As always, there were many factors involved, not just firepower, remember that Brtish lines in Spain were always protected by a dense cloud of skirmishers, so that it was not like the column arrived in front of the line and then was stopped by a volley.
Against green Spanish troops without adequate skirmish protection columns were succesful for instance.
Line vs Column
Moderators: Sertorius, Tim Coakley
-
Jagger2002
- Posts: 735
- Joined: Sun May 19, 2002 9:05 pm
RE: Line vs Column
so that it was not like the column arrived in front of the line and then was stopped by a volley
Actually, I think that is exactly what happened many times. Columns often halted when they were hit by a volley from a line or even prior to the volley. Also skirmishers typically could not stop a formed body from advancing.
Against green Spanish troops without adequate skirmish protection columns were succesful for instance.
I agree columns were successful against green Spanish troops but I wouldn't completely attribute their success due to a lack of Spanish skirmishers. I would credit more to the poor morale and training rather than lack of skirmishers.
RE: Line vs Column
Yeah, for the most part the performance of the Spanish Army in the Peninsular was laughable.
I think at the battle of Tarragon (?) Suchets right wing of about 4,000 men routed about 4 times its number by simply advancing rapidly upon them throwing them into disorder. The Spanish cavalry and infantry often collapased when put under pressure because the discipline, training and morale was very poor- not because they were poorly served by skirmishers (which they often were though!).
I think at the battle of Tarragon (?) Suchets right wing of about 4,000 men routed about 4 times its number by simply advancing rapidly upon them throwing them into disorder. The Spanish cavalry and infantry often collapased when put under pressure because the discipline, training and morale was very poor- not because they were poorly served by skirmishers (which they often were though!).
Heads up by god, those are bullets, not turds!
-
Iñaki Harrizabalagatar
- Posts: 785
- Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2001 6:00 pm
RE: Line vs Column
I am not sure what battle do you refere to, Suchet took Tarragona on June 28 1811, after almost 2 months of siege. He launched 3 columns to take the city, succesfully, but this is not a good example, fight in towns was better for assault columns, and besides it was the French who had superiority in numbers, Suchet had in all about 22.000 men, while the Spanish garrison had 6.500 men.
OTOH Suchet himself was heavily defeated in the battle of Alcaniz (May 25 1809), giving a good example of a bad use of attack columns, in that battle Musnier formed his division in a column of battalions and atacked the center of the Spanish line, but they had to push aside first a screen of skirmishers, then after enduring the fire of 16 guns at close range, and terrible enfilade fire from the Spanish division in the left flank, the men in the column broke ranks before making contact with the enemy and routed. When both sides didn´t have a solid screen of skirmishers, it was a sort of bravado game, the French column advanced at the double, hoping the raw Spanish recruits would flee.
My point is
1) No doubt the Spanish troops were in general poor, but should they be given a good screen of skirmishers they would have better chance
2) No doubt the British skirmish screen was not enough to stop the column, but it helped a lot to disrupt it and slow the advance, so that the following volley was much more effective.
OTOH Suchet himself was heavily defeated in the battle of Alcaniz (May 25 1809), giving a good example of a bad use of attack columns, in that battle Musnier formed his division in a column of battalions and atacked the center of the Spanish line, but they had to push aside first a screen of skirmishers, then after enduring the fire of 16 guns at close range, and terrible enfilade fire from the Spanish division in the left flank, the men in the column broke ranks before making contact with the enemy and routed. When both sides didn´t have a solid screen of skirmishers, it was a sort of bravado game, the French column advanced at the double, hoping the raw Spanish recruits would flee.
My point is
1) No doubt the Spanish troops were in general poor, but should they be given a good screen of skirmishers they would have better chance
2) No doubt the British skirmish screen was not enough to stop the column, but it helped a lot to disrupt it and slow the advance, so that the following volley was much more effective.
RE: Line vs Column
Apologoies, it was Saguntum that I was refering to!
