Crown of Glory: Europe in the Age of Napoleon, the player controls one of the crowned potentates of Europe in the Napoleonic Era, wielding authority over his nation's military strategy, economic development, diplomatic relations, and social organization. It is a very thorough simulation of the entire Napoleonic Era - spanning from 1799 to 1820, from the dockyards in Lisbon to the frozen wastes of Holy Mother Russia.
I agree fully. The only change I see needed in addition is to change the mixed order upgrade to have a bonus to charge power equal to the loss in firepower from the upgrade, then get ride of the charge after shooting feature. This would create a nice upgrade based on the style of play you have or nation you are playing. You would have to manually choose to charge or fire. Historically the French approached in attack column which was just a short line that was deeper, in front of the columns were lots of skirmishers, so the overall musket fire was reduced, but the charge value was increased by the larger mass of troops at the impact point of the charge.
Perfectly simple solution to the problem.
ORIGINAL: ian77
If cav charging in column is nurfed and they are therefore made to charge in line, the running past target and turning right around to hit rear will be stopped. Cav should charge in line, column should be column of march, not column of attack.. just a thought..
I agree cav needs serious adjustments. As it’s now, you can use in the place of infantry. I think some unit stats should be changed to give a balanced army the upper hand.
My suggestions are:
Cav units should be 5000 men strong, and more vulnerable to inf fire. Any cav standing at close distance in front of a formed inf unit should be doomed.
Turning should cost cav a lot of MP, to make the “advance past the enemy - make a U turn – charge” tactic impossible. A player would need a clear straight path to the target in order to charge.
OTOH, cav in general should be easier to reform –lights easier than heavies though- and more capable –especially the heavy variety- of disrupting the enemy’s formation with a flank/rear charge. This would make cav good at flanking –with a wide detour, not the current U-turn I think we all use- and at chasing fleeing units, but a lot more weaker in frontal fire exchanges and unable to hold a line against inf. There should be more differences between cavs types. I would says lighter types easier to reform, and heavier types more able to disrupt formed infantry if charging from the flank/rear. Lancers, that are fast and have a strong charge, could be made weak against other cav, to give them a drawback.
I would also add:
Artillery shouldn’t be able to move/turn and fire in the same turn, and should be more vulnerable to flank/rear charges. Now arty can fire effectively in any direction.
Skirmishers shouldn’t be able to form squares. Any skirmishing unit in plain terrain should be wiped out by a charge.
The only change I see needed in addition is to change the mixed order upgrade to have a bonus to charge power equal to the loss in firepower from the upgrade, then get ride of the charge after shooting feature. This would create a nice upgrade based on the style of play you have or nation you are playing. You would have to manually choose to charge or fire. Historically the French approached in attack column which was just a short line that was deeper, in front of the columns were lots of skirmishers, so the overall musket fire was reduced, but the charge value was increased by the larger mass of troops at the impact point of the charge.
Lancers, that are fast and have a strong charge, could be made weak against other cav, to give them a drawback.
I disagree here. Lancers were good against cavalry. I'll have to find my references now, but there are records of curassiers getting eaten up by lancers.
Do lancers really need a drawback that isn't realistic? They are already pretty expensive.
"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown
Lancers were good against cavalry. I'll have to find my references now,...
Just ask Ponsonby [:D]
"We shall match them with our Lancers!"
Edit: by the way, Ponsonby's cavalry was a Heavy Cavalry unit. It's true that they were somewhat disordered by their effective charge against d’Erlon’s Corps, but the Polish Lancers reamed them just the same.
Heh, this makes me laugh: "The Poles were recorded to have been one of the only French cavalry units to have charged in full dress uniform." No wonder the textile requirement is harsh.
Here's a thing about cav that I've noticed. I've only played Russia in 2 or 3 games so far, so I don't know if this has any bearing on it. I'm pretty sure it happens on cavalry other than Cossacks, too.
Whenever my cav units get disordered, they are usually disordered for the rest of the fight, even when their morale is good. I can get the fatigued or shaken status to go away, but they never seem to be able to recover from Disorder at all. Usually, the most I can get them to do once they are Disordered is to get about a 10% chance to form column. This is after the unit has been pulled from combat and has been either doing a pass action for many turns until their shaken and/or fatigued status is removed, and even after leaving them in Fortified/sleeping status for a while. While not being shot at or even near any enemies. It never gets better and I can almost never get them to recover from Disorder and take part in the battle again, other than to make extremely ineffective gunfire attacks, and they can't charge at all while disordered. Are they supposed to not be able to charge at all when disordered? Seems like they should be able to do it, just not very well.
