HITS & Couriers / GCM rework of Nap Mod

I think we've all noticed how 'vanilla' th eNap Mod is with many of the features we've come to think of as 'minimum acceptable' as far as tactics and realism not being included in it.

Should we discuss what we want to add/remove from it so we have our own version?

I would like to see Kevin's firepower and morale changes so that units waver and fall back sooner and the casualty rate is less severe.

I think squares need some kind of change too but I'm at a loss what to suggest. The suggestion from last night that we have a rule that requires a square to only be formed from column of divisions is an interesting concept. Lets have some input on that.

Artillery probably needs a complete makeover; from what I understand their ranges are too long right now.

Anything else?

As we discussed yesterday, some of the formations need correction/revision. But formation changes happen instantaneously. This is a game design 'feature', there is nothing we can do to modify it. Also, there may be a way to have two different types of cavalry, heavy and light. They would have different melee characteristics. It's just an idea at this stage, Martin will have to test it out.

I'll throw the "want a nicer looking skirmish screen" request into this thread as well.

I dont think force rule on the square is a good idea: first historically it was formed also starting by line, second being a formation which worked only by direct command, it is already difficult form them in time if you are attacked from cavalry by surprise. Anyway is correct squares repulse easily cavalry, the point is that cavalry must force infantry to form square, so that they are vulnerable to guns and infantry fire.

I worked a little over some changes, mainly for let more easy charge with cavalry and infantry in column:

1 - cavalry charge: attached to command runs and the attack formation (line and div.column) the attackmarch command for force more easily the approaching to enemy; increased the charge distance to 200 yeards and automatica switching in all out assault stance (switch to hold to the last, if press retreat); set to 0 the canfight value for line and divisional column, apparently if they cannot shoot they are move likely to charge. I tested a little yesterday.

2 - infantry charge: more or less the same changes applied for the column by division: I think it works pretty well: the column attacks can be launched (especially if the unit is not engaged) without transforming it in a suicede charge because the AI can reverse the command for autodefence.

3 - I tested the large skirmisher formation of GCM mod (not the strict one, the larger one), I think Garnier designed it pretty well (of course is missing the close order company in the formation, but it is a minore problem, because anyway it doesn't do anything).

4- added some courier command for face in the various direction the formation and a direct attackmarch order.

If someone want test it here the link (be aware is a version updated respect that one I linked yesterday): http://www.sendspace.com/file/m9tw4h


PS: I suggest to do a copy of original mod (or original CSV mod directory) and place the file here.

I miss a point:

Brigade AI use column by division for march; becaue AI brigade usually take the control of troops only when near the enemy, giving orders to division commander permit to troops to march in march column, but when the enemy is near and AI brigade start to give own proper orders, she start to use column by division for march..

Update just now anohter time, now line formation doesn't change to march column for move:

http://www.sendspace.com/file/5tx9a5

Can't seem to get your links to work Mitra.

mitra wrote:Update just now anohter time, now line formation doesn't change to march column for move:

I use RebBuglers toolbar mod for the Nap toolbar by Gunship and using that, units stay in formation when they move which looks lovely, so I'm not sure this last bit is needed, if you want to use it I suggest you keep it separate from the rest of your changes in another mod since toolbars sem to be a personal thing and I think toolbar mods should be kept separate from gaameplay mods.

http://www.norbsoftdev.net/forum/napoleonic-era/39598-road-to-wagram-a-peninsular-with-baf-toolbar

As to making columns able to charge and making infantry charging easier generally, I'd be cautious about doing this or else there's a danger we'll end up with too many charges. Like in the ACW, there were many charges but most I think, didn't result in melees but with one side or the other falling back before contact or after minimal contact. I personally would like to see the melees in SoW reduced to about 10 seconds each with one side retreating at that point, and forming up further back.

Kevin - I know you said that troops wavering, falling back then reforming again to stand a little longer was more of a feature of the ACW but I 've been reading of a few Peninsular battle accounts recently where just that kind of behaviour seemed to be a common trait in Ancien Regime and Revolutionary armies as well. I'd still like to try that function (plus the much reduced casualty rate) in our Nap games.

