PDA

View Full Version : A two rank line



(type name here)
6th May 2005, 00:56
How exactly, if it is possible, to change the line formaition to have 2 rank lines? I remember seeing it somewhere on the tafn website, but I'm just wondering.

Cro_Knight
6th May 2005, 01:08
upgrading in yurr country

screamingpalm
6th May 2005, 01:32
ugh.....dont tell me that all the different powers can do this. PLEASE say it aint so! :eek:

Cro_Knight
6th May 2005, 01:51
no u upgrade it from a acadamy or sumthin

screamingpalm
6th May 2005, 01:56
no u upgrade it from a acadamy or sumthin


No, I mean the British and British-trained troops were about the only ones that used two-rank line. It was a main reason for their success against the French columns and three-rank line. If I start seeing all these other countries using two-rank line this game is going right in the bin, wont even make it to the game store for trade-in. :mad:

(type name here)
6th May 2005, 02:43
Now, that comment i am fully opposed because the point of the game isn't to repeat history but to create it. there are alot of things that won't stack up to historical fact. i mean you could play a democratic france! this game is based on the assumption that you are the leader and commander of a nation, if you decide to create 2 rank lines then that's yours to decide. That;s just my two cents.

Khornish
6th May 2005, 06:01
No, I mean the British and British-trained troops were about the only ones that used two-rank line. It was a main reason for their success against the French columns and three-rank line. If I start seeing all these other countries using two-rank line this game is going right in the bin, wont even make it to the game store for trade-in. :mad:

Okay, I need to take a deep breath here. :rolleyes:

Nearly all major combatants of the Napoleonic Wars had provision within their regulation manuals to fight in 2 ranks.

British regulations covering the same period called for their army to fight in 3 ranks, not two.

However, the most likely reason the British battalions fought in 2 ranks was not because of some supreme act of intelligence on the part of Wellington or some other general.

Instead, it is because the majority of the British battalions were under the regulated strength to such a degree that a proviso was encountered. Which, in effect, was a regulation requiring the understrength battalion to fight in 2 ranks when under x number of men (if I remember correctly it was based on the individual company strengths, which were usually kept as close in number to each other as possible).

You see, the frontage of a battalion was considered extremely critical and every effort was made to maintain the required frontage whenever possible.

The whole argument with the 2 rank line vs French column is based on a very flawed analysis by Oman, who later nearly corrected himself before compounding the error again.

You can read the regulation for yourself, if you choose to obtain a copy. Or, you can read Imperial Bayonets by George Nafziger who paraphrases the regulations and provides an analysis.

So, we really have a non-argument. The game isn't historically accurate, so who cares if they include such a silly thing as 2 rank fighting as an upgrade. If it's balanced by some other upgrade another nation gets, then it won't really matter overall.

screamingpalm
6th May 2005, 06:32
Interesting, I had not heard this before, I will check that out. I have read various articles speculating what reason the British two-rank line was so effective, and many other such articles that I assumed that it was standard training. I have a book I'll have to dig my nose into again that talks about the exact make-up of the British battalions, I just dont remember reading that they were ever three-rank line, but I'll take your word for it. It would make sense I guess as far as frontage and eschelon(sp?) goes.

I guess for a game, yeah there are a lot of 'what if's'. I want a decent enough game to where I could say what if Ney held his charge at this point, or what if Hill's Division did such and such. Not 'what if' every unit in the game could form 2-rank line or, what if every unit had the morale of the Old Guard. Big difference.

Anyway, I guess I was exaggerating, there are much more glaring issues besides two-rank line for sure. Sorry for ranting. :D

Khornish
6th May 2005, 06:54
Interesting, I had not heard this before, I will check that out. I have read various articles speculating what reason the British two-rank line was so effective, and many other such articles that I assumed that it was standard training. I have a book I'll have to dig my nose into again that talks about the exact make-up of the British battalions, I just dont remember reading that they were ever three-rank line, but I'll take your word for it. It would make sense I guess as far as frontage and eschelon(sp?) goes..

Oman's error is truly a tragic twist of history; a celebrated historian making a small error that is expanded upon by many more future historians.

