PDA

View Full Version : Why can't they get the history right?



anthrodog
21st Jun 2005, 05:10
My real beef with IG is the inane AI and tactical representations in the game. Here are some points:

-There are only two instances recorded of a square being broken by cavalry, one being at Albuera 1811 and the other I forgot. Let's see, in one battle I did, every square was broken by cavalry that I formed. Ridiculous.
-Okay, if you want melee, play RTW. There is a major misconception that Napoleonic armies charged each other with bayonets and basically fought pre-gunpowder battles. The heavy cavalry did, that was their job(unless faced with a square) and light cavs job was to scout and harass, as well as cutting down enemy troops after they routed to keep them from reforming. Instead, lines and columns(which looked like sideways rectangles)closed to within 30 to 50 yards and unloaded until one side wavered or broke, then the opposing side would threaten and advance with bayonets. Medical histories show that there were very little bayonet wounds recorded, rather, artillery then musketry accounted for the major casualties. Cossacks II has this same problem. The exception would be fights for buildings and fortifications.
-Men did NOT fight to the last man! Way before this happened they would flee(just like in MTW and RTW). Then the Hussars and such were suppose to run them down if the opportunity presented itself.
-What is with the devastating musketry fire? Studies done show that it took on average about 400 shots to hit one guy. Instead, we have a single volley taking down 25 to 30% of a unit! In 1806, there is a recorded instance where a Prussian and French unit fired volleys at each other for 30 minutes at 30 yards. Now some would say that this would bring the battle to a crawl. True, but if units break and run after 20-40% casualties, then it wouldn't last that long.
-Most cannons fired ball shot. This is not 20th century artillery. A ball flew out and bounced through many men. They didn't do well in the mud, hence one of the reasons that Napoleon waited until 11 to begin Waterloo, waiting for harder ground where his artillery would be more effective. At less than 300 yards, cannister was used, basically turning the cannon into a giant shotgun. Charging cannons from the front was a nasty action, and many units broke before reaching the guns.

I have uninstalled IG until a patch comes out. If the developers are reading this, then please make some tactical changes, not just a speed slider and all that. Until then, the best representations you're going to find on a Napoleonic battle are Waterloo:Napoleon's Last Battle and Austerlitz, both by Breakaway Games. Sure the graphics aren't as good, but boy is the accuracy better!

Grubnessul
21st Jun 2005, 08:49
good points but I think you forget this is a game and not a simulator, some things are not correct cause it would be bad for the gameplay

Azharas Knight
21st Jun 2005, 10:35
I agree on your points except that the cannister would make artilery overpowered. Especially moral should be added, I usually take (out of habit) a 5-star army. It gets overrun alot though.

Another few points:
Th differences between empires should be bigger on the battlefield. Prussia had incredible infantry with high manouvrability (50sec to deploy an infantry battalion) but low numbers and less cavalry. Russia simply had huge armies and good cavalry. Austria had a big, all-round army. French had a very good army with a high morale, just plainly that and Englands a naval army and an expensive but professional army.

Also J├Ąger, wasn't that a Prussian battalion? They should give Austria maybe Croats and Russia Ukrainians as advanced light infantry. Maybe give Austria instead of Royal Guards, Empress' Guards (after Maria Theresia they had one I believe).

Age of Reason
21st Jun 2005, 11:38
A lot of these points are included in the patch suggestion thread, so I bet the mods are taking full notice.

As for historical accuracy, with games, and movies, its almost impossible to b 100% exact. They have to make the game practical, and it also has to be fun to play for those who aren't die hard Napoleonic tactic fans. However, I don't think that makes the game not playable, or not good. I know the character Maximus was made up for the movie Gladiator, and I know the Emporor Commudus did not die like that, but Gladiator was still a kickass movie.

If they made IG 100% historical accurate, no one's computer could run the game, or the graphics would look much worse than old school nintendo.

The cannons don't have as much range as I would like, but I realize why they've been toned down. Since the scale of the armies is that of 60 man battalions, if we had 100% accurate cannon fire, there wouldn't be much of a game, because one shot would wipe out the whole battalion and the battle would be over just like that.

As for melee, the farther you progress in the campaign and the more experienced guys you have, you get less and less melee. I'm in the year 1812 in my campaign and I can't remember the last time I had a melee with troops against troops.

As for morale and fighting to the death, I agree with you here. Kinda sucks that you have to sacrifce all your men sometimes (or a newly promoted Captain or General). They need to fix that one.

