Artillery deployment

[Gunner24]

I don't believe making artillery weaker would make battles more interesting

I agree, it is better for artillery to be to strong than to weak, as Napoleinic artillery was a feasome weapon and dominated the battlefield, I only worry about MP play when it arrives, we will have to wait and see what happens then.

I had another look today and I was on the French side with three artillery placed on the slopes, the emeny was unable to get anywhere near to my defensive line, although one or two attacks did get close to the artillery before breaking down.....a "human" player would NOT have attacked here, they would have moved further right to where there was only one artillery in there way.....this is why LG will be 100 times better as a MP game - if we can find the time to play it !.

[englishoo7]

It was the Young Guard and it was destroyed that day.

Mmm. Thats the trouble with argueing with such well informed people.  

Still the point I was trying to make was that they stood under it for some time. I think an infantry Regiment of two thousand or more should be able to take more than minutes of artillery fire. Attacks did advance successfully under it to attack a position? It is easy to say we don't want to 'dumb down' artillery but is it realistic to just stop every regiment in its tracks? I will be happy to be proved wrong. I would love someone to post a video of a successful co-ordinated infantry attack (four or more regiments) reaching the enemy line under artillery fire? Or even someone just telling me that they have done it?

[Pariente]

I agree, it is better for artillery to be to strong than to weak, as Napoleinic artillery was a feasome weapon and dominated the battlefield, I only worry about MP play when it arrives, we will have to wait and see what happens then.

I had another look today and I was on the French side with three artillery placed on the slopes, the emeny was unable to get anywhere near to my defensive line, although one or two attacks did get close to the artillery before breaking down.....a "human" player would NOT have attacked here, they would have moved further right to where there was only one artillery in there way.....this is why LG will be 100 times better as a MP game - if we can find the time to play it !.

I fully agree with you : the real challenge is MP battles where we confront to other players and their deceit.

Eager to see you on battlefields,
Pariente.

[Gunner24]

I think an infantry Regiment of two thousand or more should be able to take more than minutes of artillery fire.

A fair point, depends on the range, at long range I think they will stand in LG, at close range, attacking into artillery they tend not to.

Attacks did advance successfully under it to attack a position?

I agree with this, but it comes down to where the main axis of attack is in relation to the cannons.

It is easy to say we don't want to 'dumb down' artillery but is it realistic to just stop every regiment in its tracks?

This is a big worry if we can only launch one regiment at a time, but I strongly suspect that multiply attacks are possible when we work out all the things that are possible with the orders system.  Perhaps this bit might take some micro managing.

I will be happy to be proved wrong. I would love someone to post a video of a successful co-ordinated infantry attack (four or more regiments) reaching the enemy line under artillery fire? Or even someone just telling me that they have done it?

I will try this tomorrow and see if I can work it out - in theory it should be possible.

One thing I have done is keep an artillery battery busy with counter battery fire while sending a Cav Regt to the left rear flank, then ordered it to attack, it came in from the rear......sending off 90 men from the 800 odd to wipe out the cannons.  Fine work men !

[Gunfreak]

Artillery is supose to be very powerfull, acording to the waterloo companion, artillery easly did most of the kills, so artillery isn't just a moral thing, it actualy kills, the damige done by sword, bayonett and musketfire was something like 25% the rest beeing artillery

[bidermann]

The trouble with the game atm is to stop your troops charging head long into the teeth of a battery.As soon as the AI gets a chance it throws your troops straight at the guns!!

[quartermaster]

One think to consider with artillery is how good is the field of fire.  On an open battlefield it is easy enough for artillery to find good positions to deploy and have a clear field of fire.  The Montebello battlefield is fairly clear terrain as was Waterloo (several authors describe the Allied position as like a glacis in front of a fortress).  The Russians had good positions at Borodino.

Some battlefields were a lot more broken such as around Ratisbon in 1809 where artillery were less able to dominate the ground.

One issue mentioned in the Kriegspiel especially in the 1828 supplement is the importance of being able to judge the fall of shot and adjust the fire to achieve the required level of accuracy.  I will look up some figures for casualty rates used in that classic work.

[Holdit]

Holdit, I think that you've become so intent on winning your argument that you've forgotten why we're here.

This isn't about winning an argument at all - it's about getting the game right. But if I'm wrong, prove me wrong, don't just tell me I'm wrong.

I'm here because I believe that HLG has the potential to be the most historically accurate Napoleonic battlefield game created for the computer. Like anyone else who sees aspects of the game that fall below that standard, I point them out in the hope of seeing them addressed. I'm here because I really really want HLG to succeed, but if it fails in its aim, I don't want it to be because I failed to speak up with others in pointing out problems. If the problems I point out aren't really problems, then I'm happy to be corrected - but using real evidence and argument from a historical point of view - which makes the problem one of my perception and thus makes it go away. Lovely. I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is pretending that problems aren't really problems just because some people don't mind that they're problems, or because there is some gamey workaround. No game with the word "grognards" in its title should satisfy itself with this approach, if it is worthy of the name. I assume you're aware that "grognard" means "grumbler" and therefore I am proceeding in the finest grognardly tradition - but with the best of intentions.

Now tell me why you're here.

Until you figure out what we're doing here, it's not worthwhile to argue with you.

Why? Because I place a higher value on historicity over gameplay? If so, guilty as charged m'lud - and proud of it.

One thing you have done:  even though I think artillery is too strong FOR GAMING PURPOSES, I will resist making it weaker.

What on earth does "FOR GAMING PURPOSES" mean? If it's wrong, it's wrong; if it's right, it's right.

The only experts in playing HWLG are the long time beta testers,

Agreed, but I don't see what difference that makes.

and the few experts in Napoleonic tactical warfare haven't said much.

And how have you identified these - is there a list?

There are plenty of "gaming" experts, but experience in Tetris, TW or tic-tac-toe doesn't count.

Coming from someone who is happy to leave artillery too powerful "FOR GAMEPLAY PURPOSES", I can't help but savour the irony in this jibe.

I know where to find the real Napoleonic experts online, and when the demo is updated I'll be doing just that.  If adjustments are needed to the game, they'll be able to tell us with some authority.

So do I, but I'd say you have quite a few here already.

From everything I've seen so far in the game, JMM is a Napoleonic expert.

I would agree, and I enthusiastically salute his intentions with this game - and what he has acheieved so far, but that doesn't make him, his design or his code infallible and doesn't mean that the game can't be improved.

Holdit

[Gunner24]

The trouble with the game atm is to stop your troops charging head long into the teeth of a battery.As soon as the AI gets a chance it throws your troops straight at the guns!!

If you see a nasty looking battery up ahead that you don't want to take on from the front I think you need to make your orders to defend.....I'm not certain, but if they have a defend order, that (in theory) should stop anyone advancing into the cannons.

Need to confirm if a defend order does in fact stop the AI from attacking, should do, but does it ?.

[englishoo7]

I placed a defence line in front of one already in place today and it worked. My troops did not throw themselves forward because they were not told to deploy (attack). I had my most successful battle using this method. I have only tried it once though! 

[Cpl Steiner]

I haven't followed this thread in detail but tonight I played a game in which my infantry very effectively destroyed several enemy artillery batteries.

Method: I detached a lot of batteries of my own and formed a "grand battery" out of them on the slope of a hill overlooking what appeared to be the largest enemy troop concentration. The enemy deployed several batteries to counter my own and for then next couple of hours of game time there was a monumental artillery dual in that sector of the map. As the enemy seemed to have tunnel vision by now engaging nothing but my own massive battery on the hillside, I sent a large infantry-heavy corps down to the left of the enemy guns (my left) and had them do a right-turn and take them in the flank. They rapidly rolled up the enemy gun line, destroying about 3 enemy batteries whilst taking hardly any casualties of their own. It was quite spectacular to watch!

[bidermann]

I did place my troops on a defend line. but then moved the Corp to another position and told them to defend that line but when they started to move they went  to  mode attack and went well beyond the defend line.

Art is to strong , the Art power is getting close to ACW levels. In the time period we are playing 1800s
the infantry, cavalry and Art were all well balanced.

[Ras]

Still the point I was trying to make was that they stood under it for some time. I think an infantry Regiment of two thousand or more should be able to take more than minutes of artillery fire. Attacks did advance successfully under it to attack a position? It is easy to say we don't want to 'dumb down' artillery but is it realistic to just stop every regiment in its tracks? I will be happy to be proved wrong. I would love someone to post a video of a successful co-ordinated infantry attack (four or more regiments) reaching the enemy line under artillery fire? Or even someone just telling me that they have done it?

I'm not sure if I have a video (will check) but yesterday I took Constantine's six infantry units from the Montebello battle and let them walk up on one of Mortier's batteries. There were 8 8pnd and 2 Howitzers placed on a little hill on the french side of the river. The appraoching infantry took fire quite early, the cannons were well placed. Nonetheless they kept marching. The one unit that was directly fired on by the cannons did recoil once (from canister I suppose) but continued its march until the infantry had reached and destroyed the cannons. The one regiment of the six that was fired upon had lost 200 men max out of ca. 2600.
It was surprisingly easy and unbloody.
I have no idea what quality the cannon crew had. The infantry is line infantry with good skill. 1 or 2 of them are elite but were marching in the second row iirc.

[Hook]

I just realized why artillery sometimes advances far in front of the troops, and why I haven't seen it lately.

When you send cavalry out to scout, when they see enemy troops they will call for support from artillery.  This artillery will advance into range of the enemy discovered by the scouting cavalry.  This will be farther forward than if your corps halted for artillery preparation and sent the artillery in front of the corps.

I haven't been using cavalry scouts in my recent battles, so artillery stayed with the corps.

Hook

[JMM]

Right Sir Hook...

Support is a essential feature in the game for avoiding the micro-management.
Doctrine deeply modifies the units behaviour and I think the doctrine in the demo isn't the best to begin because a lot of support are enabled.

Another important feature is the initiative.. At high level, unit can take a lot of initiative; CinC (player) gives these parameters with the OoB editor before beginning the battle.

So, the units behaviour is deeply different when you change these parameters.

For the next demo, we have to adjust several parameters for a (unhistorical?) precise control by the CinC

JMM