The power of Artillery

[Red Rider]

I was watching a documentary regarding the charge of the light brigade during the Crimean War not too long ago, and one historian stated that cavarly charging directly at artillery was an unfavorable, and usually suicidal, tactic that was very rarely used by commanders in land battles. I was just wondering if this statement would be particularly true of the era of Empire, and if so whether you think it should be employed in the game?

[Sylver]

Yes, it should, but CA is doubtless going to have a hard time balancing it so that it makes sense. The cavalry in TW would be in range for less time than a unit would be in real life, so they would have to increase the artillery's rate of fire, but not so that it's an automatic weapon, while at the same time not being completely overpowered versus infantry...

I guess the easiest way would be for artillery to do more damage to a cavalry unit, but only while it's charging head on. I mean, I would hate to lose my cavalry just because they were in range, it would make them completely irrelevant while artillery was present.

[HordeOfDoom]

While the charge of the light brigade was hardly as devastating as often portrayed, a head-on charge by an inferior force against an entrenched enemy is obviously a bad idea, no matter what period of history.

Charging head on with cavalry against well protected cannons will likely be suicidal, or at the very least induce a quick rout.

I mean, I would hate to lose my cavalry just because they were in range, it would make them completely irrelevant while artillery was present.

Solution: don't charge head on. Use them as flankers, against other cavalry, or to pursue routers as they were really used.

[Red Rider]

Originally Posted by Sylver
I guess the easiest way would be for artillery to do more damage to a cavalry unit, but only while it's charging head on. I mean, I would hate to lose my cavalry just because they were in range, it would make them completely irrelevant while artillery was present.

Solution: don't charge head on. Use them as flankers, against other cavalry, or to pursue routers as they were really used.

I think what Sylver was trying to say that he doesn't want artillery taking out his cavalry at a huge range whilst the are just waiting to charge. Is that right Sylver?

[Sylver]

Solution: don't charge head on. Use them as flankers, against other cavalry, or to pursue routers as they were really used.

Well, duh, but I would not want them all to die simply because the artillery can hit them. Example, you're pursuing routers when a shot takes out half the force. They weren't charging head on, they were just in range. Therefore artillery should get a bonus against cavalry charging them, but act normally against cavalry doing other things. Within reason or course.

[squigian]

At a certain range, and given the facing of artillery, there should be a heavy morale penalty for cavalry nearby, something like 'Scared by artillery' if you hover the mouse over them which could be countered by effects like 'Glad to have infantry support' if infantry are fighting nearby. Perhaps cavalry should regenerate morale quickly but not have much in total, thus making it easy for them to rout. However, they should be very difficult to shatter. This would help reflect the cavalry of the era i.e. mostly a supporting force intended for harassing and flanking the enemy.

[Emperor of Europe]

Stop and think.

The charge of the light brigade was a disaster not because cavalry charged guns head-on, but because a relatively small cavalry force charged into a valley, where they received very heavy artillery fire from the front as well as the flanks, and were heavily outnumbered by enemy infantry as well as cavalry. That's a specific historical incidence that you cannot draw a general conclusion from.

Obviously a man + horse is a larger target than a single infantry man, but a group of horsemen is also in a much less dense formation than the corresponding infantry unit, so in similar terrain and cover instances, cavalry shouldn't be more vulnerable than infantry.

Historically cavalry was used very successfully on numerous occassions to charge guns that were unsupported by infantry (infantry being the key word here), so if anything the morale hit should be the other way around.

As a rule of thumb 17th and 18th century warfare was a game of rock, paper and scissors: infantry beats cavalry, cavalry beats artillery, artillery beats infantry.

rgds/EoE

[Cyphon88]

Plus surely the game is using physics of bullets, a cannon shot is going to be more devastating at short range when they can use canister. Thus why charging into cannons is going to be lethal, as it would be for any unit.

Especially when you have less men per unit in a cavalry unit, while being a bigger mass size. Easier to hit (at close range) when any loss of one man is a bigger proportional loss of a unit than in say a infantry unit.