Unfortunately, there's no record, that I know of or have read about, from anyone in the contemporary British staff coming out with directions to fight in 2 ranks because it offered superior firepower over 3 ranks.

What Oman essentially did was misunderstand the principles of French tactical evolutions and then apply that to another misunderstanding of how the British tactics in the peninsula came about, he then "systemized" it and made it into a national characteristic of Britain circa: 1810-15.

Get a copy of the Regulations. I think I saw them for sale recently via an online book store (can't remember which one, else I'd say). Barring that, you'd have to go with Nafziger's book as it really is the only one in english that covers all of the various Nation's drill regs for the period. Nafziger has a few errors in his text, which he and I discussed via email shortly after the book was published, but they were minor factual (of really very minor things)errors, and not errors of analysis.


I guess for a game, yeah there are a lot of 'what if's'. I want a decent enough game to where I could say what if Ney held his charge at this point, or what if Hill's Division did such and such. Not 'what if' every unit in the game could form 2-rank line or, what if every unit had the morale of the Old Guard. Big difference.

Yeah, well I have my own issues with IG as I'm sure you are aware. I definately agree with the morale issue. I hear people saying "well it's just a game", but they then fail to recognize that there's been games for the Napoleonic Wars for many years (board, miniature, and computer) and each of them recognized morale as being an important factor in the combat equation and thus covered it appropriately.

Cheers!

screamingpalm
6th May 2005, 07:15
Thanks again for the info, was wondering if these regulations are anything to do with the "Rules and Regulations for the Formations, Field Exercise and Movements of His Majesty's Forces" that were written by Colonel Dundas ( 'Old Pivot') in 1788? I am interested because I recently read a very interesting article about how light infantry became a permanent part of the British Army in 1800, and in it they also talked about a misconception (which I was previously under as well) that Sir John Moore had such a big part in the makeup and training in the Army which Wellington inherited, when infact they say this is not the case. Anyway, just curious, and I will certainly check out that Imperial Bayonets.

saddletank
6th May 2005, 09:36
All this goes to show that Pyro didn't do their research into the 2-rank British line and it's cause and effect either.

Picotrain
6th May 2005, 13:25
All this goes to show that Pyro didn't do their research into the 2-rank British line and it's cause and effect either.

But who cares? Really? If a game has good gameplay, decent graphics and agreeable sound, what does it matter if France uses a two-line formation when they research it? If the game was supposed to be 100% historically accurate, then there'd be no sense in playing because we'd already know who'd win every battle, and we wouldn't even get to choose our battles. I'd much rather the developers concentrate on making a good game than making every puny detail historically accurate. Most gamers probably won't know that the British were the only to use the two-line formation, and most of those who do will probably be more concerned with playing the game than trying to critique every decision that Pyro has made. If I wanted to learn about the Napoleonic era, I'd watch a documentary on the History channel, whereas if I wanted to play a game that gives one the chance to re-live and re-write the Napoleonic era, albeit fictionally, I'd probably play a game like Imperial Glory.

Cheers,
Picotrain

Khornish
6th May 2005, 17:35
Thanks again for the info, was wondering if these regulations are anything to do with the "Rules and Regulations for the Formations, Field Exercise and Movements of His Majesty's Forces" that were written by Colonel Dundas ( 'Old Pivot') in 1788?

Yes. I believe these regs were officially adopted in 1788, but they weren't used by a force in the field until Abercromby's expeditionary force went to Egypt.

Khornish
6th May 2005, 17:40
All this goes to show that Pyro didn't do their research into the 2-rank British line and it's cause and effect either.


Well, they could have done the research and still come up with the same answer, which is why Oman's error is such a tragedy. Many historians repeated Oman's assertion in their own work.

It's kinda like the myth about the French soldiers in Egypt shooting off the nose of the Sphinx with cannon. A complete fabrication, but one that is still taught in schools as anecdotal information.

Khornish
6th May 2005, 18:14
But who cares? Really?

