Scourge of War Boards

Just to give a quick update. We are starting our work on the cav ai and have made some good progress. Most of all we have found out why they are retreating so easily and have made some fixes. Still testing them, but the fix is a good one and they should definitely be much better in the patch.

Just an FYI, they really are not retreating, but using the getaway command. That's why they don't move away too far.

Nice to hear of any progress and to be informed on how it's going.

I know everybody is on the edge of their seats, waiting to pounce on the update.

But we all must remember; It is worth waiting for a complete update, than to have to update the update!

Take your time to perfect, we ain't leavin' anytime soon!!:lol:

Your Obt. Serv't
Donald R. Hetrick

ditto:cheer:

Any chance to see cavalry units that fight charging the enemies and not shooting to them?

Cheers

Any chance to see cavalry units that fight charging the enemies and not shooting to them?

Yes indeed.

Nathan B. Forrest would be proud! To paraphrase the Gen'ral, "Don't receive their attack, attack them, too."
I am also on the edge of my seat about this patch.

In the "For What It's Worth" department:

"...there were actually very few sword or sabre injuries during the Civil War". ("Medical Practices of the Civil War", Susan Provost Beller, 1992, p.30). This suggestion is also supported by Frederick Wilkinson ("American Swords and Knives", in Swords and Hilt Weapons, p.112) who states, "...Union hospitals treated less than 1000 sword and bayonet wounds throughout the war".

Interesting data from the Sword Forum International http://swordforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5896

J

I wouldn't take that as a proper figure for a ratio of bayonet to musketball casualties though, I imagine it would be easier for those hit by musketballs on the firing line to get to the hospital than for those stabbed by bayonets in a melee.

I wouldn't take that as a proper figure for a ratio of bayonet to musketball casualties though, I imagine it would be easier for those hit by musketballs on the firing line to get to the hospital than for those stabbed by bayonets in a melee.

I suspect there were fewer wounds from bayonets in a melee than clubbings from muskets! Even the veterans write of their amazement when learning of a bayonet wound.

Nevertheless, here is another quote one might find interesting. (Note that the emphasis on examination of the dead is mine.)

"Statistics from the American Civil War state that over three months of action near Richmond, characterized by above average rates of hand-to-hand combat, casualty ratios for the Union Army were significantly in favour of projectile wounds. While over 32,000 men received treatment for bullet wounds, only thirty-seven were treated for bayonet thrusts. An observer from the same period confirmed that the wounds evident on the dead were in similar proportion. The damage inflicted during "bayonet assault" was most often executed by bullets."

This is from http://regimentalrogue.com/papers/bayonet2.htm which is quite nicely documented in the Endnotes.

J

I wouldn't take that as a proper figure for a ratio of bayonet to musketball casualties though, I imagine it would be easier for those hit by musketballs on the firing line to get to the hospital than for those stabbed by bayonets in a melee.

Yes and no. At Gettysurg, I could only find a half dozen mentions of melees in the OR. Actual contact was very rare. Even Armistead's men surrendered very rapidly and without much hand to hand. That was true in Napoleons day also. When a charge was ordered, almost everyone knew that one side or the other would break before contact was made. This is why Napoleon insisted on using the column charge. He was only interested in getting a mass of men moving to the enemy. He didn't care about their formation, only their momentum. Timing the charge, sensing that the enemy would break, was the key to launching the charge. Lee apparently was absent the day that lesson was covered at West Point. The huge number of melees in SOW is the single most unhistoric piece of the game IMHO.

Saber wounds would also have been rare in this conflict, as opposed to Europe. There were relatively very few mounted attacks against infantry. Only mounted cavalry vs cavalry would have produced a significant number of such wounds. But there were very few of those engagements, unlike Europe with it's large open spaces.