Could we look at artillery ranges as well? For me these are the kinds of ranges of smoothbore Napoleonic artillery:

3-4 pdr = ~400-500 yards
6 pdr = ~600-700 yards
8-9 pdr = ~800 yards
12 pdr = ~1000 yards

Some guns such as the Austrians and Spanish would be at the low ends of these ranges, French and British up at the higher ends. Right now I think our artillery ranges are a little excessive.

My last comment right now is about the Baker Rifle which Gunship has only given a range of 140 yards over the smoothbore musket range of 120 yards. Given that it was used by so few troops and that those troops were not average Joes but mostly trained marksmen, I'd like to see the Baker rifle have a range out to around the 160-180-200 yard range. I don't think it'll be overkill since mostly the riflemen will be operating in 1 to 2 company strength. There's certainly accounts of men of the 95th aiming shots and knocking French officers off their horses at 200 yards plus.

try this one: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B9HfKiUYoDwzQTN1bktDcTY1dTA/edit?usp=sharing

Remain in line marching is linked to drill.csv not to toolbar. What is linked to toolbar is the attackmarch for column by division formation.

>As to making columns able to charge and making infantry charging easier generally, I'd be cautious about doing this or else there's a danger we'll end up with >too many charges. Like in the ACW, there were many charges but most I think, didn't result in melees but with one side or the other falling back before >contact or after minimal contact. I personally would like to see the melees in SoW reduced to about 10 seconds each with one side retreating at that point, >and forming up further back.

True, but what change is that really now is impossible for fresh units making a true column attack because they switch too soon in line also when not necessary. With attackmarch they switch in line or continue to press in column on the basis of context and AI decision not on the basis of automatic distance.

Do we need a charge for columns at all? Why not just march them at the enemy and when they get close they'll autocharge, won't they?

I'm still concerned that SoW doesn't handle melees correctly and units never take enough of a hit to their morale for advancing close to an enemy, until that's fixable I'd rather see fewer opportunities for players to cause melees, not more (or better/easier ones).

>Do we need a charge for columns at all? Why not just march them at the enemy and when they get close they'll autocharge, won't they?

It is the autocharge as well, only you force the movement near the enemy triggering the autocharge, if the AI doens't change is mind. The standard game switchs to line formation much before.

I tested it a couple of time during the thursday match with Grog: 1 it is almost impossible do it easily with engaged troops 2 I didn't see any advantage which was not related to use fresh troops against not fresh troops. here at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LX_EImjD4M starting at the hour 1:25 you can see how it works . Take present there is also disadvantages like the fact you cannot shoot and the morale drops more rapidly if you receive losses without making losses to the enemy. Anyway all the column attack thing is linked to toolbar so is personal.

But the same logic was applied to cavalry + in addition I set the canfight value 0 and increased the range of charge command to 200 yards. Sure charge is become more easy with horse.

At the end the Brigade AI now use division columns for move at place of march column.

Take present mine is not a mod but a test for verify the effects of changes. It is clear which we need at the end of all the process a global mod which groups all the better solutions found.

Garnier made woods in one of his new maps much slower for units to move through as though this were a map-related feature. Does anyone know if this is correct?

I'm thinking that Napoleonic combat generally avoided woods which was the province of skirmishers. Can we make woods more slow going for cavalry and artillery especially and infantry in line, but less of an onstacle for infantry in the two column types and skirmish order or are we limited once again by the fact the game only allows one blanket speed reduction for each troop type?

I'm trying to make an environment where skirmishers are actually useful and wooded terrain seems to be a good place to start but if SoW doesn't give us the flexibility...

The short answer is no.  We can make woods slow going for everyone in any formation, but we cannot discriminate.  It's one of the game's shortcomings.

Can we make woods slow going for arty and cav but not inf?

Nope.

Still might be worth doing in the Nap Mod.

How do different terrains slow movement? That is, do they reduce movement by a constant number, to a constant number or by a percentage of their base movement?

The movement modifier raises/lowers the movement rate by a constant amount.  In other words, it is added to the base speed.

I'm thinking we should probably make woods slower going for everyone then, at least to a degree - more so than the thought of fighting in woods concerned ACW troops and commanders who seemed to fight in them regardless because so much of N America was so heavily forested in the 1860s.

