My first large detailed battle...some observations and questions

[Grand_Armee]

I had my butt kicked by France...I was playing Prussia and fielded some 88K men. The French had about 120K.

My troops arrived higgledy-piggledy all over the field...with my artillery being stuck right in the middle of them. I didn't like this, and feel I should be able to set up my army in some orderly manner, even if that manner doesn't coincide with the order of movement.

As I set out to build a line, French cavalry and artillery rushed my line, causing 3 divisions to form square immediately. The artillery was immediately adjacent to my guys, and proceeded to blast them to pieces. This struck me as just plain wrong...certainly not Napoleonic.

I set to ridding myself of these cavalry and this battery, using everything to hand, namely the 3 divisions of now stationary infantry and 2 divisions of heavy cavalry.

Getting rid of his cavalry wasn't too tough...shoot em enough and they run. But that battery! To finally rid myself of it I brought up a further division of cavalry so that it had 3 targets to choose from. My first two charges cost me tons of horse flesh while only killing a few of the "gunners" even though none of them charged from the front. The third charge actually managed to kill 1,100 of the artillery causing it to leave the area...I never saw it again. I'll bet that single battery (or division, or whatever it was supposed to be) caused over 2/3 of my 30K losses...and it never had a supply wagon near it!

Over years of reading, I've seen over and over again that artillery has no fighting strength of it's own. It certainly didn't keep the English household cavalry from overrunning it from the front at Waterloo despite causing many casualties. I've nothing against it causing casualties...but being indestructible from various infantry and two cavalry attacks seems a bit wrong. I believe that if you're going to charge artillery from the front, you should pay a heavy price. But your enemy too should pay a price for leaving something so costly and defensively weak undefended. Artillery should only be in close combat when your enemy leaves you no other option...and it should be easily killable at close range despite the casualties it causes.

Now to my artillery...I only had one battery/division of it, and was planning to use it in it's normal way. It was 3 hexes from it's nearest French opponent who was in line formation. The French infantry were facing west, while my guns were supposedly firing south down the French flank. But the highest result I ever got was killing 42 of them while losing some 30-40 of my own evey shot. So, I have to wonder...Is there such a thing as facing in this game? I know we're playing with divisions sized pieces, but I'm at a loss how to proceed.

Anybody can learn a game system. I can charge forward with my batteries too...and I can build many of them instead of building a balanced army. But, why should I? What happens when I feel I know this game well enough to play others? Will there be a house rule about "sturmartillerie"? I hate house rules...making em...feeling the need to make them...and trying to remember which ones we're using in this instance

Artillery must be easily killable at close quarters...even if those attacks are costly.

Other than that, I have to say that I truly enjoyed my first forays into detailed combat. I enjoy the way things move, and even enjoyed when my line began to waver then broke completely.

[ahauschild]

Its that whole abstract Division thing. The artillery is not entirely made up of Artillery, but actuly has some cav and inf build into it. A Inf Division could for instance have as much as 30% Cav and 20% Artillery, and visa versa. It basicly just means the dominant part of the unit is artillery.

Same goes for Jager or Light Infantry Divisions. There is no such thing as a Jager Division, ussualy you had about 2 to 4 brigades in a division, and each brigade had 2 to 4 Regiments. Out of that ussuly only one regiment in a brigade, may have had Jager/Schutzen.

I know your basic Napoleanic tactics, those that you may have learned fighting regimental level pretty much are 90% obsolete with divisional level.

Yes, a Gun Battery, or even 2 or 3 combined would in general have no chance by itself to defend effectively against 2 to 3 squadrons, Especialy once they got to melee range artillery was toast.

It took some heavy rethinking on my part to accept this, and I truly wish they would have brought it down to a brigade level, rather a division, as there you would have most of the regular nap tactics in play. I personaly love regimental level the best, this is where you truly see the strengh and weakneses of the Napoleanic Armys. But of course a game that may have 100k units in division level has about 10 to 12 units per side, where a brigade level would have probl 30 units, and a regimental level would have a taunting 100 plus units on the field per side.

Best would be if the game asked you before each combat.

Your army has enganged an estimated 60000 men of the Russian 2nd Home Army. The ground is Frozen, there is a 30% for snow. You have 48000 men with you. Do you wish to fight in Quick Combat or fight in Divisional, Brigade or Regimental level.

But I am dreaming, this type of game will probl never be released. But I can dream.

[EUBanana]

The thing that struck me was that infantry in squares seem to be able to fight quite well vs infantry in lines. I thought a line would butcher a square (sure did in Sid Meiers Waterloo anyway), but the old combined arms cavalry + infantry trick so if they form line they get run over by cavalry and if they form square they get shot doesn't seem to work as well.

