink, therefore I am.
 
NowyDate: Wednesday, 23/November/2011, 12:59 PM | Message # 83
Marquis
Group: Users
Messages: 320
Awards: 1
Reputation: 1
Status: Offline
aiidii you show quite interesting schematic diagrams, but it do not convince me.

As you know such L formations were not normal regulations during NW. Then what for add to the game something what normally did not existed at that era?

Quote ("aiidii")
I'm not saying that such a formation actually existed during Napoleonic Wars. It could be just an aditional type of formation. And I disagree with you on its use on the battlefield. The L shaped formation can change direction quicker than a line formation. This is especially important during an enemy cavalry attack as half of the company is already facing the enemy.


L shaped formation can not withstand enemy flank attack because it had lower fire power, still was poor manoueverable and it could be surrended.
Cavalry was much better manoeuverable than infantry line formations. Cavalrymen could passed around this L formation and attaked on formation's rear.
In such case it was clear that infantry was defeated. Therefore infantry against cavalry formed squares formations. If they did not do it or had not enough time to form full square then cavalry can won.

If in nearest place was another cavalry which could counterattackd then enemy cavalry did not attack on infantry. In such case cavalry waited on support and then their primary goal could be enemy cavalry. Look at Battle of Valutina Gora 1812. Murat's reserve cavalry waited there, because they saw few Russian cavalry units placed on Russian left flank. Junot's Westphalian Corps did not came with needed support and Russian can withdrew.

It was clear that L shaped formation can not helped to much. Better improve (made it bigger in size) square formation in the game.

Quote ("aiidii")
IMHO 2 two-company squares can move into battalion line formation easier and with less danger from a possible cavalry attack than 1 four-company square. At least in the game. I'm not talking about real historical battles (you must agree that some real-life historical stuff must be sacrificed for better and more enjoyable playability).


It is interesting, but I still disagree on L formations. It looks little bit strange and was not normal regulation at that era.
Sorry I would like to see in the game more realistic things e.g. cavalry squadrons and regiments, artillery sections and batteries.

Chers
Nowy


Message edited by Nowy - Wednesday, 23/November/2011, 1:05 PM
 
aiidiiDate: Wednesday, 23/November/2011, 2:30 PM | Message # 84
Count
Group: Checked
Messages: 132
Awards: 2
Reputation: 0
Status: Offline
Quote (Nowy)
L shaped formation can not withstand enemy flank attack because it had lower fire power, still was poor manoueverable and it could be surrended.


Check the picture again. The same goes for line formation. Besides, in L shaped formation, the formation ends are closer than in line formation because of the 90° angle. So a firing order for the whole company would mean that all soliders in the company would be able to fire their weapons (at least in the red zone when the enemy cavalry has already smashed in your formation, possibly even in the yellow zone). Whereas in the line formation, one end of the company can not support the other end because it is too far away.

Quote (Nowy)
If in nearest place was another cavalry which could counterattackd then enemy cavalry did not attack on infantry. In such case cavalry waited on support and then their primary goal could be enemy cavalry. Look at Battle of Valutina Gora 1812. Murat's reserve cavalry waited there, because they saw few Russian cavalry units placed on Russian left flank. Junot's Westphalian Corps did not came with needed support and Russian can withdrew.


True, but not always. Remember that great victories throughout history are as much based on chance and luck as on superior tactics. He who dares wins!!!

Quote (Nowy)
It is interesting, but I still disagree on L formations. It looks little bit strange and was not normal regulation at that era.


No progress is regress. Perhaps a change of tactics would give Napoleon victory in Russia? Who knows? YES, the L formation is probably not historicaly accurate. But let us not forget that this is just a game. Some things DO need to be sacrificed. The L shaped formation could represent individual commander's initiative on the field of battle.

Quote (Nowy)
Sorry I would like to see in the game more realistic things e.g. cavalry squadrons and regiments, artillery sections and batteries.


So...On one hand you'd like to see macro management of your army (squadrons, regiments, divisions, armies), and on the other hand you want micro management of artillery sections and batteries?

Above all, games should be fun. That's why they are called games. 100% historical accuracy in formations, tactics, strategies uniforms,...is for military academies.

Cheers
aiidii

P.S.: I like this discussion.
smile

Added (23/November/2011, 2:30 PM)
---------------------------------------------
I would like to hear other member's opinions on these ideas too. The more heads working together can provide better and more constructive results.


I drink, therefore I am.

Message edited by aiidii - Wednesday, 23/November/2011, 2:26 PM
 
NowyDate: Wednesday, 23/November/2011, 4:46 PM | Message # 85
Marquis
Group: Users
Messages: 320
Awards: 1
Reputation: 1
Status: Offline
Quote ("aiidii")
Check the picture again. The same goes for line formation. Besides, in L shaped formation, the formation ends are closer than in line formation because of the 90° angle. So a firing order for the whole company would mean that all soliders in the company would be able to fire their weapons (at least in the red zone when the enemy cavalry has already smashed in your formation, possibly even in the yellow zone). Whereas in the line formation, one end of the company can not support the other end because it is too far away.

I wrote about possible situations on battlefileds. In the game L formation can looks even worse when soldiers can fired above their felows heads.
It is crazy enough when all soldiers in column formation can fired at once. Now you propose implement such case also in strange L formation.
It is clearly looks unrealistic.
No, no it can not be good idea.
Quote
No progress is regress. Perhaps a change of tactics would give Napoleon victory in Russia? Who knows? YES, the L formation is probably not historicaly accurate. But let us not forget that this is just a game. Some things DO need to be sacrificed. The L shaped formation could represent individual commander's initiative on the field of battle.

