Artillery deployment

[englishoo7]

I lost the best part of two Corps attacking an artillery poistion of six or eight guns and didn't shift them! One Corps was mostly infantry one completely cavalry. The infantry seem to break, route and then come back, often only to break again. The cavalry stood off in front of the guns and waited there until they broke. I would have to say that artillery is too powerful! Reading the links above I should perhaps have made more of an effort to flank the position but there is always more artillery scattered accross the battlefield either side.
This problem can be interesting, but too much of it leads to things bogging down into one big artillery duel. What concerns me most is it stops the infantry getting into the fight, frustrating me with constant routs/rally/rout?? At least its affect on infantry could be 'cooled' somewhat...

[Gunner24]

I think it's fair to say the artillery have to be subdued before any hope of a winning attack can be made.  There is always the danger that artillery can dominate the game to much, but I guess it did 200 years ago, the problem is finding a reasonable comprimise to keep it that way in game play terms WITHOUT it being totally unbeatable, because it was not for real, otherwise neither side would ever have closed to contact each other on the battlefield.

[JMM]

Single question: Did you have some ART units within your corps.

AI Corps must halt the Corps and deploys its artillery if necessary... I read some ART units continue the movement and it's wrong.
So it's a huge problem for your army and I have to fix this issue up before modifying other parameters.

That said, a normal battle begins with ART and it's not really interesting to send your troops before weakening the ART enemy.

JMM

[von Döbeln]

Yes I'm talking about artillery units in a corps. When you deploy the corps the artillery units usually deploys well in front of the rest of the corps - often 100-200 meters in front which to me seems a bit much.

I have seen it deploy as much as 600 meters in front but that was a one time thing and it might have been the time where Poniatowski's corps was marching the wrong way - check the replay I sent you JMM - so it was probably because of another bug.

If it is historically correct that artillery deployed 100-200 meters in front of the infantry then I'm ok with it, I'm just wondering if it's deliberate or not.

LvD

[Pariente]

I think it's fair to say the artillery have to be subdued before any hope of a winning attack can be made.  There is always the danger that artillery can dominate the game to much, but I guess it did 200 years ago, the problem is finding a reasonable comprimise to keep it that way in game play terms WITHOUT it being totally unbeatable, because it was not for real, otherwise neither side would ever have closed to contact each other on the battlefield.

Well, you cannot muzzle artillery because it is like it used to be in History. That would be a bad and childish behaviour...

The fact is : artillery is very powerful.

Then, before getting back to TW, ask yourselves the right question :

- what can I do to beat a strong battery ?

Some answers :
- flank it.
- concentrate a stronger battery in front of it.
- forget about going through it, and take advantage of many cannons being in that particular place to attack elsewhere.

Moreover, french artillery has already been muzzled by JMM because it was... invicible. The french 12£ were unbeatable because it had the highest range. The compromise does exist between French and Coalition's artilleries.

But, artillery is still powerful. Reducing its power would be, in my opinion, pointless.

I lost the best part of two Corps attacking an artillery poistion of six or eight guns and didn't shift them! One Corps was mostly infantry one completely cavalry. The infantry seem to break, route and then come back, often only to break again. The cavalry stood off in front of the guns and waited there until they broke. I would have to say that artillery is too powerful! Reading the links above I should perhaps have made more of an effort to flank the position but there is always more artillery scattered accross the battlefield either side.
This problem can be interesting, but too much of it leads to things bogging down into one big artillery duel. What concerns me most is it stops the infantry getting into the fight, frustrating me with constant routs/rally/rout?? At least its affect on infantry could be 'cooled' somewhat...

Eight guns stopped your two corps. I'm completely ok with that, because you had no artillery. That's the reason why balanced corps with cavalry, infantry and artillery are stronger than only-infantry or cavalry corps, especially against batteries.

The impact on moral in the game seems to me an illustration faithful to reality.

Think about the charge of the light brigade at Balaclava (1854). Bravoury was quite useless against fifty guns.

Therefore, instead of crippling artillery we may deal with it.

For instance, during the battle of Montebello (in the demo) I beat three corps which had fifty guns, with two corps and thirty guns. I just ordered to my artillery to shell ennemy artillery in priority.

Good evening,
Pariente.

[englishoo7]

Pariente: You say you completely ok with a battery stopping two entire corps? I am not.

I am mostly well read on the battle of waterloo so I will use this as my reference-


Before the Battle Wellington gave orders for 'no counter battery fire'? (At odds with your tactics)

D-erlons attack reached the allied lines, crashed through the first line and was met with cavalry, which then went on to charge all the way up to the 'Grand Batterie'. (The Allies had artillery but this did not stop his advance and the Grand Batterie did not send the household brigade off packing, French Cavalry did).