Alcaniz was one of Suchets first battles with the old 3rd Corps (?) and I think it is fair to say that it was not the best of formations in the french army at that point. Your entirely correct about the poor use of columns there though.
On the whole though the Spanish Army did not perform very well in pitched battles against the French, my point was simply that it was not because of skirmishers that Spanish formations collapsed so frequently but simply poor training/disipline and morale.
Alcaniz was one of Suchets first battles with the old 3rd Corps (?) and I think it is fair to say that it was not the best of formations in the french army at that point. Your entirely correct about the poor use of columns there though.
On the whole though the Spanish Army did not perform very well in pitched battles against the French, my point was simply that it was not because of skirmishers that Spanish formations collapsed so frequently but simply poor training/disipline and morale.
Heads up by god, those are bullets, not turds!
-
Iñaki Harrizabalagatar
- Posts: 785
- Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2001 6:00 pm
RE: Line vs Column
Well, I have to say that Saguntum is not a good example either, because it was the Spaniards who attacked in column that time!ORIGINAL: 9thlegere
Apologoies, it was Saguntum that I was refering to!
Alcaniz was one of Suchets first battles with the old 3rd Corps (?) and I think it is fair to say that it was not the best of formations in the french army at that point. Your entirely correct about the poor use of columns there though.
On the whole though the Spanish Army did not perform very well in pitched battles against the French, my point was simply that it was not because of skirmishers that Spanish formations collapsed so frequently but simply poor training/disipline and morale.
BTW there is a point that should be made about the Spanish armies in the Peninsular War, most of the troops were regional militia, not regular army, they performed well defending their towns and fighting small war in their local region, but they performed very badly in open battles, and more so when they were detached outside of their own region. For instance, at Saguntum, Blake´s army of 27k, had about 5k from the regular army and the rest were militia.
As for your point, I agree that they collapsed because of those reasons, but also because against advancing columns they didn´t display enough skirmishers most of the time. My point is, should they have deployed skirmishers, they would have had a better chance.
-
larizona55
- Posts: 84
- Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 11:11 pm
RE: Line vs Column
Just to muddy the waters, there is an article in the April 04 Journal of Military History by James Arnold.
His basic premise is that english speakers conception of French tactics have been influenced too much by Oman, who seemed to think that the French foought mostly in column. But in reality, the French used an entire "toolbox" of formations, based on the tactical situation, and bounded only by occasional dictate, or after 1809 poor training.
A few quotes from the text of the article:
"One of the strengths of the Reglement of 1791 was its flexibility permitting a combat commander a variety of choices in executing a maneuver. Historian John Lynn studied the tactical formations used in 108 engagements fought by the Armee du Nord between April 1792 and July 1794. he found flfty-nve recorded instances of the French deploying into line and cited seven examples of the line in attack and thirty-five cases of column attacks. Lynn concluded that "commanders placed their soldiers ... in ways which exploited terrain and met the tactical challenge. Battalions stood in a full close order repertoire of line, column, and square or dispersed in open order."'^ This conclusion applies to French infantry throughout the Napoleonic Wars.
Consider the 9 june 1800 Battle of Montebello. General Francois AVatrin opens the nght by deploying two battalions of the 6th Legere into line and charging the Casteggio heights. General Claude Victor brings reinforcements. The commander of the 43rd Demi-Brigade places his two flank battalions in open order and keeps his center battalion in column. The 96th Demi-Brigade is the next unit onto the field. It charges Gasteggio in battalion column. Throughout the battle, the French infantry exhibits a well-considered variety of tactical formations, effortlessly deploying from one to another while under artillery Are.16"
Also a quote from the text damning Oman's assesment give some interesting thoughts on line attacks...
"Oman stated that the Emperor's "most celebrated battle strokes seem frequently to have been made by very gross and heavy masses."21 Sir Charles cited Marshal Nicolas Soult's assault on the Pratzen Heights during the battle of Austerlitz in 1805 as an example.22 However, he is wrong.