There are a few other issues that I have with the game, but overall I find it enjoyable and the graphics are beautiful. But hey, that's just my opinion. Each man is free to form his own.

Cpt.HooK
21st Jun 2005, 12:26
good points but I think you forget this is a game and not a simulator, some things are not correct cause it would be bad for the gameplay

I would have said the same thing :)

Developers have to make a balance between making a game realistic and making it playable for newbies.

anthrodog
21st Jun 2005, 17:35
I agree with the gamability(sp?) aspect, but I think the corrections I mentioned would not take that away. Besides, it would be good for 'non-grognards' to learn a little about Napoleonic tactics, which are fascinating. BTW, anyone here game Napoleonics in miniature? Also, artillery is powerful, as it should be, but loads slower, and a volley from it should be devastating. Napoleon, being an artillery officer in his youth, knew the power of this arm. Thus the move from only regimental guns to full batteries so that the firepower would be seriously increased. The Russians were really big on large batteries, but never fully standardized this arm, compared to the French with the Griebeaval system, etc.This is where flank attacks and cavalry come in, as well as particularly hard troops for hitting artillery. As for the game being fun, I do agree(my Russians destroying the Mamelukes and working their way into Spain), I just need that patch to push my anal retentive side over the historical hump and convince some of my friends to buy it.
I failed to mention national differences as Age of Reason pointed out and this is a must have. Jager is a German term for 'hunter', but the term was also adopted by the Russians, both referring to light troops, with the Russians by 1812 jagers being the equivalent of French voltigeurs. The Austrians would have Tyrolians and such doing that duty.
I haven't been able to figure out if the modders can access the AI portion of the game to change more than just uniforms. Is it hard coded? Boy, it would be great if they could put out the type of mods that have come out for the Total War series. This would extend the life of the game tremendously and get other 'historical purists' interested. Lets do hope.

Nial
21st Jun 2005, 18:23
Not sure, because I wasn't in your game. *laugh* But are you sure the square was fully formed at the moment the cavalry impacted it? This makes all the difference in this game. I have never had a fully formed square broken. Just a thought. :)

giskard
21st Jun 2005, 18:41
Actually Cannon had come a long way by this era.

Is anybody familar with the story behind the American National Athem ?

Well the fort was bombard by the English fleet that used exploding rounds fired from Cannons onboard the ships. The Americans didnt have anything like it at the time but the British did. We had already found a way to make cheap cannons earlier out of Iron and where making good progress in this era.

These where the super weapons of the day.

The story is actually a good one, even though we lost. In fact i'll post some stuff about it below.

They did a good job in putting it to music and adding an emotional twist to it. Very British of them I thought :)

Before anybody says typical yanks, we English did this all the time and where probably the masters of it and might still be even today. So alls fair here. Even our defeats are made to look like glorious last stands.

This was one occasion where the USA showed they could be just as good at it. I believe Custers last stand is another example.

The words where put to an old english drinking song and came out rather well if you know the story behind it.

To set the scene.

IF your English like me then do not think George Bush when reading this, it will taint your view of the events.

I believe it was Baltimore or some place like that. They had the Entire english fleet bombarding the fort shortly after the Americans had invaded canada and burnt down the goverment builds up there.

So the English where in a mood for revenge. The general belief was that they would have Burnt the town to the ground and killed many of its citizens.

So if the Fort fell, the city would die.
The commander wanted to be sure the English would see the Fort and Engage it. So he had a huge American Flag made and sure enough the English fleet saw it and attacked the fort.

The bombardment lasted all day and all night.

To cut a long story short, next morning everything went quiet for the first time since the battle has begun. The people of the town didnt know who had won. If they had lost they would die. So on guy on board merchant ship looked across the water to the fort, looks to see if the Flag was still flying.

Which gave rise to this verse of the US national Athem.



On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?

Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream:
'Tis the star-spangled banner! Oh long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!


This inspired the man on the ship to write the words to what would become their national Anthem at some time in the 1930s i believe.

The Truth is, the Americans fought of the land assault but the Fleets attack ended when they ran out of ammo.

Even so, with all that was at stake, you have to admit, its a great story and a great song.

Here are the words.

I am not a pro or anti US type of guy, im more a fairs fair type that loves history. So I find this story extremely interesting.



Oh, say can you see by the dawn's early light
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars thru the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?

Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream:
'Tis the star-spangled banner! Oh long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion,
A home and a country should leave us no more!
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!