In one game I had one inf unit formed square in a copse being attacked by 3 French infantry divisions in line formation, and the square didn't rout despite turn after turn of shooting. It even inflicted almost as many casualties on its attackers as it suffered. Those guys would not be moved.

Can't say I had the same problem with artillery though. Artillery has less manpower than the other units, so you get less casualties as well, but cavalry seems to run right over it.

As for ahauschild... surely that actually wouldn't be too hard to implement with CoG? You can split up your divisions into brigades already.

[MarcelJV]

A couple of things to be aware of that might have had an impact on your battle.

Artillery can not be charged if the unit doing the charging is adjacent to an enemy unit other than the artillery in question. So it could be that you though you did a charge and instead did a fire. Stupid question, you did push the charge button after moving next to the artillery, you were facing the artillery and you were in line with the cavalry?

I have had no problem running artillery over with Cavalry and in fact capturing them.

As for your own artillery, and a couple of stupid questions from me. Your artillery where in line formation when you were firing? Sometimes your artillery gets tangled and then it does not change to line formation. I have though at time I was in the correct formation and position only to look carefully and notice I was still in column and not line when firing and could not change as I was tangled.

I have found all the old gamie tricks of using infantry to pin units in line and then hitting them with cavalry and wipping them out are not in this game. This is a good thing as I believe people do not realise that this only works when the enemy unit panics in face of the charge. If the unit retains formation it can fight well verses Cavalry and the pinning infantry stops fireing when the cavalry engage so as to not hit their own troops. Once cavalry has hit the target all force is lost and if it did not break the formations right away then they fight a melee at which point cavalry are not always at an advantage. The cavalry has to reach down to hit the infantry and the infantry just has to hit the horse to get the rider down. On the other hand if the infantry break and run then they will get massacred as it should be. The result of the charge may well be more casualties on the cavalry then the infantry if they stand and are relatively fresh. So hit them lots will shots first and then after they are disordered hit them. This is the way the game works, wether this is the reality you think should be there, does not matter. The only issue I have with the detailed combat is the AI desire to charge with cavalry right away, which can be stopped by forming square and shooting with artiller.

One last thing to remember, there are differences in training the units have some include imporved fighting in various formations, so just because you do not fight well in that formation does not mean your opponent will also not fight well. Also morale and training affect the offensive and defensive ability of a unit.

Regards,

Marcel

[Reg Pither]

ORIGINAL: ahauschild
Its that whole abstract Division thing. The artillery is not entirely made up of Artillery, but actuly has some cav and inf build into it. A Inf Division could for instance have as much as 30% Cav and 20% Artillery, and visa versa. It basicly just means the dominant part of the unit is artillery.

Is any of that true? Either in Napoleonic times or in this game? Cavalry and infantry divisions having a small amount of artillery sounds right, but infantry divisions having as much as 50% of other arms doesn't sound correct. Nor does an artillery division containing any significant quantity of cavalry and infantry. Is there something I've missed in the manual, on this board, or in my Napoleonic reading? [&:]

[Friant]

I was having problems getting Cavalry to charge Artillery, too. My first few attempts with the tactic, I would click "charge", then click on the Artillery. Which had the effect of making my horsies stop in front of the battery, pull out their carbines, and trade pistol fire for grapeshot. If clicking "Charge" doesn't immediately cause a charge, you need to make sure you are facing directly into the target, adjacent, and with no other enemy ZOC blocking you.

Overall, the problem of scale is a tough one. I can't imagine the strategic game going to anything more micro than building units at a Divisional level. But Napoleonic tactics were not Divisional. The Division Square anti-Cavalry formation was only ever used at the Pyramids. Even MacDonald's big, hollow square assault formation at Wagram was formed ad-hoc out of available battalions.

I agree that simulating down to battalion, or even brigage, level on the tactical map would be painfully unweildy, with hundreds of units per side. So I'm willing to accept the abstraction of all-infantry "divisions", sending in two 10,000 strong divisions to occupy a small village, etc., and to just pretend I am manuvering at a battallion level.

[mogami]

Hi, I gain more arty by capture then I build. One thing the large units do in this game is make battles end rather quickly. Since you deal out loss 2k or 3k at a time it does not take long for a side to have lost 10k troops which if often close to or over 10 percent of the total and "AWAY they go" then you just chase routed units with your CAV. You have to make sure you inflict damage faster then you sustain it of you'll be the side running off the map.
You really have to keep track of your units. I let the enemy march into my territory and lose troops to forage or bad supply. Then before the battle I top off my infantry with milita. When the battle begins even if I am outnumbered my units are all 10k fighting enemy units that begin 7k or less. Now subtract 2 or 3k and they are running. My larger formations can take it a bit longer. Once that first enemy unit breaks it often takes it's neighbors with it and if you charge with Cav you lose less then 100 men and inflict 1k,2k,3k in return. Then the whole enemy army reaches it's threeshold
My 85k Army has defeated 200k in 1 turn in a series of battles (first 100k then another 50k then another 50k. High morale and better training levels allow you to change formation where the enemy gets stuck in disordered and can't get out.