"SPECTACULAR LAND BATTLES
- Striking environments provide the backdrop for gruesome scenes of combat. Fully interactive Battle Maps allow you to gain a defensive advantage by occupying buildings, forests, boulder fields and more. The varying climates and terrains of the 50 plus maps dramatically change the look and feel of battles. Realistic weather effects influence your troops’ ability and will to fight

HISTORICALLY ACCURATE UNITS AND WEAPONRY
- Faithfully reproduced units, which differ from Empire to Empire, reflect the colour and pomp of the era. Authentic period formations and manoeuvres provide great tactical depth"

With marketking blurbs like this, not a few would get the wrong impression once they combare IG with actual history. Thus they wonder at the accuracy of these statements above.

There's quite a lot of details from the Napoleonic Wars that people want to see in a game. There's a desire to see and understand the synthesis of years of evolution and innovation.


...if I wanted to play a game that gives one the chance to re-live and re-write the Napoleonic era, albeit fictionally, I'd probably play a game like Imperial Glory.

IG has great graphics, sounds, and music. It has some elements of history, but a true feel for the period is missing. Which is the underlying complaint that many posters have had. It is apparent they want what is missing and they'd like to get it, else they'd not be here posting about it. Most missing elements are fairly small in scope and would require a small to moderate amount of coding. Since a number of these elements (morale, for instance)have been successfully included in other games there's an expectation so see them in IG, especially when certain elements had a significant effect on the performance of troops in battle.

(type name here)
6th May 2005, 19:50
Off topic continue your conversation here: http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=50380

Khornish
6th May 2005, 19:55
Off topic continue your conversation here...

Who died and made you topic monitor? :eek:

His [Picotrain] question and my reply pertained to the underlying reasons why someone would even post a question about 2 rank line being in IG. Or did you really not want to know whether it was in the game, and why, when you started the thread?

(type name here)
6th May 2005, 20:38
Well, my first post speaks for itself, when all of the sudden,


Okay, I need to take a deep breath here.

and poof, the topic went off topic, i'm here for all those who are interested in speaking about and only about imperial glory.

Oststar
7th May 2005, 13:47
On the topic of morale (Don't even think of policing me Insert Name) i've noticed a few times that line infantry has behaved oddly, it's as though it's a morale effect.

Morale is not in the game, which I dislike: i'd like to see ships with morale in the state of the Hermione in sea battles and units that crumble like chalk in a fist when pounded by artillery. But a few times, particularly on a modded variant of Hanover i've set up with 10 Line Infantry, 2 Grenadier and 1 elite per side, the enemy Grenadiers have formed line, fired and after a few particularly withering volleys the opposing Line Infantry just break and run as though they've failed a charge.

I am totally confused as to what is causing it: morale isn't in the game, it happens too often to be a fault and it's always a similar situation. Usually the Line Infantry begin their slugging matches and then the Grenadiers march in behind, after a few volleys the targeted Line Infantry just breaks and runs. Very odd.

Khornish
7th May 2005, 18:06
On the topic of morale (Don't even think of policing me Insert Name) i've noticed a few times that line infantry has behaved oddly, it's as though it's a morale effect.

The stickied FAQ in this forum indicates there is a morale system. I don't think Eidos would just simply lie to the public about it.

However, I think the system is either broken in the demo, or that it simply is not applied to melee (which is meant to be a fight to the death) or a combination of both.

Unfortunately, the way melee is represented in IG is a fantasy and in no way based on anything that happened historically, with the sole exception of cavalry on cavalry combat. Meaning, it was really quite rare for 2 formed bodies of troops to get into a brawl...usually once side or the other ran before actual contact was made.

Khornish
7th May 2005, 22:45
Well, my first post speaks for itself, when all of the sudden...and poof, the topic went off topic, i'm here for all those who are interested in speaking about and only about imperial glory.

The discussion was about the 2 rank line and someone's rant about it with regards to its implimentation in IG. So, the discussion was fairly topical even if you didn't want to read it yourself.

And hey, if you want to limit your own discussions to how great a game IG is, fine, that's the wonderful thing about the internet, you can choose to read or not read as you wish.

However, as IG isn't released yet, and the demo is all we have to go on other than a few previews, screen shots, and the ultra rare developer quote on these forums. Please then, allow for some other folks to draw comparisons between the IG demo ( the marketing blurbs behind it ) and other products and history.

