PDA

View Full Version : no more slaughter at the bridges



Nizze
27th Jul 2004, 16:46
to get rid of the slaughter at the bridges i think that the soliders could wade across rivers, but not evry where only at some plases there the stream are shallow.

And i hope that the gamne makers make the control simpel as they are in sid meires gettysburg.

Willmore
27th Jul 2004, 17:20
I disagree, I want rivers to be inaccessible, to make bridges that much more important strategically.

Kazarian
27th Jul 2004, 19:32
It'd be cool if the rivers varied in size, from small creeks to large rivers. The creeks could allow troops to cross (slowly) if necessary, while the troops would need to cross a larger river at a bridge. If there has to be a choice between one and the other, though, I would agree with Willmore and make rivers inaccessible to add an interesting tactical element.

Mike_B
28th Jul 2004, 08:28
Additionally they can also make it so (like in Praetorians) that certains types of group can pass through the water and others need to use another route.

Vic Flange
28th Jul 2004, 13:16
Some shallow rivers can be crossed by units, with soldiers having to wade through (thereby becoming vulnerable). Other rivers will be too deep to be crossed by any unit. Artillery will not be able to cross rivers of any great depth.

Nizze
28th Jul 2004, 21:30
it would be wery cool if a unit that are runing away from the enemy and have to cross a river try to cross it in panic and if the river is to deep the soliders will drown.

Arctic_Wolf
29th Jul 2004, 00:06
I don't think its realistic to have Imperial Age troops wading through rivers as a wet musket doesn't work. Bridges have always been vital strategic elements, especialy as most people until recently couldn't swim, because if no bridge is available troops would have to follow the river for days looking for a fording point, a shallow point usualy rocky, where troops would be able to get across. Thats why during WWII demolition charges were placed on major and strategic bridges so that if the enemy captured the position, the bridge could be blown in order to delay their advance.

I would be coool if in the game you could use your artillery to destory bridges on river maps, forcing a stalemate. This would allow you to bring army engineers into a more strategic role.

Mike_B
29th Jul 2004, 08:13
Originally posted by Arctic_Wolf
as a wet musket doesn't work.

How about keeping those above their heads?

Nizze
29th Jul 2004, 10:57
We are not talking about 7 fot deep water, u can wade across a stream if it is waist-deep and manage not make the powder wet

Willmore
29th Jul 2004, 15:33
We're talking rivers here ... you know Rhine, Volga, Seine. The ones you can't wade through.

The small streams are nothing but a nuisance, and only matter when artillery is in the mix.

Arctic_Wolf
29th Jul 2004, 16:45
Exactly, streams, creeks and brooks have never presented a problem except to seige weapons or artillery. Rivers are bigger and deeper and even if you could get your army wading across one, what are you going to do with 10,000 cold and wet soldiers. Not all of them would have a towel, so they'd have to stop and make camp, warming themselves by the fires. In all this time they could have found a bridge or got their engineers to make a temporary one.

Nizze
29th Jul 2004, 17:09
i dont know but the only riveri have sen his far is the river u can se in the trailer and it doesn´t loke like Rhine/Volga/Seine to me, more like an creek.
I never had say that 10 000 soliders should wade across the rhe river, i only have sad that there should be som places were the stream i shallower, the solider will still be wounerble for fire. U can do more startegic moves if u have the possibility to cross the the river, if thre only one bridge ore two thre will be a wery simpel tacktik, send u trops forward and see how youre men get kiled.


Exactly, streams, creeks and brooks have never presented a problem except to seige weapons or artillery. Rivers are bigger and deeper and even if you could get your army wading across one, what are you going to do with 10,000 cold and wet soldiers. Not all of them would have a towel, so they'd have to stop and make camp, warming themselves by the fires. In all this time they could have found a bridge or got their engineers to make a temporary one.

Are u serious?

private-"excuse me Mr General but my friend Joe are wett and he wounder if we can stopp this attack so he can dry his pants"
Mr General-"are u stupid privat?"

I dont think that napolins stoped an attack becuse his solders pants were wett.