[EUBanana]

I've noticed cavalry is much more effective than in most other games simulating this period.

Consequently you see a lot of cavalry heavy armies. I think its fairly common to have cavalry as the largest component of the army. Infantry in formation and in good position can take quite a beating - so get a good position and then do constant hit and runs with cavalry - when your cavalry become disordered retreat them behind your infantry and rest, before repeating.

I've taken down an AI army twice my size with this tactic, and with fairly light casualties as well. Three lines of INF behind a river in line formation, five units of cavalry constantly raiding the enemy and retreating behind the river when needed to supply. The kill ratio was about 5 to 1...

Is this historic? I'm not really a Napeoleonic buff, but I always thought cavalry was pretty much secondary to the infantry, and their main role was scouting, not breaking the enemy. This based on my knowledge of the American Civil War.

[Friant]

Cavalry does seem to be quite over-effective versus its historical role. Episodes in real life of infantry in square formation being broken by cavalry charge are extremely rare, and usually due to extrordinary circumstances (lancers vs. infantry with wet powder, for example).

The strategies described here are pretty much what Ney (from design or death wish) ended up doing at Waterloo. Take the continent's best cavalry and hurl it repeatedly at the British battallions, hoping to break them or catch them in a formation change. All he did was burn away his units, making them unavailable when infantry and artillery fire really had the Brits wavering.

Erfurt is the only large-scale battle I can think of where the cavalry was decisive. And again this was an extreme: heavy snow blocked visibility and wetted powder, cavalry was used en-mass, with Murat at the head of the heavies. And still, all they accomplished was to hold the line at a critical point, at very high cost.

I'd think a reduction in the deadliness of charges against merely shaken or even disordered infantry, especially from the front would be in order. The game allows for the tactic of swarming around the front and hitting the flanks or rear, just by physically moving the cavalry to the flank or rear before charging. An actual frontal charge should be near-suicide (with some bonus for lancers).

[Alaric_31]

greetings, napoleonic and american civil war cannot be compared, as the guns evolved with time making cavalry charges in the american civil war massacres for the charging cavalry, in napoleonic times, muskets used are enough ineffective to give advantage to cavalry and make a cavalry charge too dangerous for any enemy, firing infantry cannot have enough time to fire at 200 yards and time remaining to fix their bayonet before the cavalry hit them, i do not have problems with tactical combat in CoG at this time, only one thing to say, all formations/units what melee maybe must be disorganized, out of that is a great tactical system.

with best regards,

alaric.

[ahauschild]

Actualy an Artillery Division did not really exist as far as I know. Artillery was ussualy a "Brigade" some batterys attached to a division. I think what they are trying to represent is the Corpse or Army Artillery. And yes, they would have little to no infantry with them, but otherwise it makes no sense what the game is doing. As for Cav and Artillery in infantry Divisions, very common and if you check some of the Order of Battles, in some Divisions they had allot of those. Cav Divisions ussualy did not have Infantry, but since they so large, I would suspect we can just add some to them to let it make sense. Most countries would have dreamed of having a division of 10000 cav, neverless having 2 or 3 in each corps, for proble 6 to 9 in an Army. Imagine that, 90000 Cav, now I have not checked all of napeolanic battles, but that sounds a bit high.

So I will formyself assume that a large chunk is actualy made up of infantry brigades with heavy cav mix. That also allows the fire back concept to make more sense.

Argg.......really a pain with this divisional level play, having to make sense of it. Napoleanics was not ment to be played divisional level. Thats for sure.

[Mr. Z]

Actualy an Artillery Division did not really exist as far as I know. Artillery was ussualy a "Brigade" some batterys attached to a division. I think what they are trying to represent is the Corpse or Army Artillery.

The artillery units generally represent artillery brigades. They are merely refered to on this forum as "divisions" for simplicity's sake by some (I don't think we do this in the manual, but we may have made a mistake here and there).

And yes, they would have little to no infantry with them, but otherwise it makes no sense what the game is doing.

As I understand it, they would have some infantry with them.

So I will formyself assume that a large chunk is actualy made up of infantry brigades with heavy cav mix. That also allows the fire back concept to make more sense.

Yes, infantry units in particular are "really" somewhat mixed.

[Joram]

ORIGINAL: Mr. Z

Actualy an Artillery Division did not really exist as far as I know. Artillery was ussualy a "Brigade" some batterys attached to a division. I think what they are trying to represent is the Corpse or Army Artillery.