Mercer, a British Horse Artillery Commander, talks of reaping terrible carnage on the french Cavalry before him. (But agagin and again those same cavalry went up the ridge to attack the squares of Infantry which also stood under hours of artillery attack, albeit indirect).

You also quote the 'charge of the light Brigade' (But they reached the enemy guns and sabered them before routing back up the valley. I don't see your point)

  Very much artillery I think was powerful (especially on the nerves of the men under it). But one or two Batteries defeating two corps? (who did have some artillery of their own) - No.



 

[Pariente]

« Waterloo ! Waterloo ! Waterloo ! Morne plaine !
Comme une onde qui bout dans une urne trop pleine ! » (L'Expiation, in Les Châtiments, Victor Hugo)

We shall hear about it for a loooong time.

As there is no invincible system in war, I will talk about your experience, that is to say the failure of your two corps against eight guns. You say you had artillery... was it used ? Did AI (or you) deploy it before sending cavalry or infantry ? What was your units' moral level ? Were the two corps merged (loss of cohesion) ? Have you sent your corps simultaneously ? Were there other ennemy units than guns ? If your units arrived one by one, it may explain why your corps were routed.

Numerous factors may account for this surprising result.

« Woe to the general who came to fight with a system. » (Napoléon)

Then, there is no rule : a great battery may be charged successfully by cavalry, but if cavalry charges straight at well prepared guns (even ten), there are many chances your cavalry goes back to Scotland.

At Montebello (in the demo), for instance, ennemy artillery arrived gradually so that I outnumbered the Russians.

I keep saying I'm ok with the power of artillery. I understand your state of mind, but, in my opinion, artillery is not overestimated.

Edit : I go to bed. Sweet dreams.

[Hook]

I'm guessing that when a corps stops and artillery advances 500 meters to open fire, it's because those are 4 pounder guns going against 12 pounders of the enemy.  The infantry stops out of range while the regimental guns continue to advance into range of their smaller guns.

Of course, when I go to look for instances of this, I never see it.  Guns deploy right in front of the halted infantry and sometimes even retreat a bit to get a better firing position.

D'Erlon's infantry did indeed get past the allied artillery to attack infantry on the ridge.  What we're not told is how many battalions were routed by the artillery before they got past it, or how much of the artillery was destroyed one way or another.  I suspect if we were gaming it in HWLG, the infantry would never get to the ridge.

Mercer was able to stop several cavalry charges, which would happen in HWLG.  This part of the battle isn't well documented, so we don't know if the *same* cavalry kept advancing time after time, or if these were different units, or even exactly how many charges there were.  Also, Mercer's battery took a lot of damage from a Prussian artillery unit firing on its flank.  The squares Mercer was protecting took considerable damage as well, but didn't break.  Some other squares were reported as breaking, maybe 3.

The biggest argument against reducing the effectiveness of artillery is that we can still win battles the way it is now.  The biggest argument in favor of reducing it is that it's impossible to advance against it unless you have overwhelming numbers or a lot of artillery of your own.  A decision to change it is not easily made.  You have to have expert players testing it a lot.  Most of us aren't to the "expert" point yet.  I agree that it feels too powerful, but I'm nowhere near the point that I'd recommend any changes.

If it helps any, keep in mind that the artillery has a relatively narrow field of fire, and doesn't seem to wheel to meet threats coming from another direction.  If you can get past the cone of fire, you're safe.

Hook

[Aguirre, der Zorn Gottes]

"Waterloo ! Your fields stand, desolate and grim.
Like water boiling in a pot filled to the rim -" ( i do not know the translator) Just a strange translation ...
In fact this one is more litteral translation but less beautiful ! "Waterloo! Waterloo! disastrous field!
Like a wave swelling in an urn brim-filled".
And for the fun another extract  
"He fell; and God changed Europe's iron bands.

Far in the fog-bound seas a vile rock stands,
Belched up by old volcanoes. Destiny
Took nails and clamps and neck-irons, gleefully,
Seized him who stole the thunder, living, pale,
And dragged him to the grizzled peak, to nail
Him down, and with a mocking laugh to start
The vulture England gnawing at his heart."