Giskard

mongoose8
21st Jun 2005, 21:09
whats wrong with George W.? gosh...u libs are everywhere

anthrodog
21st Jun 2005, 21:24
I happen to like George Washington. I also like the British. In fact, the French are my favorite.

Queeg
21st Jun 2005, 21:32
The cannons don't have as much range as I would like, but I realize why they've been toned down. Since the scale of the armies is that of 60 man battalions, if we had 100% accurate cannon fire, there wouldn't be much of a game, because one shot would wipe out the whole battalion and the battle would be over just like that.

Agreed. I initially thought artilley range was too short, but after playing the game awhile I'm now comfortable with the balance. If they extend the range, they should also decrease the effectiveness. I'm not sure that's worth the effort, though. There are other, more pressing issues.


As for melee, the farther you progress in the campaign and the more experienced guys you have, you get less and less melee. I'm in the year 1812 in my campaign and I can't remember the last time I had a melee with troops against troops.

Thanks for confirming this. I've been something of a lone voice on this up to now. Late-era battles are definitely not melee-fests. I've fought several battles where there was no melee at all. So experience and doctrine, together with terrain, do matter.


There are a few other issues that I have with the game, but overall I find it enjoyable and the graphics are beautiful. But hey, that's just my opinion. Each man is free to form his own.

My sentiments exactly.

Queeg
21st Jun 2005, 21:33
Not sure, because I wasn't in your game. *laugh* But are you sure the square was fully formed at the moment the cavalry impacted it? This makes all the difference in this game. I have never had a fully formed square broken. Just a thought. :)

Me neither.

giskard
22nd Jun 2005, 03:48
whats wrong with George W.? gosh...u libs are everywhere

ROTFL.

Its good to see the name Bush come up and the conversation not go down the usual road. :)

Im really beginning to like you guys :thumbsup:

giskard

SharpFish
22nd Jun 2005, 09:39
whats wrong with George W.? gosh...u libs are everywhere

He's a shaved chimp in a suit, an imbecile and a mass murdering warmongering proto-Fascist, thats what.

And those "liberals" you keep finding are just normal people rather than Republican clones.

joxer31
22nd Jun 2005, 13:54
He's a shaved chimp in a suit, an imbecile and a mass murdering warmongering proto-Fascist, thats what.

Now be nice. GWB has been bundle of laughs since he first took office. Its a great change of pace to see a president who has not come from the cookie cutter predecessors. A man who shows his flaws with pride. No, I did not vote for Bush either time but I still like the man, just not the president.

But getting back to gameplay, I love battles in the second era where countries mostly abandon the militia. They are the worst armies to fight because of melee ability which seems only bested by cavalry. Hussars are the best at dispatching groups until I get heavy cavalry. I have seen 1 unit of Hussars destroy 3 militia groups at once. The Hussars 5 stars but they new their business.

Mike_B
22nd Jun 2005, 14:13
Just keep this forum IG related, no need to start a political discussion as they seldom end well.

Dhappy
22nd Jun 2005, 16:57
"What is with the devastating musketry fire? Studies done show that it took on average about 400 shots to hit one guy. Instead, we have a single volley taking down 25 to 30% of a unit! In 1806, there is a recorded instance where a Prussian and French unit fired volleys at each other for 30 minutes at 30 yards. Now some would say that this would bring the battle to a crawl."

Provide a reference if you're going to say something that outrageous. What a load of CRAP.
I study at WAR at kings coll London before you even consider describing your History Channel background experience matey.

PS. Have you even seen a musket fire?
Sure, behind earthworks or fortification coupled with some seriously poor visibility I could begin to accept 400 shots per man. But when you are considering gameplay in IG, where units meet in open field to exchange fire (and give the result you describe) of course men fall like dominos - just like they did in reality. Much like you would if I fired one musket shot in your general direction :)
Are you even aware there's a serious loading time involved inbetween musket shots? If one man, the best gunman on the planet, were to fire off 400 rounds - he'd be there for most the day.