Arctic_Wolf
29th Jul 2004, 21:32
No he didn't stop his campeign because his troops were wet, he stopped because his troops froze to death. When he tried to invade russia, the cold reduced the effectiveness of his troops, Hitler experienced the same thing. Being wet would magnify this.

Have you ever been through a river wearing clothes? I have, even on a pleasant day you will feel cold, you may even shiver. If you're shivering and chattering your teeth you will find that its harder to aim and fire and reload your muskett.

Now if you aren't dried off and night comes round, its cold, you are already cold because you are wet so now you are super cold. You might get hypothermia and die or you might just get a cough.

If you are cold and wet, your morale and effectiveness is reduced. If you are cold and wet and have a cough or infection, your morale and effectiveness are reduced further. If you get hypothermia you can't fight, you die.

So yes, I am serious.

Nizze
2nd Aug 2004, 13:36
Before the battle at waterloo bagan it rained, and lots of soliders got wett and we are talking in to the bare skin, some englich soliders fel down in a 7 fet deep ditch that was filled whit water when they ewre on a recon during the nighit, so i dont think that u stop an attack becuse the troops are wett.

Arctic_Wolf
5th Aug 2004, 01:33
Am I wrong that shivering makes it harder to use a musket?
Am I wrong that people generally don't like being soaked?
Am I wrong that hypothermia can kill you?
Am I wrong in saying that dead troops aren't going to help you?

I didn't say being wet stops battles from happening, I'm just saying its a serious consideration because these things can happen which is why armies generally don't wade through rivers unless its unnaviodable.


I think I've wandered from the point anyway, looking at a bigger picture than I should be... :o


P.S There are many instances throughout history of attacks being delayed because of rain or other bad wheather, I just can't name them at this moment :rolleyes:

Nizze
5th Aug 2004, 18:23
I dont think that a solider that get the flue during a battle dropdead. U talking about walking through rusia while i talking about walk a cross the battlefield. Of course u aim poorly if u are wet. But i am not talking about sending 10 00 solider a cross a stream.
Her is a senario:
Army A attaking over two bridges and of course lots of men dies.
Two units off cavalery and one infantery unit marhing north and crossing the creak were the water are shallow and attacks army B fom the flank.
Her is another senario:
Army A attaking over two bridges and of course lots of men dies.
Two units off cavalery and one infantery unit marhing north and crossing the creak were the water are shallow but they are attcked by two inf units and the flank attack fail.
U have much more tactical shoses if u can wade across a creak than if u anlt use bridges.

P.S There are many instances throughout history of attacks being delayed because of rain or other bad wheather, I just can't name them at this moment
Waterloo, D-day

Arctic_Wolf
6th Aug 2004, 04:06
I know I just noticed that we were looking in "different magnifications" I'm going on about the whole campeign aspect and your looking at a single battle sort of aspect.

So this means were both right. YAY! Argument over!


P.S I thought D-Day but I wasn't sure.

Walter
6th Aug 2004, 08:21
I think, as most of the others, larger rivers shouldn´t be accesible for troops to wade over, however, if you look at a map over denmark sometime, you can see an round island in the center of the contry, on swedish called "Fyn" on the left and right side two larger ehh, well lost the word, whats it called, ohh well lets say "smaller oceans", here a swedish army crossed these to rivers by foot during the winter! And so turning the ´tide of a war against Denmark, when suddenly apear with a large army at the gates of Copenhagen! Ice would be a fine elemental in the game, as desperate times calles for desperate measures. If an area needs to be occupied or quickly reinforced, you could let troops go over the ice ( I mean on a battlefield, not the European atlas), risky but could prove very useful.

Nizze
6th Aug 2004, 09:59
In one scen in the trailer u kan se preussian infatery walk on the ice of a creak.
On intresting thing that i hope will be inkluded is that the ice could break and youre solder drown

Willmore
7th Aug 2004, 00:00
the one thing I'm afraid of, is that they will have set terrains - northern rusisia will always be winter, same for Sandinavia, Morocco will always have sand, and England, France and Germany will always be green.