[Gunner24]

Then, before getting back to TW, ask yourselves the right question :

Hmmm, odd comment to make....the TW games are well know to be very poor as far as historical accuracy is concerned, but they do provide some brillent MP games (which is all I'm interested in) and some of the mods are far superior to the in the box game, the TROM Empire mod has very powerfull artillery and "we" are well used to having serious problems over coming that, in several different way, anyway, if you read what I posted you will see I fully understand how strong artillery was, but if you get loads of people posting "arty is too strong" in the game you need to listen to that comment......I have no clue if it's too strong or not yet as the demo appears to have some problems with it.

Some answers :
- flank it.
- concentrate a stronger battery in front of it.
- forget about going through it, and take advantage of many cannons being in that particular place to attack elsewhere.

I would expect most people on this forum would agree with this, it's not rocket science.

As for Waterloo, well it did happen, it is also the most documented Napoleonic battle and the most written about.

[Holdit]

Of course, when I go to look for instances of this, I never see it.  Guns deploy right in front of the halted infantry and sometimes even retreat a bit to get a better firing position.

I assume that by "instances" here, you mean historical instances? If so, then this is a problem in the game.

D'Erlon's infantry did indeed get past the allied artillery to attack infantry on the ridge.  What we're not told is how many battalions were routed by the artillery before they got past it, or how much of the artillery was destroyed one way or another.  I suspect if we were gaming it in HWLG, the infantry would never get to the ridge.

Exactly, again a problem to be fixed.

Mercer was able to stop several cavalry charges, which would happen in HWLG.  This part of the battle isn't well documented, so we don't know if the *same* cavalry kept advancing time after time, or if these were different units, or even exactly how many charges there were.  Also, Mercer's battery took a lot of damage from a Prussian artillery unit firing on its flank.  The squares Mercer was protecting took considerable damage as well, but didn't break.  Some other squares were reported as breaking, maybe 3.

The Mercer reference is an interesting one and referring to it for comparison's sake is a good idea. I'd be careful about what conclusions we draw from it though. Mercer reports that the cavalry to his front could advance no further, mainly because of the numerous dead horses that had accumulated there. That doesn't mean, however, that the entire charge was stopped. Also, I don't think the Prussian friendly fire could have occured at the same time, Plancenoit not having fallen yet while the cavalry attacks were in progress. As for squares breaking, can you provide references? I've always understood that not a single square broke during those charges.

The biggest argument against reducing the effectiveness of artillery is that we can still win battles the way it is now.

If JMM included tactical nuclear weapons, we could win battles with that too, but that wouldn't make it historically valid.

The biggest argument in favor of reducing it is that it's impossible to advance against it unless you have overwhelming numbers or a lot of artillery of your own.  A decision to change it is not easily made.

If what we're seeing is plainly wrong, then the decision to change is very easy to make.

You have to have expert players testing it a lot.  

We have that now. And many of them are reporting it to be a problem.

If it helps any, keep in mind that the artillery has a relatively narrow field of fire, and doesn't seem to wheel to meet threats coming from another direction.  If you can get past the cone of fire, you're safe.

Agreed.

Holdit

[Gunner24]

If what we're seeing is plainly wrong, then the decision to change is very easy to make

This is all about game balance, as long as it's not a bug......the artillery could be "balanced" in many different (fractional) ways, stronger, or weaker, in the end we can all have different opinions on this, and will do, but when push comes to shove it's up to the game developer to make the call.

LG may be a new Nap game, it may be the best ever made, but there is a lot of value in experience in other games, and I would say MP games are of greater vaule than SP as far as "balance" is concerned, you will always get discussions about this, that, or the other, being to strong/weak, it's never ending.

Lets see what happens in the real game, and not in SP, but in the only real test of live MP games, if EVERY single battle is won by someone sitting behind a wall of artillery on a hill, then we know there's a problem, if not, there's not !.

[Hook]

I assume that by "instances" here, you mean historical instances? If so, then this is a problem in the game.

I meant instances IN THE GAME. I'd have though that was obvious.  Rather than search through saved games, I've been playing new ones.  As such, it doesn't appear to be a problem in the game at all.

Exactly, again a problem to be fixed.

We won't know until we game it.

The Mercer reference is an interesting one and referring to it for comparison's sake is a good idea. I'd be careful about what conclusions we draw from it though. Mercer reports that the cavalry to his front could advance no further, mainly because of the numerous dead horses that had accumulated there. That doesn't mean, however, that the entire charge was stopped. Also, I don't think the Prussian friendly fire could have occured at the same time, Plancenoit not having fallen yet while the cavalry attacks were in progress. As for squares breaking, can you provide references? I've always understood that not a single square broke during those charges.

