[Feedback & Discussion] Napoleon Empire Realism

[JaM]

This arty problem is actually not only seen on sieges(there are not many in NER compared to ER so arty sniping is not a big deal). I had a battle sieging settlement which spawned lot of militia - much more line inf than I had. But I had also arty and enemy waited without any assault attempt, even without ability to return fire. Well as you said this is probably not worth to change that, if breaks cav behaviour. Shame that there is no something like "aggressiveness" to allow enemy to attack even on defense with it's full army.

true.. CA made AI behavior too rigid, so if its supposed to be on defense, it will no matter what... quite a shame. AI acts better with diversified army, but its hard to achieve this with garrison only units..


anyway i kinda tried to solve this problem by extending the reload rate for artillery, so sniping AI infantry and doing nothing will not produce huge casualties, unless you bring a lot of artillery of course.. with one or two units, you will definitely not rout them by the end of battle, if you just bombard them and don't deploy your infantry. (I specifically set "being hit by artillery" morale penalty not enough to cause complete rout on its own, while casualtes taken has to be very high to play a role there) - so take it as a house rule, and dont wait out "waiting" AI..

[Filmor]

Well, complete enemy destruction is rather hard to achieve with sole artillery, even if enemy is so passive. There was like 10 enemy line units so killing it with 3 light artillery would take ages. I think that casualities were moderate and looked OK, it was just evident that AI haven't used it's adventage. Generally I usually use arty to snipe enemy cav and then do moderate damage to enemy line and push with my units on weakened enemy. Balance is very good, just AI is not.

[Prussian Patrician]

Well done on the latest release. I find that the gameplay has improved significantly, and is offering an enjoyable experience - with particular note of the modified deployment zones (battles have never been this epic).

With regards to historical details, I have come across several books concerning, in particular, the Prussian military of the napoleon wars - and would, therefore, like to recommend some modifications as to enhance the historical accuracy of the mod.

I shall begin with noting that whilst Prussia deployed 9 Hussar regiments (where as, currently, there is a unit cap of 8), each regiment was twice the size of the corresponding dragoon and cuirassier regiments (10 squadrons as opposed to 5). Insomuch, either the limit needs to be increased to 9, whereby each unit has 120 men, or the unit cap should be raised to 16 or 18.

Further attention should be brought to the following, concerning the Prussian musket: "The1782 pattern Prussian musket was no less accurate than the British ‘BrownBess’, though less so than the French Charleville, and it did have severaldesign advantages over these contemporaries. These included a ‘cylindrical’ ramrod rather than one with a swollen end; thus it did not need to be turnedaround after being withdrawn from its pipes in order to ram home the charge.The barrel had a bias-cut base-plug combined with a touchhole of slightlyconical section – i.e. narrowing from the inside of the barrel to the outsidewhere it met the priming pan. This allowed the closed pan to be primedautomatically from the inside of the barrel as the powder charge was rammedhome, instead of having to be primed from the outside in a separate series ofmovements." ~ Prussian Napoleonic Tactics 1792-1815, Peter Hofschröer. Currently, I believe that you have included the superior rate of fire of the Prussian musket (which is the same for the Austrians), yet have omitted that its accuracy should be similar to the Brown Bess - considering that the British actually took the effort to level their muskets, I believe that the in-game Prussian musket should remain slightly less accurate, yet more so than that of the Austrians.

Considering Prussian Fusiliers, with reference to post #3378, their inferior quality is historically correct - though, only with respect to their initial situation. It is true that these battalions were first formed from men unsuitable for the 'regular' units, and from those of newly acquired territory (questionable loyalty) - yet this status dramatically changed after the Prussians realized that they had to expand their light infantry. Following the seven years war, there was no longer any requirement for these inferior troops. Considering that Prussia was in need of more light infantry, the constituents of these fusilier battalions were essentially replaced as to take on this role. "Emphasis was placed on field training and combat leadership. As the Prussian officer corps still contained manyexperienced former officers of ‘free corps’ and veterans of the war in NorthAmerica, such as Gneisenau and Schuler von Senden, the fusilier battalionssoon enjoyed an élite reputation.", "... thefusilier battalions were highly regarded light infantry, and the rifle-armedJägers were considered the élite of the élite ..." ~ Prussian Napoleonic Tactics 1792-1815, Peter Hofschröer. It therefore seems, as I have found in several other references, that Prussian fusiliers were in fact quite the opposite, and are closer to elite infantry as they are to militia. Insomuch, I do believe that both Prussian Fusiliers and Fusiliers (skirmish order) do require an improvement in stats (it should be noted that fusiliers were generally shorter than line infantry and should have corresponding stats).