It was nice to read in these forums that IG went gold on Friday, but unless one sifted through all the posts, it wouldn't have been known, at least through this forum.

It is a shame the development team apparently feels little need to use this forum for communicating with us. I, for one, would have liked for them to respond, or at least post in a closed topic, some further information about the game.

Oststar
8th May 2005, 09:16
The stickied FAQ in this forum indicates there is a morale system. I don't think Eidos would just simply lie to the public about it.

Really? I read through the FAQ and I saw "There isn't a morale system" or there abouts, and also "there is no morale system" and many complaints on the site are about IG lacking morale.

In any case it's strange that it only happens occasionally, it's not every time that I end up in that situation that it happens, just sometimes.

jaywalker2309
8th May 2005, 09:31
Really? I read through the FAQ and I saw "There isn't a morale system" or there abouts, and also "there is no morale system" and many complaints on the site are about IG lacking morale.

In any case it's strange that it only happens occasionally, it's not every time that I end up in that situation that it happens, just sometimes.

Aside from reviewers/TAFN no one has played anything other then the demo. There has been many changes since the demo (no i am not able to list them all as i dont have access to that kind of information) but needless to say the forums were scoured for comments, information etc..

Czar
8th May 2005, 10:39
... There has been many changes since the demo ...but needless to say the forums were scoured for comments, information etc..

Ugh?

What kind of weird screwed up Beta Test procedure is that? :mad:

Obviously, I am happy that you did this :) but you should have told us! :rolleyes:

I, for one, did not download the Demo because I have a 56k Modem (at home). But I do have access to high speed DSL and would have downloaded and provided positive feedback if I had known it would make a difference :eek:

Honestly didn't think that anything said here would make a difference due to the complete lack of feedback. Had we known - the feedback from us (gamers) to you (Pyro / Eidos) would have been different - possibly more comprehensive and you could (possibly) have made a better game.

Also, there was nothing on Naval Combat? This makes me think that it still wasn't ready (at time of Demo Release) or that you are supremely confident in it?

Having chosen to do things the way you did, you should probably have released a second demo?

Also, I hope that if you used any of Berdan's work he will be properly acknowledged, thanked and even paid :eek: .
(And yes, I know what is posted here is public info and possibly the 'property' of Eidos - but credit where credit is due)

saddletank
9th May 2005, 00:43
But who cares? Really? If a game has good gameplay, decent graphics and agreeable sound, what does it matter if France uses a two-line formation when they research it? If the game was supposed to be 100% historically accurate, then there'd be no sense in playing because we'd already know who'd win every battle,

You're missing the point. Khornish has answered your post in fine style (thanks Khornish!), but I'd just like to pick up on your last comment. Just because a whole game system is historically accurate does NOT mean every battle would play out as it actually happened. Commanders who gave the orders that led to the outcomes of battles were fallible individuals, they may have had poor reconnaissance information, subordinates had their own agendas which led to them marching slowly, they may even have been feeling sh1tty on the day, so if the game player has better health and information he'll issue different orders and a battle will proceed differently.

Historical accuracy does not mean nor imply 'historical replays'. If you've ever done any wargaming (as opposed to pc gaming) you'll know exactly what I mean.

Picotrain
9th May 2005, 02:05
You're missing the point. Khornish has answered your post in fine style (thanks Khornish!), but I'd just like to pick up on your last comment. Just because a whole game system is historically accurate does NOT mean every battle would play out as it actually happened. Commanders who gave the orders that led to the outcomes of battles were fallible individuals, they may have had poor reconnaissance information, subordinates had their own agendas which led to them marching slowly, they may even have been feeling sh1tty on the day, so if the game player has better health and information he'll issue different orders and a battle will proceed differently.

Historical accuracy does not mean nor imply 'historical replays'. If you've ever done any wargaming (as opposed to pc gaming) you'll know exactly what I mean.