Walter
7th Aug 2004, 20:08
Well Morocco, shouldnot be any problem, as there can be nothing else than sand, but the other things are a little dark cloud, but I dont think it would be any problem tofix that. Total war doesn´t suffer from that. And I don´t think it would ´be to much work.

Frederick the Great
8th Aug 2004, 23:40
Originally posted by Willmore
the one thing I'm afraid of, is that they will have set terrains - northern rusisia will always be winter, same for Sandinavia, Morocco will always have sand, and England, France and Germany will always be green.

That really quite a shame, in my opinion. In Total War, different weather and landscape for seasons was a big plus for the environmental factor. Im sure its no problem to make snow fall in England and Germany in the winter, and to have Russia thawed in Summer and Spring.

Also, for small creeks, I belive you should make them easily-defendable positions. It would be sooooooo cool to see men being shot whilst wading through the water in a charge.

One more thing: will you colour water red with blood, if people die in creeks or brooks and the such? That in itself would make be pre-order this game :D !

Willmore
9th Aug 2004, 02:05
That's just plain pointless. In a war that is decided in tens of thousands of deaths, what would a few deaths at a creek mean ? And if you were to station anything more than a couple of soldiers at a creek (which would usually stretch for miles) you would take away from position that are far more important strategically. You use hills, you defend bridges, you defend your supply roads. That's it. (Unless I've forgotten something)

Frederick the Great
9th Aug 2004, 15:11
Blood in the Waters:
Well, it would be good for the environments sake. I can fully understand if the creators do not wish to implement this, due to technical limitations.

Creeks, Streams:
Sorry to break anybodys hearts, but throughout history (especially in the Age of Reason and the Napoleonic Era) streams and creeks were common defensive lines, forming only a part of the longer line. A line of men fortified behind a fair sized brook would make any potent commander think twice about assaulting that area, making more tactical maneuvers to get around it.

Willmore
9th Aug 2004, 15:52
In the final battle, sure just like in any terrain, but no commander would ever use creeks as fortified positions, while in the strategic part of several days leading to the battle, noone would even bother with them. During battles they would be slightly more valuable than an open plain, and as such might warrant some fortifications.

However noone ever bothers with rivers shallow enough to wade through. Rivers - yes. Rivers were extremelly important, as they did not permit access to the other side without a day's delay or a bridge. And with patrols on the other side, the day could stretch into a week.

Mmm_Pies
10th Aug 2004, 14:12
I think what he is saying is that the river will only have certain areas shallow enough to cross on the maps and if they was a slight incline/some rocks/some trees/a house on your side of the crossing then it would be a pretty major strategic position as you could cover a closed postion and hold with only a handful of men.

"no commander would ever use creeks as fortified positions, while in the strategic part of several days leading to the battle"

Well we won't get to play the days leading up to the battle only the battle itself and so they are important imo.

I am Canadian!
12th Aug 2004, 01:42
I agree with Mmm_Pies and Frederick the Great in the fact that creeks would be good defensive positions, moreso than say an open field because as the infantry wading through the waist-deep water they cannot fire(or reload) and are completely out in the open, vulnerable to enemy fire.


Originally posted by Willmore
That's just plain pointless. In a war that is decided in tens of thousands of deaths, what would a few deaths at a creek mean ?

Q: What would a few deaths at a creek mean?
A: The halt of a potentially battle- or, for that matter, war-ending enemy advance could mean that you are given another chance to rebuild your defenses and go on the offensive in a strategic point of view. Or in a tactical point of view it could mean thousands of the finest enemy infantry being mowed down and slaughtered, giving you the momentum to attack them while they are in disarray.

And finally, wars are not decided by the number of deaths on either side, they are decided by the commanders ability to complete the real objectives he sets for himself(or herself)at the outset of the war, whether they be to maintain a defensive perimeter around their capital city or to capture the enemy's capital city and burn it to the ground.

Despite everything that I have just said, I still understand Willmore's argument and the fact that impassable rivers are MORE important than creeks, but I believe that creeks are not altogether worthless, in fact, far from it.