Thus, are you expecting us to sympathise with you when you claim such a thing is 'history'? The very idea of two battalions firing off over, what, 300 thousands rounds at each other, from 300 yards for the entire day is bloody proposterous.
Get lost. You are just losing the game by the sounds of it.

anthrodog
22nd Jun 2005, 18:19
Yowser, Dhappy seems upset with me. I would have to find the reference but I don't think I want to spend the time, but if you don't believe me mate, be mad at the author who made this 'preposterous' claim. It might have been Nosworthy. As for the History channel, I barely watch it. Too much American 20th century programs for my liking. Considering that none of us were alive during the period, nobody truly has a claim to being ultimately correct. I'm not losing the battles, just wondering why I feel like I'm being faced by rifled guns. I'll ignore you from now on and have more intelligent debate with others. :D

Dhappy
22nd Jun 2005, 18:30
Right, intelligent conversation.. this is coming from someone who, apparantly, still believes late 18th cent. armies had logistics capable of hauling billions of rounds across continents? That took something called automation sunshine.

I'm not angry with you. I just hate seeing people spouting complete turd and passing it off as history. If you want to do that, REFERENCE it :)
ps. theres more than one variant of the english language. dunno about you but i'm using the original.. ENGLISH.

Scourge011
22nd Jun 2005, 19:42
Several points:

First about the gameplay, and the "accuracy" thereof. I believe this game does a good job balancing it out.

Previous posters are correct about the Square. I have never lost a square that's fully formed to charge--also be aware that the Square also repels infantry charges, so they are good against Militia as well.

Yes, I too hate the melee of the first era. It's completely unrealisitic, both historically and gameplay-wise. Historically, because we all know that men didn't go running around with clubs and beating up too many professional armies. It's unrealistic game-play wise, because these Militia units cost less than the other gunpowder infantry units, and their stats are lower in every category but can still take on several more disciplined battalions at the same time--and still come out with survivors.

However, without these units, the more expensive units would be too hard to obtain in the first few years, and as a result would prejudice the game towards those nations that start with a lot of gold and pop points. Or worse yet, bring the game to a stand still for the first five or so years, which would be much more boring. So I can see why they are the way they are, I believe they can be fixed, but it's not one of my major concerns.

In regards to morale, I agree with ya there. There is a very basic morale system implemented--being that sometimes the AI decides to hit escape on its virtual keyboard during the battle, cedeing victory to you, but out of over fifty battles I've had, only 3 times did they retreat during the battle. Pyro should alter the ratio of strength of the opposing armies the game uses to determine when its beaten, so retreats happen more often. Even the most base MP player knows that those 24 men inside that farm house are gonners when opposed with 300 soldiers, so why prolong the fight?

About artillery: Are you referring to Howitzers? Exploding shells are quite common for this time-period. They weren't shells that detonated on impact, they had a long fuse lit prior to loading, and later timed fuses. Most often they would go off over the heads of the soldiers, spreading shrapnel down on them, killing many. I just consider the impact explosions in the game as part of the "Hollywood Effect." It's not necessarily accurate, but symbolic of what really happened.

I also agree, adding cannister shot (or cannister shot with ranges more than say 3 screen inches) would greatly over power them.

And now about the history mentioned.

I hate to break it to ya, but the figure you stated is grossly incorrect, as I am a history student, and a military buff, and happen to know the study that created the statistic.

The study was done about the American Civil War--the researchers were American, but wanted to see how accurate Napleonic weapons were. They felt the actual series of conflicts during this era were "too confusing" to get accurate figures on, as some battles were fought after peace was declared, some wars never really ended, and some countries imported their ammo, and no one actually recorded how many rounds exactly were fired. So they settled on the the American Civil War as the armies used Napoleonic tactics, the conflict had a clear ending and a beginning, and the ammo was domestically produced.

That's problem number 1, as any real researcher would have been able to find all the relevant information from the European countries anyway.

Problem number 2 occured when the study did not take into account how supply systems work as Dhapper alluded to in his post about transportation. The "historians" made a logical assumption (logical being used loosely) that every round manufactured during the war was eventually shot during the war. Any reasonable person knows this can't be true--much of the ammunition was stored in warehouses, and as every General on either side will tell you, that's where most of the ammo spent the duration of the war. Some of it made it onto trains, and less of that made into horse carts, and even less of that made it to the front lines. Then some countless rounds were rained on and rendered useless, or seized, or destroyed somehow. So much of what was manufactured never made it out the end of a muzzle.

Problem 2 is that the study thought that every kill was due to a musket round, and not artillery or the rare instance of hand-to-hand combat. So that immediately skewed everything.

Problem 3 is that the study did not count "hits." That is, they only counted battlefield deaths, and not wounds or its complications as casualties. As any veteran of any war will tell you, far many more people are taken out of action because of maiming and severe wounds, than instantaneous deaths resulting from a good shot from the enemy, and the American Civil War was no exception.