On another note, I have the feeling that factories are quite underpowered when compared to markets. Factories cost a great deal more, take longer to build, induce unrest, and have the same benefits as markets - apart from bonuses to building costs and recruitment provided by factories (yet the 2% bonus, or something similar, seems quite under powering). The same could be said for supply buildings - the percentile bonus appears insignificant when one considers that one can raise several units for the same cost as is its construction. How do these bonuses even work? If 20 men are to be replenished in the end turn, how does that addition of 0.2 men mean anything (for +1% replenishment)?

[JaM]

It's a shame CA designed AI scripts like that.. its very obvious they didnt spent much time playtesting.. worst thing is those scripts are hardcoded and cannot be changed by modders...

[JaM]

Prussian Patrician: thanks a lot for feedback.

regarding muskets - accuracy difference is not that big actually between models, and French Charleville is just 5 points above Prussian Musket. (-15 for Charleville, -20 for Prussian musket - i'm using negative values as they decrease unit accuracy which is usually 20-30, therefore Line infantry ends up with 5-10 points of accuracy, which makes them ineffective at long range, but this way can benefit from cohesion accuracy bonus for initial salvo which increases accuracy by 25%, while with disorder, accuracy is decreased by 50%)

Both Prussian, old Austrian and British Brown Bess fired heavier bullet at slightly slower speed than French Charleville. Those 5 points bonus for Charleville are supposed to simulate the difference with faster bullet with flatter trajectory vs heavier one flying slower.. Anyway with 5.1 update, dispersion will be greatly reduced for all muskets (current value is 6, new one will be 3 for low quality and 2 for better quality weapons), therefore short range musketry will be a lot more accurate.

Regarding Hussars, i prefer increasing number of units instead of making larger units, so in 5.1 update, Prussian Hussars will have unit limit 18. (16 normal, 2 Lifeguard Hussars)

- For fusiliers, i will probably give them accuracy boost to be on same level as other light infantry. Their melee stats are based on average height of men enlisted for these units, and height requirement for Light infantry was for shorter men in general, therefore they cannot be as good in melee as taller guys (taller men has longer reach with bayonet than shorter, and is in average stronger)

[JaM]

On another note, I have the feeling that factories are quite underpowered when compared to markets. Factories cost a great deal more, take longer to build, induce unrest, and have the same benefits as markets - apart from bonuses to building costs and recruitment provided by factories (yet the 2% bonus, or something similar, seems quite under powering). The same could be said for supply buildings - the percentile bonus appears insignificant when one considers that one can raise several units for the same cost as is its construction. How do these bonuses even work? If 20 men are to be replenished in the end turn, how does that addition of 0.2 men mean anything (for +1% replenishment)?

One thing with Factories - they provide global cost reduction bonus... so those 2% are applied to all your regions, not just the region where factory is standing... which means, more factories you have, less you pay for recruiting new units.
Same with Supply posts, they give global bonus, therefore more supply posts you have, higher replenishment you have within your provinces... imagine you build 3-4 supply posts in total, with 2% each, you end up having 6-8% bonus to replenishment of all units. There is also base replenishment rate, that applies to units that can be recruited within province (those that cannot be recruited, have lower replenishment), so technically, that 8% bonus could increase your standard replenishment to 15%, which means you can replace your losses you took in battle within 1-2 turns...


Plus, while supply post gives +2%, Supply Depot gives +3% and Supply Warehouse +4% So fully upgraded supply posts will double that replenishment making quite a big impact overall..

Similarly with factories, even though bonuses are smaller (+1%/+2%/+3%)

[Prussian Patrician]

Wonderful to hear.

Considering future updates, is it possible to expand the building options available in cities - such that one will be able to build colleges or factories in cities, rather than restricting them only to towns (and possibly vice a verse, with the exception of military buildings - unless building a barracks in the town of a region shall allow one to recruit from the region capital)? Its really strange otherwise; not being able to put a factory in London, or a college in Paris.

