Thread: Re: Colours of Uniforms

Re: Colours of Uniforms

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    11

    Re: Colours of Uniforms

    Wasn't the difficulty in distinguishing between friend or foe a feature of warfare at that time?

    As far as possible correct national and regimental uniform colours should be used. I agree with Termite that players can rise to the challenge or demands of a game with particular standards. The Napoleonic Wars are a famous period of early modern history and an accurate depiction of the armies and navies could make it useful as something that can help to inform and educate as well as entertain. There is prestige and kudos to be gained in this sort of thing and I think that this aspect has so far been neglected by game manufacturers.

  2. #2
    I assume you wanted to reply, not start a new thread.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    11

    Unhappy

    You assume correctly. I clicked the wrong button.....how embarassing.

  4. #4
    I'm glad someone finally agrees with me.

  5. #5
    Yes, there were many instances of friendly fire because of mistaken identity. For example, some french companies used red coats as part of their heraldry. Therefore as they advanced on an english column the english payed no heed, thinking they were an allied column coming to protect their flank. They were soon proven wrong when the french poured volley into their flank.
    Sufficed to say, they were decimated.
    -Castus Plebianus
    "War is not about dying for your country, it's about making the other bastard die for his"
    - George S. Patton
    http://img124.exs.cx/img124/3469/560..._screen001.jpg

  6. #6
    What do you think the chances are of the AI to "think" that your units are friendly ? I'd rate them nonexistant.

    Now, what are the chances of you thinking that the computer's units are friendly ? Small, but existant.

    This creates a distinct disadvantage.

  7. #7
    This may be true, but it would increase the realism. And the AI would not determine enemy or ally based on the colour of the troops Will. So there would be no problem with doing things such as mistaken identity with the game. Also I hope friendly fire is implemented so you would have to think about firing, instead of just throwing your artillery at your own lines that are in melee combat, just for the sake of destroying the enemy troops in combat with your own. With friendly fire activated, the artillery would also destroy your own troops.
    -Castus Plebianus
    "War is not about dying for your country, it's about making the other bastard die for his"
    - George S. Patton
    http://img124.exs.cx/img124/3469/560..._screen001.jpg

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    1,119
    I doubt Pyro will leave friendly fire out, but Willmore is right is definately right.

    The AI knows exactly which troops it has, where they are and it will never forget, it will never go "Ah, that unit over there must be mine, 's green.", however if you're flitting from one end of your line to the other in the heat of battle, there is a chance you will mistake an enemy unit for one of your own.

  9. #9
    That's true, but it would be interesting if there was a way to program the AI so it can't distinguish allies or enemies except based on color. Thats how it was in real warfare. You had to ask your scouts, and peer out and hope those troops to your flank rising dust clouds were yours.
    -Castus Plebianus
    "War is not about dying for your country, it's about making the other bastard die for his"
    - George S. Patton
    http://img124.exs.cx/img124/3469/560..._screen001.jpg

  10. #10
    The only way I could see friendly fire happening on a computer is maybe some troops in the crossfire during a charge or something. Other than that you could just call the units attacking your other troops off and the attack would continue. Besides, the units are supposed to obey your command right? So if you told them to fire on the far away enemy units they would keep doing that instead of turning around and attacking their friends.

  11. #11
    But what Im saying is, cannon arent that accurate, and volleys had to be within like 20 feet to be effective during that time period because the accuracy was horrible on the muskets. You had to shove the gun down your enemy's throat for it to hit him =p. So Maybe your cannon miss and bombard your own troops if your troops are engaged in a volley.Also it takes awhile to get word to your own men. One of your aides would have to ride down and tell that regiment to retreat so you can bombard the enemy's line. By then it's a bit late eh? There was ALOT of friendly fire instances in the 19th century.
    -Castus Plebianus
    "War is not about dying for your country, it's about making the other bastard die for his"
    - George S. Patton
    http://img124.exs.cx/img124/3469/560..._screen001.jpg

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    60
    Originally posted by CastusPlebian
    But what Im saying is, cannon arent that accurate, and volleys had to be within like 20 feet to be effective during that time period because the accuracy was horrible on the muskets.
    20 feet? No way! Have you ever shot a musket? I suppose no, because they weren't THAT inaccurate!!!

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1
    Hanoverian experiments in 1790 showed that when fired at various ranges against a representative target (a placard 6 ft high and up to 50 yd long for infantry, 8 ft 6 in high for cavalry) the following results were achieved at the ranges show:

    Range at 100(yd.)

    Accuracy at target
    Infantry
    75.0%
    Cavalry
    83.3%

    At 200 yards

    Infantry
    37.5%

    Cavalry
    50.0%

    Percentage of musket ball hits on a fixed target

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    60
    I've got some results of a shooting-attempt done in 1810 with different muskets on a 1,88 m high and 31,4 m long aim. 200 men fired a volley and for each distance there were different number of hits:
    ...........................................75m...150m....225m....300m

    Altpreussisches Gew. 1780....:..92.;.....64..;....64..;......42

    Altpr. Gew. 1780, modificated:...150.;..100.;....68..;......42

    Preuss. Nothard Gew. 1805...:...145.;...97..;....56...;.....67

    Neupreussisches Gew. 1809..:...149.;...105.;...58...;.....32

    French Musket 1777/02..........:....151.;....99.;...53...;.....55

    Brown Bess (New Pattern)......:....94..;..116.;...75...;.....55

    Russian Musket 1806...............:...104.;...74..;...51..;......49


    Gewehr = Gun (Musket) ; Preussisch = Prussian ; m = metres

  15. #15
    Was Brown Bess the musket used at the time ? I thought it was some other one ... I'm probably wrong.

  16. #16
    If I'm not mistaken the Brown Bess was the issued British rifle.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    60

    Cool

    No, the british army used Brown Bess muskets during the napoleonic wars as simple infantry muskets, their Rifle was called 'Baker Rifle'! But there were different kinds of Brown Bess muskets used: First the long land old Pattern, and in the later years of war mostly india and new land Pattern!

  18. #18
    Rifle, Musket all the same to me.

  19. #19
    Originally posted by The_Russian_Rocket
    Rifle, Musket all the same to me.
    Yeah.. they are all useless.. i want a Gatling or a Maxim

    Too bad they are 30 years away after the end of the timespan

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    60

    Rolleyes

    Hey! Muskets rule!
    And you probably know the difference between a musket and a rifle, don't you? Muskets are cool, hehe...ehehehehe... I need some nachos! Hehehe...