So there ya have it. That study is bull, and should not be believed. Furthermore, I black-powder shoot with comparable replicas of the era, including the Brown Bess and I don't mean to brag, but at 40 yards I can get my round somewhere on the paper of a single human sized target. Actually, that's nothing to brag about, as anyone with a little experience can do that, and soldiers of that era would be even better than any contemporary enthusiast, such as myself.

Therefore, I find the kill ratio very realistic and balanced.

For all these reasons, I find that Pyro did a great job, and I would heartily recommend this game to anyone thinking of purchasing it. At any rate, it has a polished feel out of the box, and the software works like it should--which makes it head and shoulders above many other games on the market, I'm sad to say.

anthrodog
22nd Jun 2005, 20:21
Thank you Scourge. I read that statistic years ago and maybe it did refer to the ACW or hits at over 50 yards. So is it true that over 50 yards the accuracy dropped dramatically? And again, logistics are the sinews of war. It's amazing they were able to maintain combat efficiency at all.
Being distracted whilst writing my starting post, I forgot about the howitzers, yet showing ball rounds as the majority shot type would be much more in line with what I have read or maybe I'm just tired of the Hollywood 'effects'. Btw, what period are you majoring in? I concentrated on the Classical to Dark Age period, with an emphasis on warfare. Cheers.

Scourge011
22nd Jun 2005, 21:12
Well, about logistics, I perhaps went a little overboard in satirizing the study. The measures they employed weren't necessarily "ineffecient," just the whole process was slower.

My father in the War, recalls many times when his Sarge would order him to make the dangerous venture to the Ammo truck (or a stack of ammo crates in a wide fox hole) to get a crate of supplies for the group. They had to reload their clips and chambers after very few minutes of fighting. On the other hand, back in the nineteenth century, soldiers would run out of ammo only after prolonged periods of fighting, because it took so darn long to reload. If we accept the figure of "three rounds a minute" which sketchy, too, but for the sake of argument we'll accept it, and each soldier had 60 to 80 rounds at a time, then he would have to fight 20-35 minutes just to run out for the first time. As someone already mentioned, fighting continuosly for that long was unheard of. Usually battles ended before the need for more ammo became severe. In fact, if anyone here has watched the movie "Gettysburg" about the AMC, if you aren't familiar, there is a point where a colonel holding a hill (he's been holding it for a whole day, and now it's noon on the second day) just then starts running out of ammo--and men. He has no one to send out for ammo, and the hill is too steep for the horse and cart to climb, so he is forced order a bayonet charge down the hill to drive away the Confederate attackers. The episode is called the "Battle for Little Round Top" if anyone wants to read more about it.

About accuracy and 50 yards...well, that's all a matter of comparison. Like I said, I can put a ball somewhere on the paper of a human target at 40 yards. Typically the ball doesn't go where I've aimed exactly--in the general area, yes, but not bull's eye on, no. Naturally the farther away the target is, the less accurate the shot will be. The whole reason why men lined up and fired at eachother, was to produce a volume of projectiles. In theory, every soldier could miss his intended target, but given the thickness of the body of men infront of him, his bullet will hit something.

It really depends on how far "dramatically" is. If "dramatically" is several yards off the individual target, then yes, it is not recommended to shoot at a distance greater than 50 yards. However, if "dramatically" means "will this bullet hit someone, somewhere in this infantry formation that extends for several hundred meters and is several yards deep?" Then the answer is no--that bullet is still accurate enough to crash into something important.

Gelatinous Cube
22nd Jun 2005, 22:45
"What is with the devastating musketry fire? Studies done show that it took on average about 400 shots to hit one guy. Instead, we have a single volley taking down 25 to 30% of a unit! In 1806, there is a recorded instance where a Prussian and French unit fired volleys at each other for 30 minutes at 30 yards. Now some would say that this would bring the battle to a crawl."

Provide a reference if you're going to say something that outrageous. What a load of CRAP.
I study at WAR at kings coll London before you even consider describing your History Channel background experience matey.

PS. Have you even seen a musket fire?
Sure, behind earthworks or fortification coupled with some seriously poor visibility I could begin to accept 400 shots per man. But when you are considering gameplay in IG, where units meet in open field to exchange fire (and give the result you describe) of course men fall like dominos - just like they did in reality. Much like you would if I fired one musket shot in your general direction :)
Are you even aware there's a serious loading time involved inbetween musket shots? If one man, the best gunman on the planet, were to fire off 400 rounds - he'd be there for most the day.

