Waterloo II Battle Results 18 May 2013

Uncle Billy wrote:So although it is quite historically correct to have mixed divisions, from a practical side, the cavalry really needs to be a separate division(s).

I agree completely.

I'm less convinced that cavalry requires integral artillery (at least with the current incarnation of squares), but that may change as human commanders get better at chasing their men into square. And yes, I definitely include myself in that

I suppose in an ideal world I'd like to see a battery per division of any type, plus 3+ in the Corps/Army artillery reserve, at least two brigades of infantry per human divisional command and at least two brigades of cavalry per same, but I understand that many others prefer to command one brigade at a time.

Blackstreet wrote:

Uncle Billy wrote:Cavalry needs to have a battery it can use to blow up the squares. For a cavalry commander to have control of a battery, he needs to be at division level. I've observed that a human commander is able to manage 2 cav brigades and an arty battery. The cav brigades can only effectively be micromanaged one brigade at a time. The other is usually to the rear, resting. In the game this Saturday, I'd like to try having 2 cavalry commanders per side.

So although it is quite historically correct to have mixed divisions, from a practical side, the cavalry really needs to be a separate division(s).

I was going to say this. We've already discovered in the past that the AI is no good at handling cavalry, so it needs dedicated human command.

Personally, I think you're either a cavalry officer, or you ain't. I would suggest that the minimum requisites for anyone proposing to command the cavalry be:

1. appropriate moustache, preferably cavalry whiskers
   
2. the ability to wear ones hat at an extremely rakish angle
   
3. an insatiable appetite for brandy, tobacco, and women
   
4. more gusto than intelligence (which has been pointed out elsewhere)
   

Reporting for duty.....hic!

Never have I seen a finer cavalry officer - give that man a Corps!

Uncle Billy wrote:Cavalry needs to have a battery it can use to blow up the squares. For a cavalry commander to have control of a battery, he needs to be at division level. So although it is quite historically correct to have mixed divisions, from a practical side, the cavalry really needs to be a separate division(s).

Cavalry rarely had that luxury and often only the French developed the subtelties of command structure to achieve this and had a sufficiently numerous, adept and well-led horse artillery arm.

Many, many a time cavalry went unsupported by guns or infantry due to the vagaries of battle, or incompetence, or petty rivalries.

Just because the perfect situation requires a certain orbat does not mean we should not use other orbats.

I decided to suggest one that was different just to see how it worked out.

In fact a division command made up of a human player commanding + AI inf brigade + AI cav brigade + AI battery seems to me quite able to deliver the artillery support you think is necessary, so I still say we should give it a try.

It may also help some campaign players get used to how their armies are actually organised as well

Khryses wrote:Never have I seen a finer cavalry officer.

Me neither! Oh, wait, you weren't talking about those officers in the background.

Digby wrote:

In fact a division command made up of a human player commanding + AI inf brigade + AI cav brigade + AI battery seems to me quite able to deliver the artillery support you think is necessary, so I still say we should give it a try.

Yes, I had a similar structure in mind except it would have 2 cavalry brigades, commanded by the division general and the infantry brigade would be commanded by another human. That would allow for well coordinated combined arms action. However, the time I wanted to try it out, we did not have enough players so we reverted to the 'standard' setup.

Oh, wait, you weren't talking about those officers in the background.

That was my first impression too. Just thought the guy in the hat got in the way of the camera.

Can anyone explain to me if squares actually gives you any bonus and are worth switching to. To mean it would seam they would lower your amount of men firing on the line and if anything hinder your regiments.

Baldwin1 wrote:Can anyone explain to me if squares actually gives you any bonus and are worth switching to. To mean it would seam they would lower your amount of men firing on the line and if anything hinder your regiments.

...they obviously *should* give you a strong melee bonus against cavalry, but I don't know how much of a difference it makes now.

I'll defer to those more code-wise than I; and if it doesn't, is there any way that we could get it to have a proper bonus at least in these player-heavy matches we're having?

I'm remembering pre-cavalry-boost that my redcoated squares were repelling wave after wave of French cavalry - I assumed that was a mixture of discipline and formation, but now I'm wondering if it was the volleys delivered into the cavalry face as they galloped across the open and then stalled on the creek.

Squares give a tremendous bonus in a melee against cavalry. Infantry in line has very little chance of surviving the encounter. If in square, they will withstand several assaults. Now that cavalry has been sped up a bit, it is a good policy to form squares well before the cavalry begins its charge. Otherwise, you'll soon be a commander without a command. I hate those vultures.

Uncle Billy wrote:Squares give a tremendous bonus in a melee against cavalry. Infantry in line has very little chance of surviving the encounter. If in square, they will withstand several assaults. Now that cavalry has been sped up a bit, it is a good policy to form squares well before the cavalry begins its charge. Otherwise, you'll soon be a commander without a command. I hate those vultures.

Which of course means that soon looming at someone with cavalry will be a viable strategy to force them into square to become artillery-meat.

...we just need one or two more experiences with cavalry like Soldier's...

Did I tell you, I hate the cavalry? The last MP game I played in, the cavalry forced my battalions into square, the enemy infantry came up and shot them apart. I hate those vultures.

Well I must have misread the coding modifiers they just appeared to be (-250) penalizing melee. But evidently not, since the (500) modifier to firing must be negative because I just tested it and coldstream guards in square broke very quick and before their regular experience regiments right next to them (in line formation) did. So I guess it is tuned the way I want it to be other than making the instant button to form square delayed. We could always speed up cav a bit more if necessary.

Yes, the melee modifier is counter-intuitive. The more negative the number, the more invincible that formation becomes. -1000 is the smallest value allowed and probably makes the formation immune to all attacks. I lowered the square's value from -250 to -300 since we increased the damage cavalry does in a melee.

Grog wrote:
Reporting for duty.....hic!

There's a place for you in my cavalry wing Sir!