The tactical details of the attack by Soult's 1st Division are clearly described by a French participant, General Paul Thiebault.23 Nearing the village of Pratzen, the 1st Battalion of the 14th deploys into line and is rebuffed in its attack upon the village. Thiebault leads a counterattack with the regiment's 2nd Battalion which "deployed as it ran."24 Gaining the heights Thiebault is confronted by a heavy Russian counterattack. To respond to this challenge, he orders the 36th to deploy with all speed. The decisive engagement of the battle ensues.
Lest there be any doubt about Soult's maneuvers, the deployment into line was observed and recorded by Karl Stutterheim, an Austrian eyewitness.25 Thus, contrary to Oman, the spearhead of Napoleon's "battle stroke," at the Emperor's most celebrated battle, nghts the decisive action in line.
Another French tactic used by the Grande Armee was to dissolve entire battalions into skirmish order. Oman is also mistaken about this point. Hc wrote: "I do not remember any case in the Peninsular battles where whole battalions were broken up into skirmishers. . . . Nor do I think that it occurred often, if ever, in any of the imperial battles."26
In the Peninsula at the Battle of Busaco, a French participant recounted how an entire brigade in Ney's Corps dispersed into skirmish order as it fought along the ridge slopes.27 Following the Battle of Salamanca, the French under General Joseph Souham engaged in heavy skirmishing with Wellington. At the forefront of the action was Colonel Bechaud, who provided a detailed account: "the two left flank companies fired upon the advancing enemy columns . . . the remainder of the U 5th dispersed into skirmish order . . . after twenty nve minutes . . . the enemy turned our left . . . and our cloud of skirmishers were forced to retreat."28 The 15th then reformed into a two-deep line and opened Are. Later in the day the eight companies of the 15th and 66th again broke into skirmish order.
Similarly, many French units fought in imperial battles while in skirmish order. In 1806 the report of the 16th Legere at Jena described how "the third battalion advanced into the woods in skirmish order. "29 Throughout the Ratisbon phase of the 1809 campaign, the French made extensive use of massed skirmisher tactics.30 Even in 1813 the French were capable of deploying entire units in skirmish order. The Russian general Langeron recounted how the French left at Lutzen launched its counterattack in skirmish order.31 During the retreat from Leipzig, when the French encountered the Austro-Bavarian army at Hanau, Macdonald placed two battalions of Old Guard Chasseurs in skirmish order, supported them with Old Guard Grenadiers, and attacked.32
In and of themselves these examples arc not of surpassing historical importance. Skirmish order was merely one available formation that French commanders could select from the tactical tool box. However, the fact that the French were routinely capable of deploying entire units into skirmish order challenges Oman's expertise in French small-unit tactics."
This should keep things nice and muddy....
Larry
His basic premise is that english speakers conception of French tactics have been influenced too much by Oman, who seemed to think that the French foought mostly in column. But in reality, the French used an entire "toolbox" of formations, based on the tactical situation, and bounded only by occasional dictate, or after 1809 poor training.
A few quotes from the text of the article:
"One of the strengths of the Reglement of 1791 was its flexibility permitting a combat commander a variety of choices in executing a maneuver. Historian John Lynn studied the tactical formations used in 108 engagements fought by the Armee du Nord between April 1792 and July 1794. he found flfty-nve recorded instances of the French deploying into line and cited seven examples of the line in attack and thirty-five cases of column attacks. Lynn concluded that "commanders placed their soldiers ... in ways which exploited terrain and met the tactical challenge. Battalions stood in a full close order repertoire of line, column, and square or dispersed in open order."'^ This conclusion applies to French infantry throughout the Napoleonic Wars.