[Turtules]

I cannot wait to make a army of full of Artillery and just pound the living hell out of Paris. My little guns that could.

[squigian]

^ You do that. I just hope the AI doesn't copy you!

[Turtules]

Yeah me too. Or maybe have half of my army of line infantry hold the line, then use the artillery to blow the other ppl into tiny bits.

[King Pie]

My question is how is CA going to do the actual battlefield sizes? I want to see huge battlefields like Waterloo or something where they basically had smaller sub-battles taking place within the actual battlefield. Also, in with the charge of the light brigade, it took them about 5 minutes to charge from their starting point through the valley to get the the Russian guns, in Medieval II it only takes about 1 minute to charge across the entire battlefield.

[Cyphon88]

yeah but i MTW2 it takes artillery like 20 seconds to reload. Scaleability

[Turtules]

bump.

[delra]

Moved to Historical forum.

[Dewy]

yeah but the charge of the light brigade wasn't meant to happen. By the time the order got to them to charge it got mixed and they charged the wrong cannons. The right cannons was some english cannons they were getting stolen by russians

[Dutchhoplite]

Well, the light brigade did overrun that battery and Balaclava was a allied (British victory)

[Calmarac]

My question is how is CA going to do the actual battlefield sizes? I want to see huge battlefields like Waterloo or something where they basically had smaller sub-battles taking place within the actual battlefield. Also, in with the charge of the light brigade, it took them about 5 minutes to charge from their starting point through the valley to get the the Russian guns, in Medieval II it only takes about 1 minute to charge across the entire battlefield.

In RTW the battlefields were tiny at 800 metres square (!) I've read that the ETW battlefields will be 1.3 Km square (the same size as the city seige battlefields in RTW). This is still far too small IMO for anything much larger than a skirmish, especially in an age of linear formations and with tactics based on ranged fire from musketry and artillery, rather than close-up melee action.

Yes, it should, but CA is doubtless going to have a hard time balancing it so that it makes sense. The cavalry in TW would be in range for less time than a unit would be in real life, so they would have to increase the artillery's rate of fire, but not so that it's an automatic weapon, while at the same time not being completely overpowered versus infantry...
I guess the easiest way would be for artillery to do more damage to a cavalry unit, but only while it's charging head on. I mean, I would hate to lose my cavalry just because they were in range, it would make them completely irrelevant while artillery was present.

Terrible fudge though, this way. The problem arises from the tiny battlefields (your army is deployed well within artillery range before you've even moved) - and made worse by the 'charging around at full tilt' we see in TW games.

Given proper sized battlefields, and 'more realistic' movement speeds/rates of fire/weapon ranges/kill rates - the problem would sort itself out. Especially as every round fired is individually 'modelled' to determine whether it hits, as opposed to using probability 'kill tables'.


Cavalry vs Artillery

At Balaclava the Light Brigade successfully charged the Russian guns. They lost half their number on the way in, during the charge, but they reached the guns - and the Russian cavalry backing them up - and beat both. But they were unsupported and had to go back down the valley, losing more men on the way back

There's a good illustrated account here - http://www.britishbattles.com/crimean-war/balaclava.htm


At Waterloo the Scots Greys successfully charged Ney's guns, going through half the French infantry en route But again, as at Balaclava, they were unsupported and it all went horribly wrong

Ponsonby’s Union Brigade of heavy dragoons (the 1st Royal Dragoons, 2nd Royal Scots Greys and 6th Inniskilling Dragoons) charged D’Erlon’s infantry columns as they reached the British line.

The Union Brigade cut through the French and, now out of control, continued the charge up the far incline to the French guns, where they sabred numbers of gunners in Ney’s battery. The British were counter-attacked by French Lancers and suffered such heavy casualties as to eliminate the brigade from the battle. The brigade commander General Ponsonby was killed.

http://www.britishbattles.com/waterl...army-greys.htm

In both cases cavalry beats artillery as Emperor of Europe said. Yet in both cases they went in without support, resulting in few riding back to savour the Phyrric victory