If you rely on nothing but English language sources, you miss a lot of things like breaking squares.  And how far the Prussians actually advanced that afternoon.  The artillery attack on Mercer was after the charges had ended, I do believe, because Mercer doesn't mention being charged while under artillery attack, nor after it.  As for the other, if you'd care to quote from Mercer's journal, I'd be happy to read it.

If JMM included tactical nuclear weapons, we could win battles with that too, but that wouldn't make it historically valid.

If you'd prefer to make a valid argument, I'd be happy to discuss it with you.
 

If what we're seeing is plainly wrong, then the decision to change is very easy to make.

That sentence begins with "IF".  The argument has not been proven.

You have to have expert players testing it a lot.

We have that now.

Too bad we don't have multiplayer yet.  We could test that very quickly.

I went through this whole process with Austerlitz: Napoleon's Greatest Victory and I was able to come up with a patch to make the artillery strength fall within reasonable limits, and my numbers were eventually incorporated into that game.  I know very well that the gamers need to be happy with the effects.  We knew that ANGV was a game, and that the balance needed to give a good playing experience.  HWLG is a simulation, and the effects need to reflect reality as close as we can get it. 

While I think the artillery is too strong myself, I'm not convinced that it's unrealistically strong.  I'll need to do a lot more testing.   If necessary, maybe we can convince JMM to give us an option to dumb down the artillery for those who need it.  In the mean time, I'm looking for ways to deal with it the way it already is in the game.

Hook

[englishoo7]

Bravo Aguirre!

Mercer was shot up towards the end of the Battle by a Prussian Battery that he said were probably drunk (Although I expect most were drinking, I would be!). He said he had so many dead horses and dead and exhausted men that he could not join in with the general advance.
It is true, he did say he had built up many dead horses and Frenchmen to the front of his position and so was able to stay. (I read somewhere the French Cavalry may have advanced up onto the ridge as many as sixteen times, although I am unsure how true this is.)

Perhaps artillery is not too strong - maybe infantry break too easily in the game - therefore making an attack like D-erlons at Waterloo impossible in the game until you knock out almost all enemy Artillery that is able to fire on you.
(Although it has just occurred to me that perhaps because infantry don't 'come on together' each regiment gets the full firepower of all artillery. If they came on severel at a time this artillery would be 'diluted'? Just a thought.)

[Holdit]

If you rely on nothing but English language sources, you miss a lot of things like breaking squares.

Fine, my experience of Napoleonics has been one of expanding my knowledge and understanding. I don't care if squares were broken or not. I do care what the truth is. So if you have references that confirm broken squares, I am very keen to read them.

And how far the Prussians actually advanced that afternoon. The artillery attack on Mercer was after the charges had ended, I do believe, because Mercer doesn't mention being charged while under artillery attack, nor after it.  As for the other, if you'd care to quote from Mercer's journal, I'd be happy to read it.

You've missed my point. We're actually in agreement about this.

If you'd prefer to make a valid argument, I'd be happy to discuss it with you.

It is a valid argument. It's called reductio ad absurdum. The point being that if something is historically inaccurate, then it's historically inaccurate. That there may be a way of working around it doesn't magically remove the original inaccuracy.

Too bad we don't have multiplayer yet.  We could test that very quickly.

I don't see what multiplayer has to do with it.

I went through this whole process with Austerlitz: Napoleon's Greatest Victory and I was able to come up with a patch to make the artillery strength fall within reasonable limits, and my numbers were eventually incorporated into that game.  I know very well that the gamers need to be happy with the effects.  We knew that ANGV was a game, and that the balance needed to give a good playing experience.  HWLG is a simulation, and the effects need to reflect reality as close as we can get it. 

Agreed 100%.

While I think the artillery is too strong myself, I'm not convinced that it's unrealistically strong.

I really don't understand what you're saying here - artillery is either too strong or it isn't. If you think it's too strong, then by definition, it must be unrealistically strong, since if it was realistically strong, you would hardly think it was too strong, would you?

If necessary, maybe we can convince JMM to give us an option to dumb down the artillery for those who need it.

For those who want it to be realistic, you mean.

In the mean time, I'm looking for ways to deal with it the way it already is in the game.

I think you've just nailed a fundamental difference in our philospohical approaches to te game. You seem happy to find a workaround to historical anomalies. I don't want to work around them - I want them fixed. Working round historical anomalies is what you do when you're playing the Total War series, or the HPS Napoleonic games. HLG sets the bar higher than this, but it won't achieve that admirable aspiration by accepting other ways to deal with historical issues. The minute you stop thinking like a Napoleonic commander and start thinking around the limitations of the game engine, the game has failed, and it does no service to the game or JMM to pretend that that doesn't matter.

Holdit