some thoughts on cavalry and historical realism in the game

[fogman]

It is a balance of course. A perfect simulation could be so boring that noone would want to play it for enjoyment.
I think this game is close to a perfect balance between simulation and game as it is. Minor tweaking is all that I would desire to see.
If you accurately reflected effective range, there would be less difference between fire and melee.
I want to use fire units for firing and melee units for melee and be able to see the difference in the game.
If you want to nitpick, the movement rates for different units are unrealistic as well.
And then there is the weather . Some of these battles were fought in the rain or worse, something that made firing black powder weapons problematic.
If it was more of a simulation, it would not be more fun to play.

Balancing historical accuracy and playability hinges on whether the added accuracy results in a more complex game. Reducing shooting ranges does not make this game more complex, to either code or play. The bread and butter unit in the game is the pike and shot infantry unit: is that a 'fire' unit or a 'melee' unit? The movement rate doesn't stand out as being out of whack; as for the weather, it's a clear red herring. What constitutes 'fun' is subjective, I don't particularly enjoy doing something to win the game that is so far removed from actual historical behaviour. Concentrating fire on a unit 4 hexes away is gamey, not fun.

[TheGrayMouser]

It is a balance of course. A perfect simulation could be so boring that noone would want to play it for enjoyment.
I think this game is close to a perfect balance between simulation and game as it is. Minor tweaking is all that I would desire to see.
If you accurately reflected effective range, there would be less difference between fire and melee.
I want to use fire units for firing and melee units for melee and be able to see the difference in the game.
If you want to nitpick, the movement rates for different units are unrealistic as well.
And then there is the weather . Some of these battles were fought in the rain or worse, something that made firing black powder weapons problematic.
If it was more of a simulation, it would not be more fun to play.

Balancing historical accuracy and playability hinges on whether the added accuracy results in a more complex game. Reducing shooting ranges does not make this game more complex, to either code or play. The bread and butter unit in the game is the pike and shot infantry unit: is that a 'fire' unit or a 'melee' unit? The movement rate doesn't stand out as being out of whack; as for the weather, it's a clear red herring. What constitutes 'fun' is subjective, I don't particularly enjoy doing something to win the game that is so far removed from actual historical behaviour. Concentrating fire on a unit 4 hexes away is gamey, not fun.

Since ground scale is abstract per the designer then why would reducing the range of muskets add more realism?
Since the frontage of many of these units (Dutch battalion, Swedish squadron etc ) historically was maybe 60 yards, and the designer has indicated there are gaps ( ie a unit is completley filling out a grid) then 75 yards per grid is not an unreasoanble assumption, and thus max range of a heavy musket then at 300 yards seems about right.
If muskets range was dropped to 2 grids, what would arquebuses be, 1? Then carbines and pistol shots would be overated range wise and the game would be mostly about shock, which isnt historical at all.
Massing firepower seems to have been something commanders from any age would want to do, so Im not sure its a good idea to completley neuter it in game. What were your thoughts on "priority shooting" btw?

[fogman]

people focus on the wrong thing: it's not a matter of whether the musket can shoot a target at 300 yards, it is one of tactical doctrine. No commander would order troops to fire away at 300 yards in the musket era. It's a complete waste. There is also the smoke effect: after a few volleys, it is pretty much impossible to see the target at 300 yards. Shooting lines are usually at 100 yards or less, even as late as the american civil war and there are numerous instances where commanders would order troops to shoot at point blank range only. At that range, small or even large difference in weapons effective range is irrelevant; in fact rifled weapons when they appeared were only of use to skirmishers, not mass battalions who still blasted at one another at under 100 yards. Massing firepower on a target is impossible in an age of hand signals and at this scale on a smoke filled battlefield; troops will fire at what in front of them, always, before entertaining another target, if they have a good commander, especially when what in front of them is shooting at them; i believe it was me who first proposed 'priority shooting'.

similarly the problem with light troops is although nothing prevents them physically from going all over the place, and sneak behind enemy lines, in reality they don't! they stick to their own big formations for protection because small groups of men in a big battlefield are scared men, not uncatchable commandos, and simply because it is not part of their tactical doctrine which focus on what they do before or after the battle.

[JosephM]

Hello All,

Sorry to bring this back to the Breitenfeld battle, but I seem to have done it the historical way: I let the Saxons die, and they held up the enemy for long enough to stop them from flanking me. While the Saxons were dying I massed all my cavalry on my right and wiped out their flank. While this was happening my infantry had taken their toll on the enemy infantry, so then when my Saxon flank was vulnerable I moved my horse round the back to protect that flank, while my infantry encircled the enemy from my right. It was probably one of the easiest battles in the campaign for me - though it might have been mostly luck as the Saxons tended to break one by one.

I did ask Nik about the Tercios, especially early Tercios, and they are big units that take a beating, but they are really only good in the campaign. Alex (Galangalad) and I played a multiplayer game with the Imperials vs Saxons, and although they still soak up a lot of fire, they are not as strong as in the campaign because they cost too much.

I would however agree that of the games I've played (which is so far the TYW and a few multiplayer games) an infantry heavy army does have the advantage. If you can get your cavalry behind enemy lines and in a good spot you can go for rear attacks on a few units at once, especially if you are moving your infantry forward as well to stop their infantry from wheeling. I tend to use cavalry to surround a unit, or in fact mostly as fodder to take fire so my infantry can be put to better use.

[shawkhan2]

If you are talking about beating the ai in Breitenfeld,your discourse is quite accurate. I can beat the ai myself about half the time playing historically.
If you send a few cavalry to harrass the Imperials attacking the Saxons, you can get an easier victory. If you send too much though, your right flank will be crushed.
When playing a competent human, the Swedes have a more difficult time.
I have never failed to break the Swedish army when playing the Imperials, although sometimes casualties get too high. The 26% bar is too easy to exceed.

In my experience, if the Early tercios melee, they will win about 70% of the time.
In my last battle, one early tercio actually broke, while 4 others crushed the Swedish salvo infantry.

In one of my Caracole games, I will be using early tercios against Swiss Keils. I can hardly wait to see how this one pans out, as these are the two top melee units in the game.

The expense of Swiss Keils and Early tercios is the only thing that keeps them from dominating the game.
I think that the effects of fire, especially artillery at close range, are not as great as they were in the historical battles.
I have yet to see fire alone stop a Swiss Keil or Early tercio in the game.

Of course, I may be completely off-base here. I have only owned this game for about a month, and face a steep learning curve to achieve mastery. Rbodleyscott, among others,has been kind enough to tutor me in the school of hard knocks so hopefully, in another month or so I may be competitive and be able to speak from a more authoritative viewpoint.