serious combat bugs

[carburo]

My original idea was more concerned with a game balance issue than with historical accuracy.

I thinks there are strong reasons to make lancers weak against regular sabre/sword armed cavalrymen, but "proving" this is not my main interest. We all have different interpretations, usually heavily biased by selective readings or more overt prejudices, and the "truth" is usually half way between them.

What I don't like in a game is superunits. Currently, I think lancers are. I haven't done a lot of testing, but lancers are fast, have a strong charge and rally faster than any other cavalry.
I think the whole cavalry concept in the game needs to be revised. As it is now, calvary works too well in the role of infantry. Lancers are just one type of unit that in my opinion needs some drawback.

By the way, I also think the light vs. heavy disadvantage have no effect in the game, even if it works as intended. I never use my cav to charge other formed cav, no matter the type, as they would become disordered for the rest of the battle. I only charge against disordered units, and then it really doesn't matter that much if they are lights or heavies or inf, they normally get trounced by my fresh formed cav.

We should start a thread about the changes we would like to see in each arm from a strictly game balance perspective. Historical accuracy would benefit at the end too.

[Hard Sarge]

Well there is one good disadvantage to Lancers, who can build them ?

if you take over the Poles, you may get lucky and have a few in the build order, but once they are built, Warsaw will not build them anymore

so, I tend to Use them like the Old Guard, only when really needed

HARD_Sarge

[carburo]

Well, there is no good answer to that. You are 100% right. Eric willing, we should be able to build them someday.

[Joram]

ORIGINAL: carburo

Well, there is no good answer to that. You are 100% right. Eric willing, we should be able to build them someday.

You can build them. I noticed it for the first time when I got my barracks to level 8 in Paris. Rifles came at the same time (and incidentally take a whole freakin year to build!).

I think there is also a culture requirement too in the province, but I think it's low like maybe 5?

[ian77]

Yeah it seems to be level 8 not 7, Poles seem to schedule two lancers every year, the build queue gets a bit drawn out, but they keep scheduling more lancers.

Ian

[carburo]

Yes, we can build them. At level 8 barracks. I think Sarge was joking about how hard it's to get them.
My idea is they shouldn't be so strong, nor so difficult to build.
BTW, I like rifles. Especially because in the game with get the good part (better range and accuracy), while the drawback (slow rate of fire)is not modeled.

[MarcelJV]

If I may summerize.
Here is what I got that needs to change and the suggestions that go with it. Cavalry are not balanced. Changes below.
1. Cavalry are way to easy to charge with in column and this should not be allowed. Ie not charging if in column formation, given the description in the manual as a formation for moving then it makes sense that this is march column not attack column, which cavalry did not use.
2. Reduce cavalry to 5000 men. This is also closer to historical, even at the big battles there just where not 30000+ cavalry on one side (only takes 3 units to do that in COG).
3. Remove the ability to have cavalry fire. Other than dragoons which had a rifle but did not use it much no other cavalry had ranged fire. I do not buy the probing attack stuff.
4. Make it easier for Cavalry to reform after they are disordered as a result of a charge. This is a tough one for me as most of my reading indicated cavalry was good for one charge a battle so currently if you get them to reform you get more from them than usual. Either way it was suggested so I have included it.

Infantry formations.
1. Add another formation type called Attack Column. This should apply a penalty to fire and a increase to charge power. Again remove the ability to charge from march column. Attack column should take more casualties then line but less then a column so lets say 50% of the penalty for march column. So if the march column gets a 1.4x damage penalty then attack column would get a 1.2x penalty. This assumes line is 1.0x.
2. Do not allow charges from march column, see above in cavalry section. This is ok if we add in attack column.

Unit Upgrades.
Change Mixed Order upgrade to remove the charge after fire and instead increase the charge power of the infantry, keep the fire penalty. This way the unit either charges or fires but does not do both. You only need to change this if you do not add in the attack column formation. As it is you very rarily have a disorderd unit next to you that you can fire on and then have 9 points left to charge, so I see no one choosing it. This change would make it a choice.

I am sure I missed some thing but this is what I think we have covered.

[carburo]

I would add

Cavalry:

1. Make it more vulnerable to infantry fire, so they can’t hold the line against formed infantry.

2. Make differences between cav types more meaninful: heavies better at disrupting wavering units with a flank/rear charge but harder to reform, lights easier to reform but unable to break inf formations. This way heavies would be shock troops, and Lights mainly for scouting and pursuit.

Artillery:

1. Shouldn’t be able to move/turn and fire in the same turn.

2. More vulnerable to rear/flank charges.

After the patch, the mixed order upgrade works giving you a chance of an automatic charge after you fire at a disordered unit. Just that you only see the casualties you take from the charge, not the ones you inflict. I think it works fine in offensive, but the fire penalty doesn’t make sense qhen you fire at a target several hexes away. The fire penalty should apply only when firing at an adjacent unit you can actually charge.