Would it also be possible to add benefits to constructing intellectual buildings in intellectual centers, or commercial buildings in commercial centers, in the same way that one would receive a benefit in ETW if one built a factory in a wealthy town - as opposed to a poor town? I suggest this, as certain towns, due to their strategic location, would serve better to have a factory (possibly close to a mine), or a market (on the border with a friendly nation or close to a port) than a building of another kind. This level of depth was only included in the game by restricting the player to constructing buildings of those types where they would work best. I believe that allowing the player flexibility in removing this restriction is a great improvement, but one that can be further improved with the addition of these bonuses. If you do consider what was suggested above about building limitations in cities, I believe that - considering that cities are large enough to contain an economic demand for any building built within - cities should offer bonuses for all buildings. Vice a verse, instead of offering bonuses, one could offer negatives to building in non-optimal areas.

[JaM]

Problem with universities is in the way how they work - they require Gentleman present to give research bonus, but this might not work properly if university is within a city. (didnt tested it yet, so just guessing)
Another issue is that only city slots can guarantee recruitment slots. therefore they have to be available for those buildings. Technically speaking, factory adds to the city bonuses anyway, so you can do exactly that even now. And of course, there is the AI, which might decide to occupy all slots within city with economy buildings and not have any slot available for military buildings, so it wont be able to recruit new units..

Anyway, i will investigate this to see if there is any way how to do something like this in the future.

[Prussian Patrician]

I have also noticed, following the increase in the cost of building construction, that the minor German states (and most probably minor states in general) seem to place too great an importance on fielding several full stack armies, rather than developing their regions. Historically, the independence of these minor states was garunteed more through diplomatic relationships (in that their annexation by a larger state would disturb the epuilibrium between other larger states, and result in war), rather than their own military might. With this in mind, the campaign AI of minor states in ETW realism seems to hit the nail on the hammer.

[JaM]

yeah, they all share same personality, therefore are more militaristic.. Maybe i could give them more customized personalities so they would not overspend on military that much. thanks

[Prussian Patrician]

Another idea I had concerns fortresses; from reading up on 19th century militaries and their development, it seems that great controversy was placed upon the expenses of maintaining fortresses vs fielding an army that would cost the same. With this in mind, is it possible to add a fixed upkeep expense to fortresses (in that a sum of money is debited from the treasury at the beginning of each turn), or to add a percentage reduction to the income harvested from the region (which should be relatively great, considering the great costs incurred in maintaining a fortress, and that larger settlements present a greater frontage, for which is compensated by a higher reduction) - in case one can't attach a fixed reduction?

In exchange, would it be possible to increase the garrison of settlements which contain a fortress (cost of fortress maintenance includes upkeep for these extra units)?

[JaM]

Fortifications are very problematic in both ETW and NTW, which was main reason why we made them cost a lot of money in the first place, anyway i think it would be best just to completely remove them (if it was possible, but sadly its not) In ER, fortifications decrease the tax rate for the province, i thought i had it the same in NER, but maybe i forgot to add it..

[JaM]

5.1 update planned change-log:

- decreased dispersion values for muskets to increase short range lethality
- adjusted charge bonuses for cavalry based on weapon used (sword,sabre,lance)
- removed range penalties to damage from all rifles making them more effective at skirmishing
- reduced size of cavalry entity to compensate for musket dispersion reductions
- Grenadiers movement speed now same as Line infantry
- adjusted morale penalties to make melee more decisive
- Prussian Fusilier morale and accuracy increased
- Prussian Hussars unit limit increased to 16
- Prussian Life Hussars unit limit increased to 2
- Prussian horse artillery moved one tier up
- adjusted number of 6-lber artillery for Prussians
- adjusted unit limits for Prussia, Russia, Austria and France
- added single highly experienced Mameluke cavalry to French European campaign
- modified starting experience to Old Guard and reduced recruitment experience for this unit.
- decreased melee defense experience bonus
- decreased accuracy experience bonus for units with exp higher than 6
- convert Russian Jagers to Light infantry unit
- added Russian Jagers skirmisher unit
- removed "Skirmish Order" surname from Prussian Fusiliers, as they are already "Skirmisher type" so its no longer mentioned twice

(will be released tomorrow)



Wont contain personality changes for minor nations, as such change requires startpos adjustments and therefore require campaign restart. Will include it in later updates.

[JaM]

One thing im also considering is to convert Russian Jagers into Light infantry units, and make a separate unit for skirmisher Jagers. Russians used Jagers in both roles, same way as Prussian Fusiliers. Technically, Russians had 50 Jager regiments by 1812, so this way i could have majority of them in Line formations, while let say 1/3 of them in skirmish formations (skirmish unit is 100 men, so there would be still adequate number of skirmishing units - so let say 32 formed in line units and 32 skirmisher formations)

Another change for Russians is to change Horse Jagers into Light cavalry, as these were practically an equivalent to French Chasseur Chevals, they were not actual "mounted infantry", even though they were practically reformed Dragoons. This also means Russians will have smaller number of Dragoon units.

