Slitherine

now i admit i know next to nothing about this period and that's not going to change but is it just really lines of infantry shooting at each other? because it seems this is what i'm doing the whole time since maneuver is really painful and when close to enemy subject to arcane rules to the point of immobility. one thing that should be implemented is priority shooting target: right now everyone can direct all the fire into one enemy unit until it breaks, then repeat with another. very unrealistic. same problem in FoG but at least you can easily scatter the buggers and shock is more important, but here it looms really really large. that also makes coming into contact deadly, because in addition it is way too easy to disrupt with firepower; so either firepower is overrated or morale is underrated, probably both. i'm not even convinced that napoleonic era weapons could achieve that kind of effectiveness.

RBS,

Playing with batesmotel right now, medium armies, very wide map. Not far enough into it to comment on the effect on cavalry possibilities, but wanted to point out that, for both of us, our light troops were able to set up quite near one map edge, but nowhere near the other. Don't know whether this is intentional.

Hrothgar wrote:RBS,

Playing with batesmotel right now, medium armies, very wide map. Not far enough into it to comment on the effect on cavalry possibilities, but wanted to point out that, for both of us, our light troops were able to set up quite near one map edge, but nowhere near the other. Don't know whether this is intentional.

It depends on the initial auto-deployment, which in turn depends on the terrain. The limits on redeployment are set by the limits of the initial auto-deployment.

However, it may be that on wider maps the light troops actually auto-deploy too far out from the main army (with a gap between) and the auto-deployment routines may have to be adjusted to prevent this.

Thanks for the explanation.

I am running a tournament with 16 players, medium armies/very wide map, and I have to say that cavalry is now much more valuable, a big improvement in gameplay.

fogman wrote:. one thing that should be implemented is priority shooting target: right now everyone can direct all the fire into one enemy unit until it breaks, then repeat with another. very unrealistic. .

Yes I agree, very different to the table top rules but does overcome some of the tabletop cheese associated with shooting.

Warlord wrote:

fogman wrote:. one thing that should be implemented is priority shooting target: right now everyone can direct all the fire into one enemy unit until it breaks, then repeat with another. very unrealistic. .

Yes I agree, very different to the table top rules but does overcome some of the tabletop cheese associated with shooting.

what's cheesy about the tabletop game's shooting?

Moving two BGs to split the fire thus making the shooting totally ineffective. Having no target priority would allow the tabletop player to fire both BGs at one target with a chance of some hits, thus a test.

Warlord wrote:Moving two BGs to split the fire thus making the shooting totally ineffective. Having no target priority would allow the tabletop player to fire both BGs at one target with a chance of some hits, thus a test.

the remedy is worse than the "flaw". from my limited understanding of it, firepower was really only effective at point blank range. playing this game reminds me of advanced squad leader or some other small tactical ww2 games where it's all about concentration of firepower which i doubt was possible in this scale and era.

fogman wrote:

Warlord wrote:Moving two BGs to split the fire thus making the shooting totally ineffective. Having no target priority would allow the tabletop player to fire both BGs at one target with a chance of some hits, thus a test.

the remedy is worse than the "flaw". from my limited understanding of it, firepower was really only effective at point blank range. playing this game reminds me of advanced squad leader or some other small tactical ww2 games where it's all about concentration of firepower which i doubt was possible in this scale and era.

An interesting read
source: https://sellsword.wordpress.com/2011/08/09/firearms/

"The best recently controlled study of early modern firearms was carried out in 1988-1989 by the staff of the Steiermärkisches Landeszeughaus in Graz, Austria. Thirteen muskets and pistols, dating from the sixteenth to the eighteenth century were chosen to be fired under rigorous test conditions in a research program conducted jointly with the Austrian armed forces. The guns were mounted on rigid frames, sighted on target, ignited electrically, and measured electronically.
Muzzle velocities for the early modern weapons from the Graz collection were surprisingly high. Ten of thirteen average muzzle velocities were between 400 and 500 m/sec. By comparison, the two modern assault rifles tested had muzzle velocities of 835 m/sec and 990 m/sec respectively, and the 9mm pistol tested at 360 m/sec, Smith and Wesson police .38 revolver at 290 m/sec, Colt .357 Magnum at 400 m/sec. Of course, the drag of the ball causes a rapid loss of momentum with distance."

"In 18th century the problem of musket accuracy was studied in many trials. Unlike modern tests, shooting was made by humans and the target usually represented an enemy battalion instead of a single man. Moritz Thierbach, writing in 1886, summarized them. Taking an average of Prussian, Bavarian and French trials, he standardized the test to one involving 60 shots at a board-and-canvas target, roughly equal in size to the frontal area presented by an enemy battalion, approximately 30.5 meters long, by 2 meters high. From a distance of 75 meters only 60% of the bullets penetrated the target; from 150 meters – 40%; from 225 meters – 25%; and from 300 meters – only 20%.