Consider the 9 june 1800 Battle of Montebello. General Francois AVatrin opens the nght by deploying two battalions of the 6th Legere into line and charging the Casteggio heights. General Claude Victor brings reinforcements. The commander of the 43rd Demi-Brigade places his two flank battalions in open order and keeps his center battalion in column. The 96th Demi-Brigade is the next unit onto the field. It charges Gasteggio in battalion column. Throughout the battle, the French infantry exhibits a well-considered variety of tactical formations, effortlessly deploying from one to another while under artillery Are.16"
Also a quote from the text damning Oman's assesment give some interesting thoughts on line attacks...
"Oman stated that the Emperor's "most celebrated battle strokes seem frequently to have been made by very gross and heavy masses."21 Sir Charles cited Marshal Nicolas Soult's assault on the Pratzen Heights during the battle of Austerlitz in 1805 as an example.22 However, he is wrong.
The tactical details of the attack by Soult's 1st Division are clearly described by a French participant, General Paul Thiebault.23 Nearing the village of Pratzen, the 1st Battalion of the 14th deploys into line and is rebuffed in its attack upon the village. Thiebault leads a counterattack with the regiment's 2nd Battalion which "deployed as it ran."24 Gaining the heights Thiebault is confronted by a heavy Russian counterattack. To respond to this challenge, he orders the 36th to deploy with all speed. The decisive engagement of the battle ensues.
Lest there be any doubt about Soult's maneuvers, the deployment into line was observed and recorded by Karl Stutterheim, an Austrian eyewitness.25 Thus, contrary to Oman, the spearhead of Napoleon's "battle stroke," at the Emperor's most celebrated battle, nghts the decisive action in line.
Another French tactic used by the Grande Armee was to dissolve entire battalions into skirmish order. Oman is also mistaken about this point. Hc wrote: "I do not remember any case in the Peninsular battles where whole battalions were broken up into skirmishers. . . . Nor do I think that it occurred often, if ever, in any of the imperial battles."26
In the Peninsula at the Battle of Busaco, a French participant recounted how an entire brigade in Ney's Corps dispersed into skirmish order as it fought along the ridge slopes.27 Following the Battle of Salamanca, the French under General Joseph Souham engaged in heavy skirmishing with Wellington. At the forefront of the action was Colonel Bechaud, who provided a detailed account: "the two left flank companies fired upon the advancing enemy columns . . . the remainder of the U 5th dispersed into skirmish order . . . after twenty nve minutes . . . the enemy turned our left . . . and our cloud of skirmishers were forced to retreat."28 The 15th then reformed into a two-deep line and opened Are. Later in the day the eight companies of the 15th and 66th again broke into skirmish order.
Similarly, many French units fought in imperial battles while in skirmish order. In 1806 the report of the 16th Legere at Jena described how "the third battalion advanced into the woods in skirmish order. "29 Throughout the Ratisbon phase of the 1809 campaign, the French made extensive use of massed skirmisher tactics.30 Even in 1813 the French were capable of deploying entire units in skirmish order. The Russian general Langeron recounted how the French left at Lutzen launched its counterattack in skirmish order.31 During the retreat from Leipzig, when the French encountered the Austro-Bavarian army at Hanau, Macdonald placed two battalions of Old Guard Chasseurs in skirmish order, supported them with Old Guard Grenadiers, and attacked.32
In and of themselves these examples arc not of surpassing historical importance. Skirmish order was merely one available formation that French commanders could select from the tactical tool box. However, the fact that the French were routinely capable of deploying entire units into skirmish order challenges Oman's expertise in French small-unit tactics."
This should keep things nice and muddy....
Larry
RE: Line vs Column
I don't disagree with you, I don't think I was being all that clear.
I was not stating that the Spanish were beaten by columns at Saguntum but that they were beaten as they were badly trained etc.
Having a stronger skirmish line would ahve helped against French attack columns but could the Spanish have deployed and used this given how poorly trained most of there troops were?
I was not stating that the Spanish were beaten by columns at Saguntum but that they were beaten as they were badly trained etc.