Thus, are you expecting us to sympathise with you when you claim such a thing is 'history'? The very idea of two battalions firing off over, what, 300 thousands rounds at each other, from 300 yards for the entire day is bloody proposterous.
Get lost. You are just losing the game by the sounds of it.


You say you study at a University? You sound like a 12 year old trying to sound bigger than his britches to me. It could easily take 400 shots to hit a man with smoothbore muskets in the midst of battle, which would often get so smoky that (According to some Civil War general or another) "The enemy looked like fleeting shadows flickering in and out of sight."

If we were talking about Rifled Muskets, perhaps you'd have some claim to be such a ****, but during this game's timeframe it was still mostly Smoothbore muskets, and it did take an awful lot of time to inflict heavy casualties. Units were almost NEVER wiped out like they are in IG. Two regiments would line up not far from eachother, and blast away until one side broke or ran--at which point the winners might threaten with Bayonet Charge to make sure they keep running, or actually do a Bayonet Charge to inflict more casualties.

The original poster has the right ideas, and I agree with him 100%.

*edit*

To be absolutely clear, nobody is telling you that they DID fire 400 rounds to hit a man. Otherwise we'd see completely devested units, like in IG. The fact that you take that literally, and think he was talking about them actually hauling 400 rounds to hit one man into battle, shows a lack of comprehension.

Fiddlerpig
22nd Jun 2005, 23:19
Agree 100%, Cube.


"The enemy looked like fleeting shadows flickering in and out of sight."

That's from the Red Badge of Courage. ;)

Gelatinous Cube
23rd Jun 2005, 03:19
Agree 100%, Cube.



That's from the Red Badge of Courage. ;)

Ah, what's that? I first heard that quote while watching a documentary on the Civil War, so that kind of stuck with me.

Fiddlerpig
23rd Jun 2005, 03:41
"The Red Badge of Courage" is a book by Stephen Crane about a green soldier's experiences during the Battle of Chancellorsville in the Civil War. Very good book, I highly recomend it. ;)

Dhappy
23rd Jun 2005, 13:32
Right, I might sound 12 chum. But I'm 21. So it doesn't really bother me what comment you make. On the whole I think everyone on this post is a serious history channel buff and knows bugger all.

Fiddlerpig
23rd Jun 2005, 17:16
You thought one man actually shot 400 rounds; this says boutloads about your intelligence and comprehension skills.,,,,

Gelatinous Cube
23rd Jun 2005, 22:57
Right, I might sound 12 chum. But I'm 21. So it doesn't really bother me what comment you make. On the whole I think everyone on this post is a serious history channel buff and knows bugger all.

And what's wrong with the History Channel? I'm attending college right now, Majoring in History. My passtimes include reading books on the Civil War, and watching the history channel whenever they show something relevant.

Currently I'm reading the first book in "The Story of Civilization" by Will Durant. It's rather good so far, I highly recommend it if you're as as old as you say you are.

Fiddlerpig
24th Jun 2005, 00:38
Most of the things shown on the history channel don't even involve history, lol. All they show anymore are programs involving alien encounters, food, engineering, sports, and cars. Not very interesting to me, which is why I hardly watch the "History" channel anymore.

5/77 Armd
24th Jun 2005, 00:45
Just like MTV doesn't play music videos anymore....Allright I'm gettin' off topic.

Fiddlerpig
24th Jun 2005, 00:53
Exactly. :D

Gelatinous Cube
24th Jun 2005, 04:02
Most of the things shown on the history channel don't even involve history, lol. All they show anymore are programs involving alien encounters, food, engineering, sports, and cars. Not very interesting to me, which is why I hardly watch the "History" channel anymore.

Somewhat, yeah. Most of the things about UFOs are just things about the history of UFO sightings and whatnot. They've been showing a hell of a lot of WWII stuff lately (too much, IMO), and they've got some good series'.

Would be nice if they'd cut the crap and stick to history, however.

DukeofSerbia
24th Jun 2005, 17:40
Must be add MORAL in battle and difference between type of units. Cossacs are same as Lancers?! Cossacs were elite Imperial Russian cavalry but not in game.

Glen PC
24th Jun 2005, 18:24
Dont tell me its for gameplay, im a war gamer, if games workshop can recreate the tabletop antics of warhammer, why cant developers recreate tabletop for napolionic games, they used to (hex games). I bought Cossacks 2 and had to take it back, it was horribly inaccurate, and reading on this board before Imperial glory shows similar problems, maybe if the games were combined, it wouldnt be half bad.