Napoleonic battles tended to conspicuously avoid broken terrain where possible, except villages and farms which often became strongpoints.

Since the soldiers really did try to avoid the woods while they're marching, may be a good idea to slow down everything then. Infantry can still move into them (slowly, as they're trying to maintain formation) and it could even be useful defensively but cavalry that depend on charging would avoid them like the plague.

Well it seems from Kevin's input that everyone is slowed proportionately. I wouldn't want them to become like a black hole that sucked you in and it took you the next 30 minutes to walk through but some reduction as a deterrent to going into them seems reasonable. As you say, cavalry that have no ranged attack would suffer more, which is good but then again I wouldn't want a situation where infantry commanders deliberately occupied woods so as to gain a bigger advantage vs cavalry.

Really? Because if I was facing a large number of horse while I'm the only officer who knows how to command Square in my contingent that's exactly what I'd want to do.

Which is a gamey move and exactly why we don't need it!

I don't know that it's too a-historical. I'll grant the Napoleonics tended to avoid the trees as much as possible but the tactic of foot hiding from cavalry in the trees goes back to Roman times.

Perhaps a solution could be to house-rule that you can't use close formations in the trees? That would bring back the utility of your skirmishers again...

Suggestion:

Our brigade column of divisions formation should have the flags of the units at the same spacing for the same brigade deployed in single line of battalions.

Reason:

When brigades deployed in columns of divisions they did so with the columns far enough apart that each could deploy into line and the brigade would end up in a single line of battalions in line. Crowding divsional columns more tightly together would mean they couldn't deploy and chaos would ensue.

Random waffle:

Thinking back to our game on Saturday I am still aware that we as wargamers cram our formations and units far too tightly together. Units should never overlap, unless to pass through other units and stop clear of them.

One of the things that bugs me the most is having my units deployed and fighting a battle and another player comes along and deploys his troops intermingled with mine.

I wish there was a disorder penalty for doing that, or some kind of 'hard' brigade boundary you could not deploy inside of like there is with buildings.

Grog wrote:Its a shame about some of the issues with this game and the way it spoiled at least one person's game. Perhaps we need to move towards establishing a core of trusted OOB's and push forward with a KS GUI.

Kevin and I are working on a KSNap Toolbar for our group.

Please use this thread to input your thoughts, requirements and preferences.

For example are the 2-way "rocker switch" style buttons on Reb Bugler's toolbar a good thing or a bad thing? I personally like them as they save so much button space but I also understand those who dislike them because they can cause confusion and the wrong command at a critical time. The "wheel left/right 45deg button" I think is great and shows a good use of this idea, likewise the formation buttons where one half is a "march in column then form up into this formation on arrival" and the other half is a "hold formation while marching" are great too.

The button that's half skirmish and half square though has got to go!

Note that the button block area can take 48 buttons. If we add the 3 tab markers "marching", "combat", "orders" buttons we lose 3 but gain 2 more tabs so we get 135 buttons. Ample for any situation, but with only 48 we could probably cover most situations. Remember too that button layouts can (and should) be different for the btn-sqn-gun, brigade-battery and division level units, so there's lots we can do.

Some thoughts on buttons. Can you think of any others that could be needed? Or some of these dispensed with? :

INF BTN

Form line
Form march column
Form attack column
Form skirmish
Form square

Stand up
Lie down
About face
Halt
Doubletime
Wheel left 11.25deg / 45deg
Wheel right 11.25deg / 45deg
Displace left / right
Incline left / right

Charge
Firing line advance
Firing line retire
Retreat
Short retreat

Advance 25 yds march / run
Advance 50 yds march / run
Advance 100 yds march / run
Advance 250 yds march / run
Advance to cover march / run

Use roads
Resupply

CAV SQN IS SAME WITHOUT:

SQUARE
STAND UP
LIE DOWN
DISPLACE LEFT / RIGHT
ADVANCE 25 YDS MARCH / RUN

INF BRIG

Form single line
Form single line with skirmishers
Form reinforced line
Form reinforced line with skirmishers
Form battalion march columns
Form battalion attack columns
Form battalion attack columns with skirmishers
Form column of btns in line
Form column of btns in line with skirmishers
Form l'ordre mixte
Form l'ordre mixte with skirmishers
Form squares

Stand up
Lie down
About face
Halt
Doubletime
Wheel left 11.25deg / 45deg
Wheel right 11.25deg / 45deg
Displace left / right
Incline left / right

Short retreat

Advance 50 yds march / run
Advance 100 yds march / run
Advance 250 yds march / run

Use roads
Road columns
Resupply

CAV BRIG IS SAME WITHOUT:

L'ORDRE MIXTE
SQUARE
STAND UP
LIE DOWN
DISPLACE LEFT / RIGHT
ADVANCE 50 YDS MARCH / RUN

INF DIV

Form single line of brigades, btns in line
Form single line of brigades, btns in line each with skirmishers
Form double line of brigades, btns in line
Form double line of brigades, btns in line, front brigades with skirmishers
Form single line of reinforced brigades
Form single line of reinforced brigades each with skirmishers
Form single line of brigades in attack columns
Form single line of brigades in attack columns with skirmishers
Form double line of brigades in attack columns
Form double line of brigades in attack columns, front brigades with skirmishers
Form line of brigades, btns in march column
Form double line of brigades, btns in march column
Form column of brigades, btns in march column
Form column of brigades, in columns of btns in line
Form line of brigades, in columns of btns in line
Form division l'ordre mixte
Form division l'ordre mixte with skirmishers
Form squares

Stand up
Lie down
Halt
Doubletime
Wheel left 11.25deg / 45deg
Wheel right 11.25deg / 45deg
Displace left / right
Incline left / right

Advance 100 yds
Advance 250 yds
Advance 500 yds

Use roads
Road columns

CAV DIV IS SAME WITHOUT:

L'ORDRE MIXTE
SQUARE
STAND UP
LIE DOWN
ABOUT FACE
DISPLACE LEFT / RIGHT
ADVANCE 100 YDS

ARTY BTY

Form Line
Form double line
Form column of sections
Form road column

Unlimber
Limber
About face
Halt
Doubletime
Wheel left 11.25deg / 45deg
Wheel right 11.25deg / 45deg
Displace left / right
Incline left / right

Retreat
Short retreat
Fire and retire
Fire and advance

Advance 50 yds march / run
Advance 100 yds march / run
Advance 250 yds march / run

Use roads
Resupply

Fire roundshot or shell
Fire shrapnel
Fire canister

Target inf
Target art
Target cav
Target AI choice
Target specific unit
Cease fire

ARTY DIV

As above but also:

Form column of batteries in line
Form column of batteries in double line

& delete the Advance 50 yds march / run option

COMMAND & CONTROL / ORDERS

Take Command
Commander gallop
Go to commander of this formation
Commander halt
Commander use roads
Attach unit to command
Detach unit from command
Write courier message
Read courier message

Command Map  )
Map                ) all available
Go to Me         ) above morale
Go to OOB       ) bar or esc key
Menu / Esc      )

OOB Up
OOB Down
OOB Back
OOB Forward

No orders
Probe
Attack
Determined Attack
Hold
Defend
Determined Defence

The list seems pretty complete to me.

What bothers me with SOW is that you cannot give the AI an order to fall back / withdraw from the engagement. Would it be possible to create such a button?

Some ideas on Brigade level:

• Fall back -> Fall back order to all subunits
  
  
  
• Disengage -> Short retreat order to all subunits, move leader backwards 300 yards (how to do that?), give new line formation order there (set order execution time to +30sec as regiments on short retreat won't receive any order), set stance to DEFEND
  
  
  
• Withdraw -> Short retreat order to all subunits, move leader backwards 500 yards, give new double line formation order there, set stance to HOLD
  
  

Leffe7 wrote:What bothers me with SOW is that you cannot give the AI an order to fall back / withdraw from the engagement. Would it be possible to create such a button?

Brigades can be ordered to fallback or retreat as a unit. But I think the regiments will just retreat in the opposite direction in which they are facing. So at the end of their retreat they ay be scattered around the battlefield.

It's something you may want to test to see if they behave as desired. When you want them to withdraw, select the brigade commander and press the tilde key '~'. Then type Aretreat or Afallback and press return. The units should start to withdraw.