Hanoverian experiments in 1790 showed that when fired at various ranges against a representative target (a placard 1.8 m high and up to 45 m long for infantry, 2.6 m high for cavalry) the following results were achieved: at 100 meters – 75% bullets hit infantry target, 83.3% cavalry, at 200 m – 37.5% and 50%, at 300 m – 33.3% and 37.5% respectively."

Basically, if one accepts that a 18th or early 19th musket was as accurate and powerful as a 17th century musket, there is no reason the above stats wouldn't reflect capabilites of TYW armies.
Also. accuracy was improved when men Aimed their shots, something not common post pike and shot era. In the TYW, evidence (as I understand it) supports that soldiers were expected to aim.

That being said the later P&S armies in game do tend to lead to a "concentrate firepower vs one target" rinse and repeat. Possibly there should be a greater penalty (currently 20%) for moving then firing...
Although I do like the idea of priority targets for shooting.

TheGrayMouser wrote:Basically, if one accepts that a 18th or early 19th musket was as accurate and powerful as a 17th century musket, there is no reason the above stats wouldn't reflect capabilites of TYW armies.
Also. accuracy was improved when men Aimed their shots, something not common post pike and shot era. In the TYW, evidence (as I understand it) supports that soldiers were expected to aim.

Indeed, and as 17th century muskets were longer, heavier and used with a rest, one might expect them to have somewhat longer range and higher accuracy than 18th century ones. (But, of course, considerably slower rate of fire).

TheGrayMouser wrote:

fogman wrote:

Warlord wrote:Moving two BGs to split the fire thus making the shooting totally ineffective. Having no target priority would allow the tabletop player to fire both BGs at one target with a chance of some hits, thus a test.

the remedy is worse than the "flaw". from my limited understanding of it, firepower was really only effective at point blank range. playing this game reminds me of advanced squad leader or some other small tactical ww2 games where it's all about concentration of firepower which i doubt was possible in this scale and era.

An interesting read
source: https://sellsword.wordpress.com/2011/08/09/firearms/

"The best recently controlled study of early modern firearms was carried out in 1988-1989 by the staff of the Steiermärkisches Landeszeughaus in Graz, Austria. Thirteen muskets and pistols, dating from the sixteenth to the eighteenth century were chosen to be fired under rigorous test conditions in a research program conducted jointly with the Austrian armed forces. The guns were mounted on rigid frames, sighted on target, ignited electrically, and measured electronically.
Muzzle velocities for the early modern weapons from the Graz collection were surprisingly high. Ten of thirteen average muzzle velocities were between 400 and 500 m/sec. By comparison, the two modern assault rifles tested had muzzle velocities of 835 m/sec and 990 m/sec respectively, and the 9mm pistol tested at 360 m/sec, Smith and Wesson police .38 revolver at 290 m/sec, Colt .357 Magnum at 400 m/sec. Of course, the drag of the ball causes a rapid loss of momentum with distance."

"In 18th century the problem of musket accuracy was studied in many trials. Unlike modern tests, shooting was made by humans and the target usually represented an enemy battalion instead of a single man. Moritz Thierbach, writing in 1886, summarized them. Taking an average of Prussian, Bavarian and French trials, he standardized the test to one involving 60 shots at a board-and-canvas target, roughly equal in size to the frontal area presented by an enemy battalion, approximately 30.5 meters long, by 2 meters high. From a distance of 75 meters only 60% of the bullets penetrated the target; from 150 meters – 40%; from 225 meters – 25%; and from 300 meters – only 20%.

Hanoverian experiments in 1790 showed that when fired at various ranges against a representative target (a placard 1.8 m high and up to 45 m long for infantry, 2.6 m high for cavalry) the following results were achieved: at 100 meters – 75% bullets hit infantry target, 83.3% cavalry, at 200 m – 37.5% and 50%, at 300 m – 33.3% and 37.5% respectively."

Basically, if one accepts that a 18th or early 19th musket was as accurate and powerful as a 17th century musket, there is no reason the above stats wouldn't reflect capabilites of TYW armies.
Also. accuracy was improved when men Aimed their shots, something not common post pike and shot era. In the TYW, evidence (as I understand it) supports that soldiers were expected to aim.

That being said the later P&S armies in game do tend to lead to a "concentrate firepower vs one target" rinse and repeat. Possibly there should be a greater penalty (currently 20%) for moving then firing...
Although I do like the idea of priority targets for shooting.

if anything, the article shows that shooting range should be halved in the game since in practice, shooting occurs at much shorter distances than musket theorical effective range. this also would mesh with doctrinal considerations. in the american civil war, 200 years later, firing lines were usually formed at less than 100 yards even though muskets at the time could fire at least 5 times farther. i do not believe that commanders in the 17th century would have their troops firing beyond that range either, and from what i've seen, they would hold fire until much shorter distances, less than 50 m.