I loved Fields of glory, it wasnt perfect but it was as good as it could be. This reminds me of the startrek game, Starfleet command, now the tabletop version id loved and played for years, (the original with little cardbord squares with ships drawed on) but the computer game, lacked any of the feel of being a commander, you had in the original.

Anyway back to the point, I want the computer game to be fun, but the type of people who are going to buy napoleonic war games, are going to want accuracy, and history, so coloured facings, unit names, correct reloading times, 4 shots a minuit with good units with muskets, and 2 per min with riflemen, ability to fire while prone with riflemen etc, it doesnt matter if it weighs the game, you give the units a cost, and let recreationists decide.

anthrodog
25th Jun 2005, 03:21
I agree Glen. I don't see how making a game historically accurate would ruin this game. The 'realism' mod for RTW makes a TREMENDOUS difference in the look and historical accuracy but does not take away the fun of the game, in fact, it enhances it. The developers boasted about this being a historical game that historians would drool over. Well, hopefully they're reading the posts on this forum and are making some changes that will appease the diehards like me.

Gelatinous Cube
25th Jun 2005, 03:35
I agree Glen. I don't see how making a game historically accurate would ruin this game. The 'realism' mod for RTW makes a TREMENDOUS difference in the look and historical accuracy but does not take away the fun of the game, in fact, it enhances it. The developers boasted about this being a historical game that historians would drool over. Well, hopefully they're reading the posts on this forum and are making some changes that will appease the diehards like me.

Amen. And Rome: Total Realism is a good example, as you say. Not only does it add to the historical correctness, but it greatly enhances gameplay. The argument that too much historically correct content will take away from gameplay is one of the first signs that I might be talking to a moron.

BodyBag
25th Jun 2005, 08:02
Hi guys

This is my first post, but I had to comment on the accuracy of the musket.

At the very best the musket was an inaccurate weapon. Toward the close of the eighteenth-century, the Prussian army conducted some field firing experiments with their own musket which differed little from its French counterpart. After setting up a canvas target 100 feet long by 6 feet high to simulate an enemy unit, they drew up a battalion of line infantry at varying ranges and ordered the men to fire a volley.

At 225 yards distance, only 25% of the shots fired hit the target. At 150 yards the number was 40% and at 75 yards, 60% of the shots told. It would appear therefore that most troops were killed or wounded by artillery fire or "casual" bullets.

Misfires were experienced on an average of once out of every six shots, and once the barrel became fouled, the rate of fire dropped to four rounds in three minutes.

I think that Eidos spent all their ressources in making this a very pretty game, but neglected the tactical battles. That would be allright in a game, but Eidos sold this one by claiming how historical accurate the battles would be, and that is just BS.
Everyone who knows just a little bit about Napoleonic warfare can see that the battles in this game are a joke, and any similarity with history is purely coincidental!

I don't see Eidos completly redoing the tactical battles in a patch, so we Napoleonic-fans must return to "Austerlitz-NGB" for some realistic gameplay (with dated graphics), and play IG whenever we want something pretty to look at.

Cheers,

JayDee
25th Jun 2005, 12:58
ok, short of getting into the p*ssing contest in this thread I'll say my piece.

IG is a game, not a simulator. All games strike a balance between reality and gameplay, opinions differ just where to draw the line is all. If you don't like the game then you don't like it, that's fine. Bellyaching about it here isn't going to change that.

As for a lot of what has been said about the historical accuracy of musketry damage etc, well there are a lot of theories and many studies and none of them have anything like a definitive answer to that question. In fact my rule of thumb is 1,000 musket shots for each casualty (not deaths, but casualties) and that is a figure many leading authorities would not argue against particularly seriously (Chandler as an example). I would also accept other ratios, but as I said, nobody actually knows, nor can they - short of having a period war to test the idea out.

One last thing: I have lectured on this subject so feel free to argue or to disagree, I welcome it in fact as debate moves opinions and knowledge forward, but do so with an informed viewpoint, not name calling and childish ranting. It makes you look foolish and diminishes your actual argument.
JD

Eruan
25th Jun 2005, 13:36
A thousand musket shots for one casualty, you're insane. Maybe if they are separated by many miles yeah, but up close, especially those were not primitive muskets used earlier even in the Cromwell days, those were pretty good rifles. Actually if you look at the american civil war, you had lines of dudes running onto each other, about 85% of those lines would fall against straight shots from the opposing force, and more from cannon fire.