Willmore
12th Aug 2004, 02:34
Lets specify by what we mean by creeks first:


I consider a creek to be any body of water that is shallow enough top wade through thigh-high.
In such a creek, a soldier is not so severely burdened as to not be able to shoot a rifle or musket (especially a pre-loaded one). Such a creek in itself is a pointless defensive position, as it provides little advantage. The enemy can advance through it without being overburdened.


If you mean a creek to be a body of water that goes to your waist and higher, then by all means it is important, as the advancing troops become basically cannon-fodder. They would not be able to return fire, as the musket is not only likely to be full of wet powder, but you also can't aim with any degree of accuracy. If you know that the enemy will, or may go through such a creek, then you must put some minor defensive positions there.



Another degree of misunderstanding, is the scale of the battle. In a minor engagement, with under 1000 people on each size (real-life, not game) a creek, and he defensive positions it might give could be important. As the opposing force will more than likely have to stick together. If you know they will cross at a certain point, this gives you a good advantage.

In a massive, Napoleonic-era battle (Waterloo, Austerlitz, etc.) With up to half a millions combatants on the battlefield at the same time, a creek seems to a large degree pointless. If you see a battallion marching at you across a creek, nothing short of another batallion can stop it. And no general would put a batallion on a defensive position at a creek. Which is where my remark regarding hills, and other defensive positions came from.



By no means are creeks absolutely pointless, in my opinion, they are simply irrelevant in battles (major) of the time.

With the invention of machine guns, and other fast-loading, fast-firing guns, such small tactical position become crucial, because now a gun with a trigger-finger can mow down a platoon, but not in the Napoleonic era.

Mmm_Pies
12th Aug 2004, 09:10
they are simply irrelevant in battles (major) of the time

I agree. It has been a misunderstanding i was merely discussing about the game rather than reality/history


With the invention of machine guns, and other fast-loading, fast-firing guns

Would a Cannister fire not perform a similar function to this even though it'd be at much shorter range?

What i meant by creek was a narrow crossing, i wasn't thinking about the depth of the water, as most likely in the game it won't vary imo, but i was talking about making the enemy have to form a column to get through it. So infact you wouldn't even need cannister fire as a cannon ball would do the trick just as good.

Please feel free to correct me tho...

Willmore
12th Aug 2004, 18:08
Yes canister would work, but for canister, you need cannons, and they are far too precious to waste on creeks. Regiments were given only a few cannons, as I remember. And the effort to drag them to a creek would be immense.

Anyway, that's about all i have to say on the topic.

I am Canadian!
12th Aug 2004, 22:12
Ya, I believe it was a misunderstanding, as have so many other arguments and disputes in regards to warfare.

I was merely saying that a creek is(even if only slightly)more important than a field and I agree that a steep hill is or at least should be worth much more to the skilled commander. Of course, the tactical importance of such a creek would vary depending on the depth and width of the creek.

In conclusion, I agree that our argument was a misunderstanding and a creek is definetly not the most defendable position, but I believe that it is far from the least too.

Walter
16th Aug 2004, 06:36
Sure, every commander thinks twice before sending soldiers over water, but I mean soldiers should still be able to wade through water that just go up to their knees. War is chaos, a commander cannot control the whole battle, he can just tame the chaos, like a wild horse, if you are not carefull you will fall of, and problaby become hurt. Take that and put it to the game, sometimes chaos may emerge, and then the need of a different strategi are needed.

Willmore
16th Aug 2004, 07:40
Originally posted by Walter
War is chaos, a commander cannot control the whole battle, he can just tame the chaos, like a wild horse, if you are not carefull you will fall of, and problaby become hurt. Take that and put it to the game, sometimes chaos may emerge, and then the need of a different strategi are needed.

that just does not make any sense for me. How does falling off a horse transfer into a game .... I'm confused.