Having a stronger skirmish line would ahve helped against French attack columns but could the Spanish have deployed and used this given how poorly trained most of there troops were?
Heads up by god, those are bullets, not turds!
RE: Line vs Column
ORIGINAL: larizona55
Just to muddy the waters, there is an article in the April 04 Journal of Military History by James Arnold.
Yeah, I posted that link earlier on in this topic as I thought it was very relevant.
Heads up by god, those are bullets, not turds!
-
Waldo_slith
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 4:51 am
RE: Line vs Column
The line had superior firepower to the attack column. The column was more easily maneuvered and less vulnerable to cav attack. Given the uncertainties of the battlefield the column was the better all-around formation.
From 1809 on all of the major powers save Britain operated in column on the battlefield. The line tended to suit Wellington's style of battle -- essentially defensive with the line protected not only by terrain but also a thick skirmishing line. Without the protection of terrain and skirmishers enemy artillery and skirmishers can degrade the line so that it will not stand against fresh assault columns.
wp
From 1809 on all of the major powers save Britain operated in column on the battlefield. The line tended to suit Wellington's style of battle -- essentially defensive with the line protected not only by terrain but also a thick skirmishing line. Without the protection of terrain and skirmishers enemy artillery and skirmishers can degrade the line so that it will not stand against fresh assault columns.
wp
-
Iñaki Harrizabalagatar
- Posts: 785
- Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2001 6:00 pm
RE: Line vs Column
I think those are interrelated, the militia units had not the training to do that, the regular army, after Wellington was appointed Caudillo of all the Spanish forces, improved all the time, helped by British instructors and equipment, so they did at 2nd Castalla and San Marcial (finishing the job after the English fashion, charging the disrupted French columns after a volley). So my point would be, a force with enough training would greatly benefit from deploying a skirmish screen, in fact not only fighting columns, but also lines.ORIGINAL: 9thlegere
Having a stronger skirmish line would ahve helped against French attack columns but could the Spanish have deployed and used this given how poorly trained most of there troops were?
So, most of the time I agree with you they could not have deployed those skirmishers efectively, but sometimes they could.
So, in game terms, we could agree that skirmshers are efective against columns, disrupitng them and slowing their advance, however not all forces had the ability to deploy skirmishers
RE: Line vs Column
ORIGINAL: Jagger2002
Hopefully, a line through sheer firepower will be able to halt, disrupt and even rout a column in Black Powder Wars.
Just some thoughts and any comments welcomed.
Take into consideration too who's in the Column and who's facing them in Line. A line consisting of non-battle hardened troops would only be effectively accurate firing at close range. If at that point a ferocious veteran battalion column was bearing down with leveled bayonets on them, they would likely have started falling back or fleeing before standing ground to possibly deliver that one close-range good volley -if.
The one true example of a raking machine-gun fire type of a Napoleonic Line volleying and crushing a column occured at the critical end-game stage of Waterloo. At 7.30 pm two brigade sized columns of Napoleon's Old/Middle Imperial Guard set off intending to slice through Wellington's beatup line. One column ran into hastily brought up Allied reserves and was beaten back by overwheming numbers. The next column hit another point of Wellington's line that seemed void of any enemy. Wellington was on the spot as was a relatively fresh force of British Foot Guards who at that moment lay hidden in concealing tall grass [Keep in mind too British Foot Guard Battalion units were typically heavy in manpower [800 strong] . On Wellington's command, the powerful British force in a 4 rank line rose up as one and for the next several minutes delivered rolling continouus volleys at 40 yds range- with rear ranks passing loaded muskets to front ranks. The front ranks of that Imperial Gurad column were stopped dead and annhilated as were most of the French officers [possibly about 300 hundred casualties sustained]. There was no return fire. Stunned, wavering, they were in no mood to stand up to the Brit bayonet charge that followed minutes later. The coup-de-grace came when at that same time too another veteran British battalion [of the 52nd Light Infantry]also in line and very fresh, wheeled 90 degress in Line formation to fire into the flank of the French column -and their own follow-up advance which was heartily egged on by Wellington himself.
RE: Line vs Column
A common mistake made in this thread and in the discussion of line vs. column generally is the flawed assertion that the line formation possesses "greater firepower". It does not at all (unless the weapons are different, giving the line a greater rate of fire). A line has a greater FRONTAGE than a column, assuming the formations have the same number of men.
Both line and column may only fire from the first two ranks and both have the same distance between men in line. If the columns on one side outnumber the line on the other such that the frontage of the advancing columns matches the frontage of the defending line, the advantage in firepower would seem to lie with the columns, due to the presence of replacements from the files. In addition, because musketballs would not continue onward after hitting a soldier like cannonballs, the losses sustained frontally by both the column and line would be about the same (depth only resulting in significantly greater losses from artillery fire). One on one, a line's frontage could bring more muskets to bear than a column, obviously, but rarely would a successful attack rely on 1:1 odds, in my estimation.
I have always understood the line, and the 2-deep line in particular, to be a crutch for armies lacking in manpower, as the British were noted for, in order to cover the necessary or desired frontage on the battlefield. As noted above, lines would also tend to minimize losses from artillery fire due to the much shallower ranks, so given the typical advantage in artillery of the French, the British use of line on defense also was advantageous.
To cut to the chase, then, I believe that the success of British against the French had less to do with any innate superiority of the line formation than it did with the tactical context of a given confrontation (tactical defensive, defensive positioning, better quality troops than non-French continental armies, leadership, etc.).
Both line and column may only fire from the first two ranks and both have the same distance between men in line. If the columns on one side outnumber the line on the other such that the frontage of the advancing columns matches the frontage of the defending line, the advantage in firepower would seem to lie with the columns, due to the presence of replacements from the files. In addition, because musketballs would not continue onward after hitting a soldier like cannonballs, the losses sustained frontally by both the column and line would be about the same (depth only resulting in significantly greater losses from artillery fire). One on one, a line's frontage could bring more muskets to bear than a column, obviously, but rarely would a successful attack rely on 1:1 odds, in my estimation.
I have always understood the line, and the 2-deep line in particular, to be a crutch for armies lacking in manpower, as the British were noted for, in order to cover the necessary or desired frontage on the battlefield. As noted above, lines would also tend to minimize losses from artillery fire due to the much shallower ranks, so given the typical advantage in artillery of the French, the British use of line on defense also was advantageous.
To cut to the chase, then, I believe that the success of British against the French had less to do with any innate superiority of the line formation than it did with the tactical context of a given confrontation (tactical defensive, defensive positioning, better quality troops than non-French continental armies, leadership, etc.).
RE: Line vs Column
Just a quick reply here.
Remember that the line and the column were really nothing more than tools that local commanders used. How any tool is used can greatly effect its effectiveness. Its still possible for an inferior commander with superior troops to loose to inferior troops with a superior commander, don't you think?
Remember that the line and the column were really nothing more than tools that local commanders used. How any tool is used can greatly effect its effectiveness. Its still possible for an inferior commander with superior troops to loose to inferior troops with a superior commander, don't you think?
Vive l'Empereur!
RE: Line vs Column
Gents:
I just started playing again... after many years of absence... Napoleon period computer games.. I used to play SSI's Battle's of Napoleon (wasn't that on Dos?). I did not play it for the graphics. [:)] I liked the phased turns and use them in HPS's Waterloo. I do miss the ability to set calvary units for #charge. However, because of this when I see a potential for a calvary charge I recall skirmishes and set up squares...
I am impressed with the depth of knowledge you people have about Napoleon tactics. I have been sitting here reading for over an hour and learning... Question: do u think the phased based turn allows for more realistic period tactics than the turn system? Also, what Napoleon game was it that allowed in the Defense phase turn to change formations, defensive fire and # charge?
Roland
I just started playing again... after many years of absence... Napoleon period computer games.. I used to play SSI's Battle's of Napoleon (wasn't that on Dos?). I did not play it for the graphics. [:)] I liked the phased turns and use them in HPS's Waterloo. I do miss the ability to set calvary units for #charge. However, because of this when I see a potential for a calvary charge I recall skirmishes and set up squares...
I am impressed with the depth of knowledge you people have about Napoleon tactics. I have been sitting here reading for over an hour and learning... Question: do u think the phased based turn allows for more realistic period tactics than the turn system? Also, what Napoleon game was it that allowed in the Defense phase turn to change formations, defensive fire and # charge?
Roland
RE: Line vs Column
I remember that it was one of the BG games that allowed the defensive phase turn actions that you mentioned. Definitely BG Waterloo & maybe BG NIR?
Yes, I do believe that a phased turn based system works better than the expedience of the non-phased for more historical and realistic tactics. One has to admit that what constitutes those two important aspects of Napoleonic gaming can be argued about forever when it comes to a turn-based game. (Did things really happen as they do on the screen or was it a mix where it all happened at once?)
The most historical and realistic way of playing a Napoleonic game will be how this game (BPW: Battles of Napoleon) will play. That is because it is what is called "we-go." I've been playing Combat Mission for years and there is no better system for wargaming, IMHO. Say goodbye to all the concerns of phased turn or non-phased ways of playing. The tactical AI will take care of everything. Charges and counter-charges will happen when they're supposed to. Units will meet in realistic ways. Events will happen in ways that are more realistic.
This game will be light years above the previously mentioned turn-based style of games. No doubt about it.
Cheers,
Rick
Yes, I do believe that a phased turn based system works better than the expedience of the non-phased for more historical and realistic tactics. One has to admit that what constitutes those two important aspects of Napoleonic gaming can be argued about forever when it comes to a turn-based game. (Did things really happen as they do on the screen or was it a mix where it all happened at once?)
The most historical and realistic way of playing a Napoleonic game will be how this game (BPW: Battles of Napoleon) will play. That is because it is what is called "we-go." I've been playing Combat Mission for years and there is no better system for wargaming, IMHO. Say goodbye to all the concerns of phased turn or non-phased ways of playing. The tactical AI will take care of everything. Charges and counter-charges will happen when they're supposed to. Units will meet in realistic ways. Events will happen in ways that are more realistic.
This game will be light years above the previously mentioned turn-based style of games. No doubt about it.
Cheers,
Rick
Vive l'Empereur!
-
sol_invictus
- Posts: 1959
- Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Kentucky
RE: Line vs Column
Agreed Le Tondu, as long as the AI can handle it. This game has really gotten me excited!
"The fruit of too much liberty is slavery", Cicero
RE: Line vs Column
One excellent thing about this game is Frank Hunter. He has experience making we-go games, so I'd say that our chances are pretty good.
Vive l'Empereur!
RE: Line vs Column
Rick:
was able to locate and install SSI's Battles of Napoleon this morning... Once seeking it...this was not the game I was speaking about. Had to be Battleground (BG): Waterloo or BG: NIR... and yes I look forward to BPW ... it should be incredible. I am enjoying HPA ... but I would like to have seen more of a phased I go - u go... with fractional movement per phase or pulses... and where u can set the AI reaction for different divisions, or perhaps lower units in chain of command?
I appreciate your response... '
Thank you,
Roland
was able to locate and install SSI's Battles of Napoleon this morning... Once seeking it...this was not the game I was speaking about. Had to be Battleground (BG): Waterloo or BG: NIR... and yes I look forward to BPW ... it should be incredible. I am enjoying HPA ... but I would like to have seen more of a phased I go - u go... with fractional movement per phase or pulses... and where u can set the AI reaction for different divisions, or perhaps lower units in chain of command?
I appreciate your response... '
Thank you,
Roland