Very good article on firearms and their use at sellsword. Much for RBS to consider.
There is much variation in shooting casualties inflicted during the game so I think that is covered but ,yes, the range for Matchlocks could be reduced a little and Target Priority added as per the tabletop game.

rbodleyscott wrote:

TheGrayMouser wrote:Basically, if one accepts that a 18th or early 19th musket was as accurate and powerful as a 17th century musket, there is no reason the above stats wouldn't reflect capabilites of TYW armies.
Also. accuracy was improved when men Aimed their shots, something not common post pike and shot era. In the TYW, evidence (as I understand it) supports that soldiers were expected to aim.

Indeed, and as 17th century muskets were longer, heavier and used with a rest, one might expect them to have somewhat longer range and higher accuracy than 18th century ones. (But, of course, considerably slower rate of fire).

They had longer barrels because powder at the time was slow to burn, so it was the only way to increase the range of the weapon. By late 17th century better quality powder allowed shorter barrels and no need for rest.

Aryaman wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote:

TheGrayMouser wrote:Basically, if one accepts that a 18th or early 19th musket was as accurate and powerful as a 17th century musket, there is no reason the above stats wouldn't reflect capabilites of TYW armies.
Also. accuracy was improved when men Aimed their shots, something not common post pike and shot era. In the TYW, evidence (as I understand it) supports that soldiers were expected to aim.

Indeed, and as 17th century muskets were longer, heavier and used with a rest, one might expect them to have somewhat longer range and higher accuracy than 18th century ones. (But, of course, considerably slower rate of fire).

They had longer barrels because powder at the time was slow to burn, so it was the only way to increase the range of the weapon. By late 17th century better quality powder allowed shorter barrels and no need for rest.

Fair enough.

There is a difference between a game and a simulation.
This is a game that simulates battles.
As a game it works.
Decreasing ranges might make it more of a simulation but make it less fun to play.
Talking about gunpowder misses the point. It is true that the invention of 'corning' black powder made it less sensitive to travel deterioration and more consistent in quality, but the muzzle velocity of these older weapons compared favorably with later weapons.
The arquebus's used fired shot from less than half an ounce to over 2 ounces. A weapon firing a 2 oz shot would resemble an artillery piece. As a matter of fact it was so heavy it was carried in supply wagons rather than by the infantry. This weapon was often classified as artillery and would have a range much greater than the arquebus equipped weapons in the game.
Soldiers were firing at a full battalion, not a single man. It was not unusual for a single ball to take out more than one man, as they were of course standing in dense ranks.
I have some problems with the game but range of the weapons used is not one of them.
When the musket was invented, its great advantage was its lighter weight, not its increased range. That, and the invention of the bayonet, making pikemen more and more obsolete.
From my readings, the thing that is more wrong in the game is artillery. Artillery was deadly at close range. This is not accurately represented in the game. In a static situation such as a siege, artillery alone could stop the exploitation of a breach. At long range, the game has it right as it is now.

shawkhan2 wrote:There is a difference between a game and a simulation.
This is a game that simulates battles.
As a game it works.
Decreasing ranges might make it more of a simulation but make it less fun to play.

why would that make it 'less fun' ? i don't see greater historical accuracy and playability as being mutually exclusive.

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.

----------Also. accuracy was improved when men Aimed their shots, something not common post pike and shot era. In the TYW, evidence (as I understand it) supports that soldiers were expected to aim.-------------

----------Indeed, and as 17th century muskets were longer, heavier and used with a rest, one might expect them to have somewhat longer range and higher accuracy than 18th century ones. (But, of course, considerably slower rate of fire).-----------

Weren't these weapons smooth bores? If so, did aiming really make any difference at all? Without rifling, it would seem the ball could end up almost anywhere regardless of aiming or not. Of course, pointing the barrels basically at the target probably averaged out the results.

Jagger2002 wrote:---
Weren't these weapons smooth bores? If so, did aiming really make any difference at all? Without rifling, it would seem the ball could end up almost anywhere regardless of aiming or not. Of course, pointing the barrels basically at the target probably averaged out the results.

Yeah, smoothbores are inherantly more inaccurate that a rifle yet only at greater ranges

here some stuff from Nafziger during Napoleonics:

French regulations for target practice 1792:
bascially the soldiers fired at targets 108, 216, and 324, yards

Per Nafziger, an aimed shot could easily hit an individual at 100 yards
after that though, chances of being hit by someone specifically aiming at YOU, dropped of rapidly
Anyways, most of the tests by nations referenced in my last post also tested volley fire vs aimed fire, the aimed fire apparently causing 20-40% more hits