Walter
16th Aug 2004, 08:49
Sorry for the wrong words there, but a bad commander that has problem directing a strategy that outgoes the enemies strategy is a bad commander and thus he looses control and chaos and panic emerge for is side, the same about a horse tamer, if he doesn´t know what he does, he is a bad one and the horse will problaby fell that and throw him/her of. Clear enough?

Willmore
17th Aug 2004, 02:02
sort of.

In the future though, I'd avoid analogies.

Walter
17th Aug 2004, 08:31
You? yes. Me? never:D

I am Canadian!
18th Aug 2004, 21:20
"Leadership is a powerful combination of strategy and character. But, if you must do without one, do without the strategy."
General Norman Schwartzkopf

Its true, a commanders ability to exert his will upon his soldiers is very important to the outcome of a battle.

Willmore
18th Aug 2004, 22:14
The art of war is simple enough. Find out where your enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can. Strike him as hard as you can, and keep moving.

-Ulysses S. Grant

I always feel that leadership is only a plus or minus, while the army is given the grade.

I am Canadian!
20th Aug 2004, 01:52
True, but if the army attacks with no cohesion or coordination then the strength of the army is almost irrelevant.

Willmore
20th Aug 2004, 02:27
Not exactly true, as you usually don't get to the rank of general and above, without having at least the smallest military ability. And with that, the army might not be 100% effective, but it will be capable of a fight. There were very few "suicide-leaders" who had no skill, and simply destroyed their own armies.

Lonewulf44
25th Aug 2004, 17:31
Hmmmm.....I can see both sides of the aurgument. I just dont want to see battlefields either become simply a race to see who can get to the bridge first, or simply see nothing but a bloody mass of flesh at bridges. While a fight for bridges can be quite entertaining, I'm really looking for battles where tactics, lines, and troop usage will be the deciding factors. Along and coupled with Artillery, Calvery, and such...... If Pyro can keep bridges from just becoming a boring quagmire, then my hat goes off to them.

If they choose to allow units to wade water, or some water.....they could do so with a variety of options. Its been discussed about different water levels....and I agree....troops should not be able to walk over the Volgo, Rhine, or Danube. But, I would like to see rivers play a bigger parts, and this would be possible if units could cross them. Make the time it takes for units to cross a long time.....or say units that have went through water, fight less effective for a time period. I would be kinda nice to keep an enemy distracted a bridge while secretly sending some units or calvery through a shallow point to get around his/her flank. Just some thoughts.....in short, whatever they do...I hope i gameplay wise...it works well.

Long Live Prussia!

Willmore
25th Aug 2004, 19:38
Let's agree one one thing first: Bridges = a lot of deaths.

Now, bridges are also a vital strategic point. As such they must be taken. But only disciplined, high morale troops can take them. This would be realistic if nothing else.

Ragnar_NZ
7th Sep 2004, 20:44
A creek? A knee high creek? something that slows men down and prevents them from reloading while they're in it? (what are they using, bolt action rifles? They're muzzle loading muskets!) No military value at all on a battlefield of course. Don't know what you're talking about. I'd never take advantage of one.

Tell you what, a meandering S bend shallow creek could make a very interesting battlefield. Doesn't always have to be a straight line right across the middle of the battlefield.





Not exactly true, as you usually don't get to the rank of general and above, without having at least the smallest military ability. And with that, the army might not be 100% effective, but it will be capable of a fight. There were very few "suicide-leaders" who had no skill, and simply destroyed their own armies.


General and above, true, true. But please tell me, what is a commissioned officer? And how exactly did one obtain a commission, prior to World War One? By playing golf and shooting grouse and then buying one, am I correct? I mean these lifelong soldiers, they're just unsuitable, hmmm? They just don't have the talents required. No class, you see old boy. It takes a gentleman to be an officer. Skill at cribbage, that kind of thing.

Willmore
8th Sep 2004, 05:20
that's why I said general and above, since in the british army you could buy a commission up to colonel, if you waited long enough.

The case was different in other armies of the time, however, like France.