[Latour_Maubourg]

ORIGINAL: MarcelJV


Infantry formations.
1. Add another formation type called Attack Column. This should apply a penalty to fire and a increase to charge power. Again remove the ability to charge from march column. Attack column should take more casualties then line but less then a column so lets say 50% of the penalty for march column. So if the march column gets a 1.4x damage penalty then attack column would get a 1.2x penalty. This assumes line is 1.0x.
2. Do not allow charges from march column, see above in cavalry section. This is ok if we add in attack column.

And if I may add, Attack column fewer moving points then Marching column but a lot more then Line formation. Something like Mc 100%, Ma 65% (70% if upgraded or guards) and Line 30% (35% if upgraded or guards)

Good summary by the way Marcel & Carburo, makes it more clear.

L-M [:)]

[Malagant]

3. Remove the ability to have cavalry fire. Other than dragoons which had a rifle but did not use it much no other cavalry had ranged fire. I do not buy the probing attack stuff.

Wasn't it typical for a cavalry division to include horse artillery? I don't think it's inappropriate for a cavalry DIVISION to have some ability to fire at range. Since the hex scale is clearly pretty large, anything other than firing at an adjacent unit well exceeds musket range anyway, so if you take away a cavalry divison's ability to fire at range, you should take away an infantry unit's ability to fire at greater than one hex.

I think a cavalry division should be far more vulnerable to fire damage, and their firepower should be reduced. They COULD be used to engage in a fire fight, but they shouldn't be able to win...all things being equal.

[plasticpanzers]

A cav div may have a 6-12 gun battery of 4 or 6 pdrs
attached. not enough to make so much a difference
as is now with cavalry firepower. they were used
on squares, to attack inf the cav was engaging, or
to give the cav something to reform behind. an
average of 9 guns per 10,000 cav is not much firepower. the rules for cav melee needs to be
tweaked a bit. Lt vs heavy at a disadvantage, lancer
gets a bonus in first melee but disrupts easier, cav
vs inf more melee and less firepower.
on the inf my column hit i was engaging it from the
front with inf as well in a firefight. it just seems
odd that hitting a line of 8000 men from the rear with
8000 of equal value and morale should come out so odd.
what is the point of facing if it makes so little
apparent difference in melee?
Tim

ps: cav that did not break a square would swarm
around it or pass it allowing more than just 1/4
of the square to fire. the cav did not bunch up
just to fit in front of one side of a square.

[ian77]

ORIGINAL: plasticpanzers

A cav div may have a 6-12 gun battery of 4 or 6 pdrs
attached. not enough to make so much a difference
as is now with cavalry firepower. they were used
on squares, to attack inf the cav was engaging, or
to give the cav something to reform behind. an
average of 9 guns per 10,000 cav is not much firepower. the rules for cav melee needs to be
tweaked a bit. Lt vs heavy at a disadvantage, lancer
gets a bonus in first melee but disrupts easier, cav
vs inf more melee and less firepower.
on the inf my column hit i was engaging it from the
front with inf as well in a firefight. it just seems
odd that hitting a line of 8000 men from the rear with
8000 of equal value and morale should come out so odd.
what is the point of facing if it makes so little
apparent difference in melee?
Tim

ps: cav that did not break a square would swarm
around it or pass it allowing more than just 1/4
of the square to fire. the cav did not bunch up
just to fit in front of one side of a square.

Are you sure on your numbers? I thought horse art bty was attached at Brigade level, (France), with additional artillery attached to the divisional command .... may have to dig out Chandler..

Ian



EDIT - Ooops.. two batteries at Div level only (French III and IV Reserve Cav Corps 1815) - 12 pieces only per corps, or division as we describe them in this game.... Tim is right [&o]

[8|] Sorry Tim.........

[Malagant]

6-12 gun battery of 4 or 6 pdrs
attached. not enough to make so much a difference
as is now with cavalry firepower.

I agree, that's why I think cavalry should still be able to shoot at range, just with greatly reduced effectiveness, coupled with taking more damage from fire.

[Ralegh]

(from my play, I reckon that ) -

Ease of reforming cavalry is significantly affected by type: almost impossible to reform cossack cavalry (before getting the upgrade for them), very hard to reform irregular cavalry, hard to reform heavy cavalry, a bit easier to reform light cavalry, and easiest to reform lancers.

Reforming is massively improved by being out of enemy line of sight and during daylight.
Reforming is affected by terrain, and sometimes seems to improve if you move a hex or two (bug? or 'giving a formation a chance to shake out'?).
Reforming is assisted by the morale rating of leaders - so in some scenarios many leaders don't help much.
I think reforming is assisted by not being out of supply - you can't resupply a disordered unit, but they will gain supplies from being in a city.

[Latour_Maubourg]

ORIGINAL: carburo

Artillery:

1. Shouldn’t be able to move/turn and fire in the same turn.

I don't completely agree with that. 1 turn is 40 minutes. Turn and shoot in the same turn yes. Napy being a former arty officer by profession, always made sure that his arty was up to date, very well trained and organized. However limber, move, unlimber and shoot in the same turn (even if it is 1 hex), no.

L-M [:)]