The artillery units generally represent artillery brigades. They are merely refered to on this forum as "divisions" for simplicity's sake by some (I don't think we do this in the manual, but we may have made a mistake here and there).

And yes, they would have little to no infantry with them, but otherwise it makes no sense what the game is doing.

As I understand it, they would have some infantry with them.

So I will formyself assume that a large chunk is actualy made up of infantry brigades with heavy cav mix. That also allows the fire back concept to make more sense.

Yes, infantry units in particular are "really" somewhat mixed.

If I remember my history right, I believe Napoleon actually did have Artillery Divisions, not brigades. It was one of his innovations. Most countries at the time would piecemeal their artillery out among the infantry but the French were the first to systematically mass their artillery.




Oh, and as far as to what the original post was talking about. I agree that it's messed up. I've never been so close to actually have the enemy have an artillery on top of me, but I've been well within cavalry range and have them take out my supply before I've gotten a single move in.

I have almost never seen my own artillery too far apart from my troops but Ive had the odd infantry or cavalry division separate, and I've almost always had my baggage in a position that is either so close the enemy gets to it before I can protect it or so far away, it takes a good 3 turns before they are even within range to supply my troops. It's a bit weird.

[Joram]

Read Raleigh's tip guide for some help. It actually explains a bit on how the units are grouped. Makes sense to what I've seen though I still don't get while I will often have all my units together except my supply baggage which is often closer to the enemy than it is to me.

[Ralegh]

I call that a BUG, although I am yet to convince the developers to fix it.

[Mr. Z]

If I remember my history right, I believe Napoleon actually did have Artillery Divisions, not brigades. It was one of his innovations. Most countries at the time would piecemeal their artillery out among the infantry but the French were the first to systematically mass their artillery.

I agree that it's always hard to speak in generalities during this era! At any rate, just think of an artillery "division" as a certain number of batteries grouped together, whatever its real-world counterpart was called organizationally.

Oh, and as far as to what the original post was talking about. I agree that it's messed up. I've never been so close to actually have the enemy have an artillery on top of me, but I've been well within cavalry range and have them take out my supply before I've gotten a single move in.

We've addressed this in other threads--are having a look at adjusting the spacing before battles.

I have almost never seen my own artillery too far apart from my troops but Ive had the odd infantry or cavalry division separate, and I've almost always had my baggage in a position that is either so close the enemy gets to it before I can protect it or so far away, it takes a good 3 turns before they are even within range to supply my troops. It's a bit weird.

Are also looking at repositioning supply at beginning of battles.

We could also consider weakening cavalry somewhat. Is the general consensus that they are too powerful?

[Malagant]

We could also consider weakening cavalry somewhat. Is the general consensus that they are too powerful?

I don't believe so. In fact I think they are far too susceptible to massive damage when charging infantry that do not form square, or even unsupported artillery batteries/divisions/groups/herds/flocks. I think cavalry should have a higher chance of forcing the recepient of it's charge to disorder, especially artillery!

[Reg Pither]

I don't think that they are too powerful in themselves, rather they are too numerous and a little too easy to produce in high numbers.

[Malagant]

ORIGINAL: Reg Pither

I don't think that they are too powerful in themselves, rather they are too numerous and a little too easy to produce in high numbers.

Agreed, and I think upkeep is a little too low, too.

[Grand_Armee]

I'll take your suggestions into account. To be honest, I am still learning the charge function, and will see what can be done against artillery. Still, even if they are "divisions", they act incorrectly in relation to saving their own expensive hides. Russian gunners were castigated for limbering up and bolting precipitously. And no gunner in his right mind wanted to fight horsemen with only his rammer staff and sponge. I don't believe they should be a mixed force.

Once I've tinkered with it, I may make further judgement. But, if I don't find a realistic way to kill it, I'll be very displeased. I'm frightfully envisioning my first PBEM game where my opponent shows up on the field with 12 Arty, 6 infantry, and 3 Cavalry. Whereas I'd bring a ratio of 10 infantry, 3-4 CAv, and 2 Arty....but never ever will I build militia unless to garrison a city.

I had another big detailed combat last night. I had three arty "Divisions". I was Prussia against Turkey who brought lots of cav, Inf, and militia but no guns. I had the aformentioned arty with five infantry and four cavalry. The butcher's bill turned out some 2k for me and 19K for him.

Because I had no time to deploy before he rushed me, my arty ended up in a triangle at the center of my line supported by infantry on each flank. The Turks never got to melee them, instead concentrating on the flanking infantry. I saved the cavalry for dealing with disrupted Turk divs, and had some notable charge before they were blown. I think the battle last for 4 game hours.