I am Canadian!
9th Sep 2004, 00:01
Originally posted by Ragnar_NZ


General and above, true, true. But please tell me, what is a commissioned officer? And how exactly did one obtain a commission, prior to World War One? By playing golf and shooting grouse and then buying one, am I correct? I mean these lifelong soldiers, they're just unsuitable, hmmm? They just don't have the talents required. No class, you see old boy. It takes a gentleman to be an officer. Skill at cribbage, that kind of thing.

Exactly. The way the king rewarded some soldiers and other non-military people was to give them a commission straight to the rank of General or even Field Marshal, even though they frequently had little or no military skills. A commander like this could easily dig a hole (military situation) deep enough that even the most skilled commander could not get the army out of.

"I always feel that leadership is only a plus or minus, while the army is given the grade."-Willmore.

Not true. To properly explain I must create an example:

A wealthy Baron of some obscure county came across a man who is known to have attempted to assassinate the king, he caught him and as a reward the King gave him the command of the fort that guarded some distant colony in the Caribbean. He is happy to take up the post and arrives to find that the base is under attack by the French. Due to his lack of experience he wastefully uses the limited resources available and he is quickly surrounded. He is new here and cannot inspire the men especially because he is a wealthy baron and they are the middle- to low-class majority. He doesn’t know enough to surrender when he is beaten and many men die fighting a hopeless battle. The moral is if the commander doesn’t know what to do, then the men don’t know what to do and if they don’t know what to do they will do nothing, allowing the enemy an innumerable amount of advantages.

So I think the formula for success is more like Skill of Men (times) Number of Men (times) Skill of General than Skill of Men (times) Number of Men + Skill of General, in other words the leadership really does matter.

Willmore
9th Sep 2004, 02:19
how about this:

success=(men/enemy_men)*(men_skill/enemy_men_skill)*(general_skill/enemy_general_skill)


this way, you have ratios, ie when you have a superiority of numbers, victory is far easier even with a moronic general. While whenever your skill, or your men's skill is worse then the oppositions, even a superiority in numbers gets undermined.

The formula is not real, but a representation of an idea.

Ideally, I would count the general's ability slightly less that.

Remember, while the general, or leader himself might be a moron, there has to be at least some men in between, officers, NCOs, etc. who know what they are doing and have enough sense of survival instinct to take initiative, and prevent a catastrophy.

Ragnar_NZ
9th Sep 2004, 07:14
How about...

a morale bonus from the "general" based upon past results, such as having won more battles than lost, or having won when outnumbered, that kind of thing. I didn't like the MTW system, where good generals gave enormous morale, attack and defence bonuses and gave the enemy massive morale penalties. Too cheesy.

I Am Canadien is right, historically, but think this: you are the general. You make the decisions. If you, as a general, choose to walk away halfway through the battle and have a coffee and dinner or whatever and just leave the men standing in the middle of the field (as yon baron did) then you deserve to lose. If you make competant decisions you should do ok. If you're a master of tactics and know all the game bonuses and how to exploit them, you will do supurbly well. If you're a master, you don't need the cheese, and if you do need it you don't deserve it. What I want is a morale bonus, so the men don't leave the field at the drop of a hat. I mean if they have a competant or good general (does it really matter how good?) they should feel more confident and more willing to obey orders. But even an excellent general shouldn't automatically turn an army of peasants into uber warriors.

On a side note, how is morale affected if you lose battles? Does it matter how you lose? Are routs different from orderly retreats? Are numbers counted? By this I mean in MTW I've had campaigns where I've been attacked by vastly superior numbers, and I've retreated, fighting defensive actions on the way, actions where the aim was to kill as many as possible then retreat with the bulk of the army intact, not to hold ground. So a few turns of this and morale shoots down and my general gets a reptuation for "fleeing from the battlefield screaming like a girl", and huge morale penalties...
Man, if I was a soldier and I went into battle at odds of 5 to one against, and survived, and not only that we killed far more men than they did, I would be ecstatic!

Arctic_Wolf
12th Sep 2004, 22:10
You're sensible about it, most people aren't. Most people in any time either see success or failure and not the sublte shades inbetween. They don't ask "Have you really won if your 5000 strong army destroyed a 500 strong army if yours lost 4500 men" or "Have you really lost if my 500 strong army chruned up 4500 enemies while they strolled back to camp?" unless it suits them.