So, if what you're saying is that historically accurate gaming places you in the same time period and situations, but lets you explore the what ifs, say if France successfully invaded and conquered Italy in the Napoleonic era, then you would be able to experience these battles in such a game. The option of researching a new formation, specifically the two-line formation in this example, would be another "what if". Personally, I do not find it all that outlandish that troops other than the British would use the two-line formation, not that I care anyway, but if they fight the British on a constant basis it would only make sense that they could copy their formation and use it themselves. I do not understand so many people's silly objections to this feature of the game.

Oststar
9th May 2005, 04:30
Aside from reviewers/TAFN no one has played anything other then the demo. There has been many changes since the demo (no i am not able to list them all as i dont have access to that kind of information) but needless to say the forums were scoured for comments, information etc..

Wow... edios/pyros actually read threads on the site?

I have a new favorite developer! If eidos/pyros is doing this then the odds of getting even more out of IG in the long run are very high.

screamingpalm
9th May 2005, 04:52
So, if what you're saying is that historically accurate gaming places you in the same time period and situations, but lets you explore the what ifs, say if France successfully invaded and conquered Italy in the Napoleonic era, then you would be able to experience these battles in such a game. The option of researching a new formation, specifically the two-line formation in this example, would be another "what if". Personally, I do not find it all that outlandish that troops other than the British would use the two-line formation, not that I care anyway, but if they fight the British on a constant basis it would only make sense that they could copy their formation and use it themselves. I do not understand so many people's silly objections to this feature of the game.

Well, to each his own I guess. The reason I wouldnt want this as a 'what if' is because the reason the French never used two-rank line is because their mass of columns were intimidating and their trademark (sort of). They had won many many battles with it and I think it became a sort of pride/ego thing. I dont think they really knew at the time why the two-rank line was so effective anyway. Hell, historians still argue about why it was so effective even today. So that wouldnt be my kind of 'what if', but like I say: to each his own. I wouldnt have a problem with it in the game (I just wouldnt use it for countries that didnt have it) but I would worry about seeing that in mp, and CPU using it in a campaign. Sorry if you think this is silly, but it would be silly to me to see French all lined up in 2-ranks. :p

Khornish
9th May 2005, 05:09
The reason I wouldnt want this as a 'what if' is because the reason the French never used two-rank line is because their mass of columns were intimidating and their trademark (sort of). They had won many many battles with it and I think it became a sort of pride/ego thing. I dont think they really knew at the time why the two-rank line was so effective anyway. Hell, historians still argue about why it was so effective even today. So that wouldnt be my kind of 'what if', but like I say: to each his own. I wouldnt have a problem with it in the game (I just wouldnt use it for countries that didnt have it) but I would worry about seeing that in mp, and CPU using it in a campaign. Sorry if you think this is silly, but it would be silly to me to see French all lined up in 2-ranks. :p

Uh, sorry to have to correct you, but the French did use the 2 rank line at various times. In fact, Napoleon experimented with it, but had to call off the experiments as other, much more important, things called his attention.

3 ranks had its uses during the time, but many generals in various nations, saw that it had significant short comings and would eventually have to be addressed. Principally, the 3rd rank wasn't meant to shoot as a significant increase in fratricide occured, in addition to non-mortal wounds. Unfortunately, in the excitement of combat, it was tough for non-veteran troops to refrain from firing and thus killing/wounding a lot of their friends.

There were two primary schools of thought on the French columns. The most prevalent and most widely used was the school which advocated the quick movement of troops by column which would the deploy into line at the correct time to fire a few volleys (followed up by the bayonet). However, it appears later in the wars, especially in the peninsula, that battalion commanders had some difficulty determining when the "proper time" was. With Wellington's troops on the reverse slope, there was little time to react and deploy once the British line was revealed. Also, the column seemed to become the de facto assault formation if the enemy formations were deemed shaken enough that a quick rush would see them off or if there simply wasn't enough time to deploy before the impetus was lost.

screamingpalm
9th May 2005, 05:18
Uh, sorry to have to correct you, but the French did use the 2 rank line at various times. In fact, Napoleon experimented with it, but had to call off the experiments as other, much more important, things called his attention.