In my game, I followed Raliegh's tips to make my draft recruits 4.7 morale, and my overall army and unit morales are generally good, in the 3.5 to 5 range for non-elite units. But, once they get disordered, it is virtually impossible to get them in good order again, even with an attached leader and having the unit do nothing overnight in a multi-day battle. Plus I usually can't resupply them [that part might be just when they are shaken, I can't remember]. This doesn't seem right.
I was under the impression that using the pass or fortify move and having an attached leader should allow units to recover somewhat after several turns. I've seen this chronic lack of good order thing happen to cav units that have not been shot at, still have good morale and have rested for an entire night with an attached leader. The infantry units seem to recover well, and putting them into column is easy [80-90% for regulars, 40-60% for militia and Cossacks] and makes the disorder status go away. Then I can easily change them into line later. Infantry seems to work like it should.
Has anyone else seen this? Is cav not being able to get out of Disorder a bug, is it WAD, or am I doing something wrong?
My take on the columns vs. lines posts earlier: I like the game the way it plays now, although I would also like to see the cav charges while in column nerfed. I would also be very happy to see column formation split into march columns and assault columns if possible. Make march columns weak and vulnerable but fast, and assualt columns could be between line and march in terms of speed and vulnerability, actually maybe more vulnerable to casualties even than when in march, big decrease in firepower, big increase in charge effectiveness. The French at least, did use infantry assault columns a lot. Maybe make a military technology advance that you have to pick to get it [Assault Column Formation]? That would be way cool.
And sorry to pile on more wish list stuff, but I would love it if there were a third graphic option for the detailed combat screen: Replace the sprite graphic with a single NATO symbol, while keeping the neat formation graphics that are used on the sprite type display. It would be easy, just replace all the sprites on the template with a single graphic, it does not need to change facing because the formation graphics already do that [maybe add an additional dot at the front of the column graphic or a directional arrow for columns though]. I would love that. I usually prefer NATO symbols in my games, but I am using sprites in this game because I really like the formation dot underlay graphics.
Well, historical records, as usual, are mixed. And, in my non-binding opinion, has to be applied creatively to a game. In Leipzig, Napoleon’s Horse Caraibiniers were routed by hungarian hussars. This doesn’t means Light cavalry would routinely defeated heavies.
The “Cheveau Legers Polonais de la Garde Imperiale” were created in 1807, and it’s fame was due mainly to it’s charge in Somosierra in 1808, which gave them entrance to the Old Guard. It was in 1809 that they got their lances, and were renamed “Chaveau Leger - Lanciers Polonais de la Garde Imperiale”. As their name suggest, it was a Light Cavalry unit. Of course, they performed very well in combat, as almost every polish unit in Napoleon’s army, but nothing suggest they were some sort of steamroller, and certainly they weren’t a heavy cavalry unit. If I remenber correctly, Napoleon created several lancers regiments before the invasion of Russia as a way of dealing with the cossacks. So they were meant to be used against cavalrymen, but not the big ones.
The reputation of the lancers as absolutely devastating arise mainly from this original polish lancers, but they were one elite unit. It wasn’t the lance that made them formidable.
In general, the lance doesn’t seems to be a very effective weapon against a sabre. But of course, if it’s me with the sabre you probably would have a fair chance. I don’t think it’s inaccurate to say that lancers would be at a disadvantage against heavy cavalry due to their lack of armour, their smaller horses, and their lances.
Sorry about the rant. It’s just to make my point understood. No I-know-better intention. My main concern here is not with absolute historical accuracy, but with game balance and the rock-paper-scissors nature of the game. If lancers rally faster, have more MP, and are also stronger against both inf and cav, why would I build other cav?
I was under the impression that using the pass or fortify move and having an attached leader should allow units to recover somewhat after several turns. I've seen this chronic lack of good order thing happen to cav units that have not been shot at, still have good morale and have rested for an entire night with an attached leader.
I noticed that leaders do make a difference. I've been frequently able to rally cavalry by attaching a good leader (and of course de-attaching him right afterwards as leaders attached to cav units tend to die real quick). Then again I've never played the Russians, and I do expect their Cossack Cavalry to be crap and basically a one-charge deal.