Yorkie
25th Jun 2005, 14:32
Right, I might sound 12 chum. But I'm 21. So it doesn't really bother me what comment you make. On the whole I think everyone on this post is a serious history channel buff and knows bugger all.

Ooooh that stings abit fella. Dont go tainting everyone with that brush. Im not a student at Kings Collage or Sandhurst and dont specialize in your era but i am a student of history.

JayDee
25th Jun 2005, 15:20
A thousand musket shots for one casualty, you're insane. Maybe if they are separated by many miles yeah, but up close, especially those were not primitive muskets used earlier even in the Cromwell days, those were pretty good rifles. Actually if you look at the american civil war, you had lines of dudes running onto each other, about 85% of those lines would fall against straight shots from the opposing force, and more from cannon fire.

It may sound insane, but that's a fair figure based on typical firearms combat at the time, and not 'many miles' of course, but at or about 100 yards since that was the musket's maximum useful range. They were not rifles though as you say, they were (almost exclusively) smoothbore unrifled muskets. The Brits had 2 notable rifle regts. and the Austrians tinkered with using air rifles (no, seriously), but they were considered ungentlemanly weapons at the time. Also the earlier era weaponry you mention (Cromwellian and before) would be wheellocks or arquebus weapons and not true muskets in the sense we are generally referring to in this thread.

If we look at the ACW we could say that yeah (although this thread is about IG and Napoleonic era combat really), but even then your figure of 85% casualties from volley fire is a bit steep I would say. Not many ACW engagements list actions of that intensity such that it would result in loss of life from musketry of that order.

Cannon would indeed account for greater loss, much of it through lines breaking rather than direct injury (as so many commentators would agree) due to loss of morale moreso than loss of blood I would say.

anthrodog
25th Jun 2005, 15:37
The Napoleonic era is quite fascinating and very colorful and full of controversy(what period isn't?). However, as I said earlier, I do not believe that correcting a few well recorded examples(pick up any book on Napoleonic tactics or 1st person accounts) of fleeing troops or devastating cannister fire would detract from the game experience. The strength of a game such as this would be to draw in more folks in creating an interest in the period and possibly move on to miniatures play or reanacting. Many people rely too much on movie representations from Hollywood, not the greatest source of 'reality' except for the exceptional jobs being done to get uniforms and the gritty look.
My beginning post should have been more clear concerning the musketry.Yes, I am no expert on musket fire, and rely only on what I have read. It's just that in the game, tied in with people's complaints about battles moving too fast, the units just waste each other in two or three volleys, and it would be more 'satisfying' if the musket exchanges lasted longer and resulted in one side breaking and running, much as they do in Austerlitz and Waterloo:Napoleon's Last Battle(the Breakaway games). I have to agree that the accounts seem to vary widely on how effective musket fire was and a happy medium needs to be found.
There is no way that us 'purists' are not going to compare and comment on how a game represents a historical period, but I would look beyond some of the misrepresentations if others could be corrected, such as fighting to the last man. Otherwise, I am glad a game such as this came out and view it as a step toward what I would eventually love to see, being a Marshal in charge of your corps, working on logistics, division and battalion morale, keeping the average soldier happy, counting and making up for casualties caused by disease and battle and trying to get that special favor where you can be Davout at Auerstadt(rather than guarding fortresses in Germany!).
So far, I have not read if anything beyond skins and campaign settings are moddable(?), but I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

ArmoredCav
27th Jun 2005, 19:15
Obviously, any period piece game is going to be a balancing act between realism and entertainment. For the most part, Eidos developers should be commended for their work. However, I agree that a couple more realistic changes should be implemented:

- a basic morale system, wherein units under fire from numerous enemies, or having suffered heavy casualties in a short period of time, should withdraw or flee. No more militias charging into my ranks after being raked with howitzers for the last five minutes.

-The AI should retreat much more often, not fight to the last man. I mean the battle as a whole, not just individual units (which would be taken care of by morale system.)

-Cavalry should be able to disengage. In real life they could charge in and out. But in IG, if they fight one unit, more often than not they end up fighting the whole army.

-More power to muskets against charging units. A charging militia unit should not get through 240 muskets arrayed against it.

Those small, easily patcheable things would really help IG and make the battles far more dependent on tactics and finesse, rather than just brute force.