And last, Russian Light cavalry units will have their limits increased by 2, as similarly to Prussians, Light cavalry regiments were 2x larger than heavy cavalry regiments (8 squadrons vs 4 for Dragoons and Cuirassiers)

[Prussian Patrician]

That does sound like a good idea.

Seeing that the unit limits being used for Russia are from 1812, "... 50 Jager regiments by 1812, ...", would it be all possible to consider adjusting Prussia - which largely coordinated its reform effort with Russia - to take on its 1810/1812 persona in future updates?

I would press for this consideration as the current build is based off of the 1806 army, which was historically outdated in its make up. Keeping in mind that the campaign takes place between 1805-1813, to use this build further than 1807 is further exacerbating its awkwardness (from a historical point of view). Furthermore, the greatest significance of the napoleonic wars for Prussia was the fact that it reformed its army. From a gameplay and role play perspective, whilst one can implement reforms through better technology, it has always been a bane that one was unable to restructure ones armies in adherence to history. In fact, this transition was so important, that it is still considered significant to the German Bundeswehr as of today.

From a balancing point of view, the in-game new army would not be any more overpowered than it is now - and would be of similar size. The significant difference would be, as mentioned above, realism. One would now actually be able to historically emulate brigade formations and tactics, as well as have a lot more fun whilst doing so (the new army would actually feel like a Napoleonic Army). With regards to information, a greater emphasis has been placed on recording the later Prussian army (which would make the mod development in accordance with historical accuracy, a lot easier).

Considering actual changes, the following is a good start on the historic composition (following the build up in preparation for war):
Cavalry (4 squadrons each, regiment limits adjusted for compensation of Landwehr cavalry):
Cuirassier Regiments: 4
Dragoon Regiments: 10
Uhlan Regiments: 10
Hussar Regiments: 14
Infantry (Note that Infantry regiments consisted of 3 battalions; 2 musketeers, and 1 fusilier - compared to two battalions of 1806. As such, as of game restraints, musketeer and fusilier battalions shall be grouped together in separate regiments.):
Infantry Regiments: 32 - Thus;
Musketeer Regiments: 32
Fusilier Regiments: 12
Fusiliers (skirmish order): 8 ~ approx. number of troops to be deployed from line into skirmish order
Grenadier Regiments: 8 (only 2[3] actually formed, but there were several companies scattered throughout the infantry regiments)
Jägers: 3
Silesian Schützen: 1
Landwehr: 38

These units were also generally superior to their 1806 counterparts, a compensation for their smaller number, and therefore require stat improvements (good morale, actually leveling the musket whence firing, etc.). I do realize that you have already modified the Prussian army in the last update, and are to do so in 5.1, but notwithstanding, the advantages in considering a later styled army would do great benefit to the mod - I can go on about the advantages both in playing as and against this new army. Of course, considering that this may be no small task - and may form part of a larger expansion of the mod, in styling the armies in their later fashion, 1810 rarther than 1805 -, these changes would only be included in later updates.

[JaM]

I'm using 1812 because main campaign ends that year, so it makes sense to make it possible to achieve those limits at that time.

[Prussian Patrician]

Which does make sense.

Applying the same logic, whilst Prussian fielded 12 fusilier regiments in 1806, they fielded an equivalent of 16 in 1810. Considering that about 1/3 of troops were deployed in skirmish order (from line), it makes sense that fusilier regiments (line) should outnumber fusilier (skirmish order) by 3:1 (in terms of men). With this in mind, if the limit cap of fusilier regiments was increased to 12, whilst keeping fusilier (skirmish order) at 8, this would account for the increase in fusiliers (and preserve the historic ratio between fusiliers in line, and those in skirmish).

[JaM]

planning some small changes also to French:

- in European campaign, Napoleon will start with single unit of Mamelukes, with high experience (exp 7). You wont be able to recruit more of them so if you lose them, they are gone..

- Old Guard will start with Exp 8, but player will be able to recruit another one with Exp 6 only. So if you lose that single unit, replacement will be of lower quality than true Old Guard..

[Filmor]

Regarding start units in Prussia campaign you have 9 light artillery, while the limit is 8. Kind of strange.

[JaM]

good to know. its vanilla number, ill convert some to heavy artillery.