I wonder if a leader with a cavalry bonus helps rally or just charge or what? I should read the manual again har har.
Edit: interesting note about Lancers. Wellington created several Lancer regiments in the post-war British army after taking note that at Quatre Bras the Lancers were able to penetrate and stand up to British squares due to the extended reach of their weapons. So maybe Lancers should retain their fire against squares [:D][:D]
I don't have any problem with lancers having a "light vs heavy" disadvantage if they are truly a light cavalry unit. Again, my fading memory is whispering that there were lancer units that would classify more as medium in the game.
I just don't agree, and still don't, that the lancer has a disadvantage against a heavy due to armament. Most lancer units carried sabres too, and a lance certainly outreaches a sabre.
"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown
The disadvantage lies in armor. Heavy cavalry typically wore a front and rear body armour and a steel helmet. Lancers were lightly armored (the Poles didn't even wear helmets). Historically there are only a few recorded instances where light cavalry defeated heavy cavalry.
I don't have any problem with lancers having a "light vs heavy" disadvantage if they are truly a light cavalry unit. Again, my fading memory is whispering that there were lancer units that would classify more as medium in the game.
I just don't agree, and still don't, that the lancer has a disadvantage against a heavy due to armament. Most lancer units carried sabres too, and a lance certainly outreaches a sabre.
It would be difficult to use an eight foot pig sticker when the guy fighting you is boot to boot with you..... lancers, IMHO, have light cav movement, with heavy cav impact, but after the initial coming together would be out weighed and out muscled by regular heavy cav in melee................
On column vs line i have noticed a number of times when i melee with a line from the rear with a column i can
sometimes get my clocked cleaned! evidently facing
does not matter with the programing sometimes or the
fellows in the line are shooting over their shoulders!
LOL!
Tim
think that is still more the formation rule, units can fire 360 degrees, only they do better to the front, not as good to the sides and worse to the rear
that fact that they are still in formation is what is clobbering you
you want to charge, disordered units, or units on the run
now in real life, I think I could see a simi trained unit, while in line, being easier and faster to change faceing and fire, then to change from line to square, while it might be easier for a column to change to square, then to form a line and change the facing
It could be you attacked the Gloucesters! In Egypt they formed line,and alternated facing front and rear, firing disciplined volleys in both directions at the same time.. they survived and ever afterwards they wore their cap badges backwards... now if one of Hard Sarges art corps had been there I think they may have struggled to even find a cap badge!
Ian
I think in the montage on the set up screen there is a picture of them, the 28th, in square facing French cav at Quatre Bras.
In the game lancers have a 40% chance to break a square, never had a chance to try it as I just shoot until the infantry is disordered and then charge. No point in chancing the failed to form square, did not disorder, and now you get killed for your charge.
NOTE: in some weather conditions this chances goes to 80%.[X(]
ORIGINAL: carnifex
Edit: interesting note about Lancers. Wellington created several Lancer regiments in the post-war British army after taking note that at Quatre Bras the Lancers were able to penetrate and stand up to British squares due to the extended reach of their weapons. So maybe Lancers should retain their fire against squares [:D][:D]
Should be noted the British Cavalry were not Heavy Cavalry in the true sense of the word, that is they did not have Breast Plates or back Plates and are some times considered medium cavalry (ie normal Cavalry) by some purists. I believe in the game they should be marked as Cavalry and given very high morale.
ORIGINAL: carnifex
Lancers were good against cavalry. I'll have to find my references now,...
Just ask Ponsonby [:D]
"We shall match them with our Lancers!"
Edit: by the way, Ponsonby's cavalry was a Heavy Cavalry unit. It's true that they were somewhat disordered by their effective charge against d’Erlon’s Corps, but the Polish Lancers reamed them just the same.
Heh, this makes me laugh: "The Poles were recorded to have been one of the only French cavalry units to have charged in full dress uniform." No wonder the textile requirement is harsh.
The disadvantage lies in armor. Heavy cavalry typically wore a front and rear body armour and a steel helmet. Lancers were lightly armored (the Poles didn't even wear helmets). Historically there are only a few recorded instances where light cavalry defeated heavy cavalry.
Agreed, but there is already a disadvantage in the game for light vs heavy. I disagree with any additional disadvantage for lancers against cavalry.
"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown
