Here we solicit numbers from members concerning anything regarding historical numbers that affect a Civil War simulation: hit rates, rates of fire, casualty rates, movement rates, you name it. The idea is that we're really trying to get the numbers for the game right.
In a couple MP games, I have noticed players using road column infantry charge AI controlled artillery. They are doing this, I think, because charging in column formation moves faster then charging in line formation. Is this true? Do columns charge faster than line?. This doesn't seem historical and seems gamey when players do it. I haven't read of any historical accounts where regts melee in the road column formation.
Maybe an update would disable the charge button for units in column formation. And/Or units in column formation could take more damage as the men are packed closer together.
Anyway, just my two cents worth as it is kind of irritating watching your opponent running all over like Ms. Pac Man with column infantry gobbling up AI controlled artillery.
AH! So that was you I was paying against the other night.
Troops in column also take less casualties from frontal cannister fire. It's an old TC2M SP trick. Gamey? of course. Then again, Napoleon taught his troops to do that. Nobody accuses HIM of being gamey.
Last edited by Tacloban on Fri Apr 09, 2010 10:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
AH! So that was you I was paying against the other night.
Troops in column also take less casualties from frontal cannister fire. It's an old TC2M SP trick. Gamey? of course. Then again, Napoleon taught his troops to do that. Nobody accuses HIM of being gamey.
Napoleon did not use a 4 abreast "road column" melee that we have in the game. He used what is called an "attack column". A French infantry battalion usually formed an attack column with a front of one company and a depth of four. On average this collumn equated to 40 men wide and 12 men deep. Civil War era commanders learned rather quickly, with rifled muskets and carbines not to use the attack column formation.
AH! So that was you I was paying against the other night.
Troops in column also take less casualties from frontal cannister fire. It's an old TC2M SP trick. Gamey? of course. Then again, Napoleon taught his troops to do that. Nobody accuses HIM of being gamey.
Napoleon did not use a 4 abreast "road column" melee that we have in the game. He used what is called an "attack column". A French infantry battalion usually formed an attack column with a front of one company and a depth of four. On average this collumn equated to 40 men wide and 12 men deep. Civil War era commanders learned rather quickly, with rifled muskets and carbines not to use the attack column formation.
Thanks for the posts, guys. A great start to the new Data Base category.
I think the way infantry attacked artillery frontally was to pot away at them from outside canister range, dropping the horses and crews. The way to allow that in the game may be to expand the infantry engagement distance from the present 160 yards to 200 yards or slightly more (game canister range is 200 yards, IIRC).
Any other opinions on how best to model infantry tactics vs. artillery in a frontal attack?
While we're at it: anybody have numbers for infantry casualties from artillery at different ranges, or know where I can find some? I would love to see them.
Columns should probably just take more casualties than lines, or they should take much more severe morale loss from casualties in general.
This way you'd be more likely to avoid having columns at the front.
One issue is that (I think) units can only target one enemy unit at a time, so cannons firing into multiple infantry units crowded together will only hit one of these units, and with canister it's always about 30 kills.
