Worst regiment in history

[Gunfreak]

I'm playing Waterloo as wellington with KS mod just to test. So far it's fun. But a squadron of 7th light dragoons charge some french chassuers.

This is the resault.

88 dead not a single enemy killed or wounded....


Oh and right after that pic was taken, the squadron surrenderd and got captured.

[Saddletank]

Did you check to see if those Chasseurs are actually guard?

You've got an old copy of the mod as well, v106 is the current one, probably to be updated in the next 24-48 hours again.

[mitra76]

I don't know if in the mod the drills.csv melee bonus changed but remember that if the unit is still in forming (switch from a formation to another) the melee bonus is not applied so it is possible tha the unit starting the melee can have a huge melee bonus respect the unit still forming for the first melee check (and viceversa if the melee is started before being formed, only in this case the hit possibility are reduced greatly)

[Gunfreak]

Did you check to see if those Chasseurs are actually guard?

You've got an old copy of the mod as well, v106 is the current one, probably to be updated in the next 24-48 hours again.

Just old regular chasseurs. Mine was frech, the french had been under bombardment. But i have no idea if that specific french squadron hand lost any troopers.

[Gunfreak]

I don't know if in the mod the drills.csv melee bonus changed but remember that if the unit is still in forming (switch from a formation to another) the melee bonus is not applied so it is possible tha the unit starting the melee can have a huge melee bonus respect the unit still forming for the first melee check (and viceversa if the melee is started before being formed, only in this case the hit possibility are reduced greatly)

I don't mind my unit getting thrashed, but i think no mater what the circumstances, when two squadrons meet its statistically impossible for the other side not to loose a few men.

Even just 3-5. But 0 seems suspect.

[mitra76]

It depends: swordfight from horse was not easy because the platform was not stable and the first instinct was to protect yourself not attack in strong mode, so the attacks during the melee were sometime not so strong to cut under the complex cloths,helmets, shakos used from the horsemen. During the fight of heavy british cavalry brigade (700 men) agains the russians at Balaclava (2000 hussars), the deads were 12 deads and 300 wounded of various grade (the biggest part russians which lost the fight and retreat) and the fight lasted 10 minutes at very close combat. At the end the losts are always on the side who lost his nerve and runaway.

In term of game what matter in the calculation is the melee bonus of drills.csv, the melee modifier of unitattributes.csv (in particular edge weapon can make the difference), the meleehit of statetable, the number of men hitting, checked on scale 1000 with a random number generator. So if all the factor are identical and there's a not a big "boost" like the not forming of above, the number of men engaged create the difference because increase the possibility of a successul hit. 1 squadron against 1 squadron can remain very balanced until the fatigue force a retreat of 1 side or another squadron enter in the melee and break the balance.

[Saddletank]

I think a large number of cavalry melees would have ended with one side suffering no losses, because what would happen is the less decisive side would "flinch" and break just before or at contact. Someone here - it may have been Mitra - posted a contemporary account of just this kind of thing happening a few weeks back.

I'm convinced that many modern people have a distorted view of combat of earlier eras due to being given an "exciting" sexed-up version of those old battles by Hollywood. A movie has top be exciting, there's no tension in a cavalry fight where one side breaks and runs before contact so film directors orchestrate huge whirling cavalry melees. I'm convinced many of these are fantasy and real Nap combat wasn't like that.

[Gunfreak]

It depends: swordfight from horse was not easy because the platform was not stable and the first instinct was to protect yourself not attack in strong mode, so the attacks during the melee were sometime not so strong to cut under the complex cloths,helmets, shakos used from the horsemen. During the fight of heavy british cavalry brigade (700 men) agains the russians at Balaclava (2000 hussars), the deads were 12 deads and 300 wounded of various grade (the biggest part russians which lost the fight and retreat) and the fight lasted 10 minutes at very close combat. At the end the losts are always on the side who lost his nerve and runaway.

In term of game what matter in the calculation is the melee bonus of drills.csv, the melee modifier of unitattributes.csv (in particular edge weapon can make the difference), the meleehit of statetable, the number of men hitting, checked on scale 1000 with a random number generator. So if all the factor are identical and there's a not a big "boost" like the not forming of above, the number of men engaged create the difference because increase the possibility of a successul hit. 1 squadron against 1 squadron can remain very balanced until the fatigue force a retreat of 1 side or another squadron enter in the melee and break the balance.

Again, I don't mind it beeing one sided, but this was a fight, It's statisticaly impossible to two sides fighing hard and not a single guy on the other side is wounded, just buy sure luck atleast one of the french should have fallen of his horse as he laughs because the british drgoons aperantly use rubber swords.

Again In a melee(and it was a melee) that not a single british trooper got in a lucky hit is impossible

[Gunfreak]

I think a large number of cavalry melees would have ended with one side suffering no losses, because what would happen is the less decisive side would "flinch" and break just before or at contact. Someone here - it may have been Mitra - posted a contemporary account of just this kind of thing happening a few weeks back.

I'm convinced that many modern people have a distorted view of combat of earlier eras due to being given an "exciting" sexed-up version of those old battles by Hollywood. A movie has top be exciting, there's no tension in a cavalry fight where one side breaks and runs before contact so film directors orchestrate huge whirling cavalry melees. I'm convinced many of these are fantasy and real Nap combat wasn't like that.

While true that some times the cavalery meles were more a ballroom dance then a fight. (it happend at waterloo, were two squadrons just rode past eachother hitting each others swords and then rode off)

But that could be extremly bloody, leading up to the battle of Leipzig there was a smallish battle around a small town. It had a huge % of cav vs infantry, the ratio was more a battle of the 30 years war then a Napoleonic battle, like 3:2 ratio. the battle was mostly a cavalry battle with some infantry fighting in the town.

The fighting was extremly bloody and confused. and lasted hours.

There are plenty of sources describing bloody nasty meles, were swords, knives and pistols were used.

[Saddletank]

I'm not saying that extremely bloody fights did not occur, but I think it may have been Monsieur Larre whose data revealed that artillery and musket wounds by far, and I mean BY FAR outnumbered bayonet, sword and lance wounds.

There was melee yes, but much less of it that we think and what there was was probably less intense than Hollywood would have us think as well.

The compulsion to flee from someone coming at you waving a sword or pointing a bayonet at your guts is extremely strong.

In the context of so many fairly bloody melees in SoW:WL I would not be concerned if a minority had 0 casualties on one side, its statistically going to be extremely rare and in this case almost certainly represents a sudden lack of resolve by the British cavalry.

I think to argue what you are doing - that every melee MUST have casualties on both sides is not correct; probably 95 out of 100 already do, I think we can excuse the remaining 5% as being anomalous but reasonable.