I think in the less soldierly nobles of the 19th century(I'm probably wrong) they only see win and lose, unless to do otherwise benefits them, and that will probably be reflected in the game. Of course the army will always be sympathetic to a good leader who does his best, and if you can't control the nobles yourself, start bringing your soldiers into parliament with you.

Champagne
17th Sep 2004, 03:42
Ok I didnt read the entire thread or all the posts but I read enough.

Well, I am in good physical shape and all, and in the summer, I go cliff jumping some times. In doing so, you goto a large river that has rock cliffs on either side, find a rope swing and jump off into the river at about 20-30-40-50 feet. Some times if you find a good spot, you can jump off bridges as well. The rivers are often very large, big, and have slow or decent currents.

When in the water, it is obvious that you have to swim, and some times you will be swimming for about a mile until you find the next good area for rope swings and such. If I can do that with little to no problem, then I am sure military troops trained to be physically fit, can easily swim directly accross a river. Swimming accross a river should never be a problem as rivers are never too wide. The only problem would be keeping your gear "dry", you could still use bayonets however, but if the river was really shallow, almost stream like, then this topic should not even be discussed as soldiers would be able to hold their rifles up high and walk accross.

I know for a fact, that marines train on both land and in water. When they are trained in water, some of the training exercises are as follows, they drop 2 bricks into a 20 foot pool, you have to dive into the water, grab the two bricks swim to the top of hte water, hold the bricks ABOVE the water and swim to the other and of the pool before you come up for air. Another exercise is swimming while holding one brick over the water line, underwater, while you cross the pool. This is obviously to simulate holding a rifle out of water if swimming is a necessity. Training might not have been as "severe" in the times of napolean, but it could not have been too easy either as men of the time did a lot more physical work at home by farming and such than any one of today will ever do.

That being said, I think infantry should be capable of swimming accrosss slow moving currents and keep their rifles at the ready. However, it should weaken their morale, and weaken their melee fighting capacity as they are naturally colder, wet, heavier, and disorganized when they get to the other side of the river.

Champagne
17th Sep 2004, 03:49
Originally posted by Arctic_Wolf
You're sensible about it, most people aren't. Most people in any time either see success or failure and not the sublte shades inbetween. They don't ask "Have you really won if your 5000 strong army destroyed a 500 strong army if yours lost 4500 men" or "Have you really lost if my 500 strong army chruned up 4500 enemies while they strolled back to camp?" unless it suits them.

I think in the less soldierly nobles of the 19th century(I'm probably wrong) they only see win and lose, unless to do otherwise benefits them, and that will probably be reflected in the game. Of course the army will always be sympathetic to a good leader who does his best, and if you can't control the nobles yourself, start bringing your soldiers into parliament with you.

Along the lines of what you say, that is more along the lines of the rules of productivity. Productivity is measured by Effectivity, and Efficiency.

Effectivity being, did you accomplish the goal?
Efficiency being, how many resources were used and or wasted?

If you had 500,000 expendable men, and accomplished your goal, the mission is a success, you have won the battle. However, you can still be severely in-efficient by loosing 450,000 men in doing so.

Suppose the productivity goal had efficiancy restrictions. Whereas if you loose 450,000 men or more your mission is a failure, but you can still use them in the battle. Reasons for an efficiency restriction could be, say, after this battle is faught you will need at least 50,000+ men to take moscow, and if you loose 450,000 you wont have 50,000+ left for the next battle.

You could still win the current battle at hand, but fail the mission of preserving enough troops to win the following battle at moscow. All of this is due to the rules of productivity, Effeciveness, and Efficiency.

If you had 500,000 expendable troops, killed the enemy 500 man army but lost 95% of your expendable troops. Well the mission is still a success, as those troops were expendable and you had no efficiancy restriction saying you needed a certain number to survive the fight. All your mission is to do is to kill the enemy troops, and if you succeeded then the mission is a success. end of story.