3 ranks had its uses during the time, but many generals in various nations, saw that it had significant short comings and would eventually have to be addressed. Principally, the 3rd rank wasn't meant to shoot as a significant increase in fratricide occured, in addition to non-mortal wounds. Unfortunately, in the excitement of combat, it was tough for non-veteran troops to refrain from firing and thus killing/wounding a lot of their friends.

There were two primary schools of thought on the French columns. The most prevalent and most widely used was the school which advocated the quick movement of troops by column which would the deploy into line at the correct time to fire a few volleys (followed up by the bayonet). However, it appears later in the wars, especially in the peninsula, that battalion commanders had some difficulty determining when the "proper time" was. With Wellington's troops on the reverse slope, there was little time to react and deploy once the British line was revealed. Also, the column seemed to become the de facto assault formation if the enemy formations were deemed shaken enough that a quick rush would see them off or if there simply wasn't enough time to deploy before the impetus was lost.

I knew the tactics about moving up swiftly in column, screened by skirmishers, then forming line, but never heard of the French ever using 2-rank line. Learned something else from you. :D I guess my arguement is therefore invalid, sorry about that. :o

Khornish
9th May 2005, 05:53
Hey, anything you've learned from my posts was learned by me reading the works of better men than I. :)

As far as our own valid complaints about IG, I'd rather we emphasize the things that really mattered back then, as opposed to being put off by relatively minor inconsistencies or whatnot.

A whine about something trivial is going to be ignored.

A complaint about something significant, argued logically, is hard to ignore, at least by those who are intellectually honest with themselves.

It is obvious that a number of readers of these forums simply don't care about the validity of the combat models used in IG. Fine, they can delude themselves with the thought that they are playing a "Napoleonic" game, whether it is an RTS or not.

I could buy a chess set where the figures are painted to 100% accuracy as Napoleonic figures, but that doesn't make chess a "Napoleonic" wargame. It doesn't mean the game is a bad game, I like chess, but, it's not going to be sold as something other than a chess set dressed up to look like Napoleonic figures.

As it is, still more people don't care and use the phrase, "It's just a game, get over it." However, how many of them are rabid sports fans who would blow a gasket if their favorite sports simulation suddenly developed rules not in the actual sport. "Free throws are now worth 10 points" or "Corner kicks are not in the game, because we didn't feel our computer version needed them."

When suddenly its their passions that are being gored, they'll be ready to jump right up and spout off about it.

Ultimately, IG will succeed or fail depending on how the customer's needs are met.

Czar
9th May 2005, 06:06
....It is obvious that a number of readers of these forums ....
Ultimately, IG will succeed or fail depending on how the customer's needs are met.

Nicely put. Good analogy. :cool:

Mind if I copy that post and use it on other forums at a future time? :D

Khornish
9th May 2005, 08:20
Nicely put. Good analogy. :cool:

Mind if I copy that post and use it on other forums at a future time? :D

Do with it what you will. :)

"Cry Havoc and unleash the dogs of war."


Sadly, most people wouldn't understand that quote anymore. :/

Sol Invictus
9th May 2005, 15:43
I concur Kornish, Napoleon actually instructed his leaders to adopt the two rank line as well as a six rank column in 1813, but because of the looming crisis as well as institutional inertia/conservatism, not much was done.

colmde
9th May 2005, 16:14
Really? I read through the FAQ and I saw "There isn't a morale system" or there abouts, and also "there is no morale system" and many complaints on the site are about IG lacking morale..

From the FAQ:


Will there be a morale system for units as well as a fatigue factor?

Yes, morale will feature

What influence have generals?
Commanders will be a fairly major influence on units' effectiveness. Unknown is if they increase morale, or the skill of an army. What is known is that the death of a commander will affect troops. Precise effects are yet to be finalised but morale will suffer.

Khornish
9th May 2005, 18:16
I think the big complaint about morale is the fight to the death melee resolution.

Fix that and a lot of the problem is sorted.

screamingpalm
9th May 2005, 22:29
I think the big complaint about morale is the fight to the death melee resolution.

Fix that and a lot of the problem is sorted.

That's part of it, however I would like to see a system more like Rome:TW where units rout off of the map (unless rallied), and there isnt 100% casualties for one side every time.