Do you really find progress in L fomation?
I could say it is too fantasy thing which looks like step on back side. You know it is something like step in the 90° angle. cool
Quote
So...On one hand you'd like to see macro management of your army (squadrons, regiments, divisions, armies), and on the other hand you want micro management of artillery sections and batteries?

Above all, games should be fun. That's why they are called games. 100% historical accuracy in formations, tactics, strategies uniforms,...is for military academies.

I prefer organized managment and artillery section (two guns with limbers) and battery (4 guns with limbers and ammunition wagon) have more complex organization than existed individual guns in the game now. It could looks and works better in the game too.

I think that properly prepered army organization which used correctly historical tactics are more fun than something which looks strange and unrealistic.
I do not expext 100% historical accuracy, but the most charactersitic things should be implemented in historical based game.

PS
I also like this discussion.
It will be fine when more members will put their opinions too. smile
 
aiidiiDate: Wednesday, 23/November/2011, 5:33 PM | Message # 86
Count
Group: Checked
Messages: 132
Awards: 2
Reputation: 0
Status: Offline
Quote (Nowy)
I wrote about possible situations on battlefileds. In the game L formation can looks even worse when soldiers can fired above their felows heads.
It is crazy enough when all soldiers in column formation can fired at once. Now you propose implement such case also in strange L formation.
It is clearly looks unrealistic.
No, no it can not be good idea.


Then we should also get rid of line formations firing behind other line formations, units passing through friendly units, towers that fire cannonballs (wtf?). Casualties should not be just killed soldiers but also wounded ones. The wounded soldiers should be made available to your army after the battle (that is of course after the game engine calculates how many of those got gangrene because of wounds and have died after battle). Horses should also be manipulated in such a way that they don't automaticaly get killed together with the horseman. Instead surviving horses and also horsemen whose horses got killed but they themselves survived shoud rally back at your stables.

Soldier in the third line of infantry should not be allowed to fire in any circumstance if the two soldiers from the first and second line are still alive and standing in front of him, so not to shoot off the ears of soldiers in the first line. He should only be allowed to shoot if there is one or no soldiers in front of him. Of course this will also affect the fire power of the company in any formation, because one third of soldiers of a full company will not be able to shoot.

Desertion and diseases were also common during Napoleonic Wars. Formations should suffer casualties of these two types even when not in combat. A bit extreme I know. But hey, let's go real this time.

This is all historical realism here or is it not?

Cheers
aiidii


I drink, therefore I am.
 
NowyDate: Wednesday, 23/November/2011, 6:08 PM | Message # 87
Marquis
Group: Users
Messages: 320
Awards: 1
Reputation: 1
Status: Offline
Quote ("aiidii")
This is all historical realism here or is it not?

Total realism in the game is not possible. You can not use here hundred thousend of men in few armies.
Nevertheless many things are possible.

Every three ranks in line formations could fire. It was historical system of fire.
However in practice only first two ranks fired and third rank only load muskets.
In column only few front ranks can fire, but it was rare case. Columns were used mainly as assault force which broke through enemy lines.
Wounded men idea is very well come in the game as well as much lower casualties ratio. Even in bloody battles were not killed every one soldier.

Quote
Horses should also be manipulated in such a way that they don't automaticaly get killed together with the horseman. Instead surviving horses and also horsemen whose horses got killed but they themselves survived shoud rally back at your stables.

Yes it is true. But it is hard implement into the game.

Desertion and diseases were common problems at that period and it could be implemented somehow in the game.
Even now when you have not enoigh food in C2 men can die.
 
EbelAngelDate: Saturday, 26/November/2011, 1:00 AM | Message # 88
Site Administrator
Group: Administrators
Messages: 981
Awards: 7
Reputation: 12
Status: Offline
aiidii,

on your picture i saw formation lines (2.A)

Its a bit like this right:


2 off those form a square with flank defense. I just tried it out quickly, this one was for 60 units. But I assume you can set it up for 120 or larger.
Or 4 for a bigger square.

Did you know that some off those formations in your picture are already setup in game. You can find them in Data\orders.lst ( open with notepad).
Some are used, others carried over from previous games, disabled or just not used.

Its not hard to enable any off them.

I'm not sure about that L form you showed in your picture. I havent added any but I remember someone saying they have to be symmetrical.


 
aiidiiDate: Saturday, 26/November/2011, 1:30 AM | Message # 89
Count
Group: Checked
Messages: 132
Awards: 2
Reputation: 0
Status: Offline
OMG!!!

Where and how, for the love of God and all that is holy in heaven!!!

From your posted pic I see you have changed the formation icon somehow. And the order in which they are presented normally in the game. I'm guessing that currently only 3 formations can be used, with new enabled ones replacing the existing ones?

Quote (EbelAngel)
I havent added any but I remember someone saying they have to be symmetrical.


Like cavalry formations. But what's the reason they have to be symmetrical?

This game is like Santa Claus' sack. It has no bottom.

Cheers
aiidii


I drink, therefore I am.
 
NowyDate: Sunday, 04/December/2011, 4:00 PM | Message # 90
Marquis
Group: Users
Messages: 320
Awards: 1
Reputation: 1
Status: Offline
These infantry formations showed on that EbelAngl's screenshot looks quite strange, a specially when they looks like square brackets or big cross.

Hope it was not funereal cross for C2 game.


Message edited by Nowy - Sunday, 04/December/2011, 4:09 PM
 
Forum » Cossacks II » Modding » Questions, suggestions, remarks and wishes to C2 BfE
Search: