Where did the Cavalry Go!!!?

[Murat]

EiH focuses on making the game more 'historical'. From what I recall EiH was anti-monster stacks. I am not the big OOB history buff but I seem to remember something about the Russian corps originally being organized without cav and only later on integrating some cav into certain units (1812 or so). THis may be why EiH 3.0 did this. People may have corrected it in later versions. Dunno. EiH changed naval as some other people have noted so several changes are in that may be open to reconsideration but try to keep play balance in mind.

[zaquex]

What i react against is that EiH seems to be the only version that dont allow any russian cav in the INF corps to me that implies that for some reason (may it be historical or play balance) this implementation didnt work well.
 
Therefore im a bit surprised that EiANW used this version as base for the computer game.

[ecn1]

To clarify even more, its an older version of EiH, rather than the latest version, that the oob is based upon....the Russian corps in the current version of eih all have intrinsic cav, and are larger in size....

so its not even a current version of eih

erik

[zaquex]

sorry i omited to add the version number by accident i meant to write EiH 3.0 and nothing else

[bresh]

ORIGINAL: AresMars



OOB Info from EiH v4.x I believe

http://www.empiresinharm.com/oob.htm

That link seems to be expired.

Regards
Bresh

[Thresh]

The Empires in HArm Yahoo group has the 4.0 and 5.x files IIRC.

The one thing I did like about EiH was that the OOB's are a lot more realistic, and the mechanism for incorporating them is pretty easy.  

Thresh

[iamspamus]

Guys, my response makes the situation "very simplistic". This is the overall, not down in the weeds of the discussion. here goes.

This comes down to a quibble that I have with the concept of EIA. Basically, before the French Revolution, you had huge armies fighting each other, thus these ponderous supply chains on specific axis of advance along "good" roads. Slow and steady. There were smaller units, but they didn't operate independently.

Ol' Nap switched it. He made "smaller" units (corps) that were able to advance on a wider front. They were able to forage more effectively because they did so over a wider area, thus doing away with the need for a slow supply chain. They could therefore move more quickly. Finally, they were made to be independent and hold out for a while, until the nearby corps could move in to support. With the monster stack issue in EIA, we don't see that. Don't know how it can be fixed.

This seems to me to be the opposite of early EIA, where French corps are bigger than the allies' corps. For Russia, in the early war they used these "temporary brigades", a hodge-podge of unit's hastily thrown together. Large and unweildly. (Think the precursor of the huge units used by them in comparison to the Brits and French in the Crimean War.) Anyway, They pretty much fought together as a blob and were thus able to be picked apart by the more nimble French corps system.

Then ol' Barclay came along in 1811 and remodeled the Russians along the French corps system, as most other countries did between 1809 and 1813. Now they had a true corps system, but were not as good as the French, who'd had a decade to perfect this idea. They also had poorer leadership, even though Suvarov and Kutusov are two of my favorite leades of the time.

So, in closing, I that the idea is that the corps are set up more for game balance rather than complete historicity. The Russians had lots of cav, so...

Jason

ORIGINAL: Murat

EiH focuses on making the game more 'historical'. From what I recall EiH was anti-monster stacks. I am not the big OOB history buff but I seem to remember something about the Russian corps originally being organized without cav and only later on integrating some cav into certain units (1812 or so). THis may be why EiH 3.0 did this. People may have corrected it in later versions. Dunno. EiH changed naval as some other people have noted so several changes are in that may be open to reconsideration but try to keep play balance in mind.

[Minedog]

ORIGINAL: Monadman

The infantry corps come straight out of the EiH 3.0 OOB, which was what this game started out as some 4+ years ago when Michael Treasure was onboard.

So why wasn't the PC game title Empires in Harm then?
The game is advertised as Empires in Arms on PC, and really, it isn't..

[bresh]

Honestly sure it would be nice with the "right" corps.

But share of pp in involved battles, combined movement, for me counts more of a priority, For Russia.
Fun how noone complains about the Austrian and Prussian guard corps


Regards
Bresh

[zaquex]

At Borodino the 1st (Barclay) and 2nd Western (Bagration) Army under Kutosov meet Napoleon
 
I Corp had 28 Batallions 16 Squadrons of Cav, 3 Cossack Regements (15 Squadrons) and 9 Artillery Batterys
V Corp (Guards in reserve) 18 Grd Battalions 7 Grenadier Battallions 8 Grd Squadrons and 12 Squadrons of Currassiers and 6 grd Artillery bat.
 
The 4 Cav corps in the combined army had between 20 and 24 Cav Squadrons
 
In all there was 182 Squadrons of russian Cav at Borodino and 67 Batterys of Artillery with depending on the source 760-804 pieces (Russians had the biggest and best Artillery of all Nations at this time)
 
The combined Russian army is estimated to have been around 170 000 men strong in 8 inf Corps 4 Cav Corps and 27 Cossack rgt.
 
 
 
 

[Grimrod42]

All I know is that the Russian army was better and quite balanced in the original game.

And this is suppose to be Empires in Arms

plus it should be a really easy fix

[Grimrod42]

Another really good question is where did the Infantry go!!!
The cavalry is still at 27 in both Oob just wrongly distributed.

But Russia is missing 4 Infantry from the original total
considering that most other forces got stronger (ie infantry allowed in the Austrian Guard corps - for some unknown reason)
So Where is it???

[Thresh]

Thats because, from a historical point of view, the Austrians did not have a Guard Corps originally. What they had were Guard/Grenadier Companies in each battalion, and on occasion, these companies were gathered into ad hoc battalions.

Todd

ORIGINAL: Grimrod42

Another really good question is where did the Infantry go!!!
The cavalry is still at 27 in both Oob just wrongly distributed.

But Russia is missing 4 Infantry from the original total
considering that most other forces got stronger (ie infantry allowed in the Austrian Guard corps - for some unknown reason)
So Where is it???

[AresMars]

I never really thought that EIA was too historical when it came to the various OOBs...
 
EiH worked on that a little....I understood why.....but I was use to the originals.
 
EIANW OOBs frustrate me (I am old skool EIA) but the game can still be played as is....

[PBI]

Also, and I don't know if this might explain some apparent strength losses, in the computer game, each strength point is 2,000 men, not 1,000.

[Soapy Frog]

PBI, in EiA, 1 factor is 2000 men or 1000 cavalry, that is however an approximation.
 
Thresh, regarding historical accuracy, the EiA OOB and corps system is meant to simulate and approximate the armies of the day; the orginal OOB was fine for that. If you wanted to go with historical accuracy, the corps would have to be proken down into brigade/division formations, as corps are actually administrative in nature and not properly maneuver units (nevermind that the corps concept was not used by many countries of the period).

[Grimrod42]

The main Russian stack (a well blanced one) has gone from 92 factors to just 80.
The can make a significant difference.

[Thresh]

The Original EiA OOB was in many respects a failure. The Prussian Army was not organized as it was in the EiA OOB until around 1812. Likewise, many of the French corps were smaller, and only increased in size to the EiA OOB in 1812. Spanish Corps did not have large numbers of integral cavalry. The Austrian OOB is pretty close, as is the Russian. The Turkish one is always up for debate as composistion of the Janissary and Feudal Corps is debatable.

The Original EiA OOB is great...if your playing anything after 1812.

Thresh

ORIGINAL: Soapy Frog

PBI, in EiA, 1 factor is 2000 men or 1000 cavalry, that is however an approximation.

Thresh, regarding historical accuracy, the EiA OOB and corps system is meant to simulate and approximate the armies of the day; the orginal OOB was fine for that. If you wanted to go with historical accuracy, the corps would have to be proken down into brigade/division formations, as corps are actually administrative in nature and not properly maneuver units (nevermind that the corps concept was not used by many countries of the period).

[Grimrod42]

so what
the original Oob was playable and was balanced.

I have played many EiA games and never had an issue with the OoB.

its a game not history

[Thresh]

The I would expect to see no more posts about missing factors, Corps, or leaders, or cities with wrong fortress fleches, locations, mispellings, etc etc etc.

After all, its just a game. Why try and be accurate?

Thresh