Historical facts repository

[mAIOR]

Hello ladies and gents, this idea came to me while replying in the NTW3 forum about the effectiveness of cannister. My idea is to gather all examples of several controversial questions like squares and cannister in order to provide an indication of the changes required to make the game even more realistic.

Here's my historical examples on squares:

From an earlier post of mine:
Wagram is an example, or at the skirmish of Garcia Hernandez where German and english cavalry broke two French infantry squares. One of them held their fire for too long and a charging horse died and rammed the french square breaking it open. A second square was totalled when the men flinnched before the cavalry strike and then broke after the charge. At quatre bras another square was broken. Cavalry had a good chance vs isolated squares if they didn't manage to break the charge.

And now for other examples:


1813 Dresden:

The Prussian 1st Silesian Hussars hit the 8th Voltigeurs of the Young Guard and drove them back. The Russian Grodno Hussars and Loubny Hussars attacked the 5th Voltigeurs already formed in square. The square was broken and 310 Frenchmen were killed, wounded and taken prisoner. The Young Guard felt vulnerable against the cavalry as many muskets were useless in the rain.

The Grodno Hussars again attacked the Young Guard and broke one square. The Russians drove the enemy back. Soon however the guns of Young Guard caused them precipitately to surrender the field.

The Saxon cuirassiers broke two Austrian squares, capturing them entirely! The French cuirassiers moved against Austrian battalion-squares standing near the Pennrich Height. One battalion surrendered without resistance. The Vacquant Infantry Regiment was attacked by French and Saxon Cuirassiers and after a short but fierce fight capitulated. Two companies of Austrian infantry kept falling back, with their muskets useless during rain. The French dragoons followed them, loaded their firearms under their capes and fired into the enemy ranks. The infantry surrendered to the dragoons.

Chastel's 3rd Light Cavalry Division moved past Pennrich. Berkheim's light cavalry attacked one Austrian square from all sides forcing it to surrender.

Now these examples are not very detailed but rain played a major part. The auther mentions that the french Voltigeurs caught by Prussian and Russian cavalry were distraught since rain rendered their muskets useless and probably the surrendered squares surrendered more to the constant harassing by French cavalry with small arms fire than to direct charges. Note that in the last example the author uses the word "attacked" instead of "charged".

1813 Leipzig:

-Few miles north of Leipzig, near Mockern, Prussian General von Yorck attacked with battalion of the elite Leib Regiment, 2 squadrons of Brandenburg Hussars and 1 sq. of horse volunteer-jagers who until now stood in a hollow ground and were unseen to the French. Behind them advanced Brandenburg Uhlans. Once they came closer to the French infantry the 308 Brandenburg Hussars "wheeled out" and charged. The French formed two squares and fired. The salvo made little impression on the hussars, they broke and pursued the infantry. The frightened infantry ran towards own artillery and thus masking their fire. In effect the entire battery was captured. Regiment of Wirtembergian cavalry struck the Prussians on the left flank but was immediately charged by 2 sq. of Prussian Uhlans (342 men). The Prussian uhlans and hussars broke two regiments of Wirtembergians and captured 9 guns. During pursuit they met battalion of 1st Marine Infantry Regiment and slashed it to pieces. The uhlans continued their brilliant charge and broke several other squares!
It was a disaster for Marmont's infantry.
Jurgass sent forward 1st West Prussia Dragoons, Lithuania Dragoons and several regiments of Landwehr cavalry. Total of 2.000-3.000 of cavalry flooded French positions. The dragoons attacked French cavalry, broke them and pursued towards Gohlis. They also captured 4 guns and took prisoners. Another group of cavalry, dragoons and Landwehr, attacked battalion deployed in line and broke it by attacking one flank. Battalions of 1st and 3rd Marine Infantry formed squares and attempted to halt the Prussians. But the Mecklenburg hussars took them from the rear while from the front attacked Prussian infantry. The marines broke in the instant, lost a flag and 700 prisoners. The 2nd Leib Hussar Regiment took 2 French flags and 2 guns, and the Landwehr and national cavalry captured several guns. The 7th and 8th Brigade continued their advance behind the victorious cavalry, but there was little or no resistance from Marmont's troops.




- in 1805 at Austerlitz, "A lieutenant of the Mamelukes managed to hack his way into the square of [Russian] Semenovski Lifeguard Regiment, suffering multiple bayonet wounds and having his horse killed beneath him. His comrades immediately exploited the breach in the square, breaking it and sending the battalion fleeing ... leaving 10 men and their standard in the hands of the Mamelukes." (Goetz - "1805: Austerlitz" p 229)
- in 1815 at Fleurus. A single square of Prussian fusiliers threw back 3 cavalry charges. Several cavalrymen however managed to break into the center of the square but were bayoneted. The regimental history of the 28th Infantry (a former Berg regiment) described what happened: "Although several cavalrymen managed to break into the square, they were all bayoneted. Even after such a show of resistance, the enemy tried to persuade the troops to change sides.


Why is lethality for squares too high and I think that squares should have decreased lethality and increased defence:

- In 1809 at Wagram, Chasseurs of Napoleon's Guard attacked a square formed by Austrian landwehr. The Austrians delivered volley, 10 men and 10 horses were the casualties. It was enough for the guardsmen as the Landwehr stood firm.
- In 1806 at Prenzlow, a small Prussian square (400 men) repulsed 7 attacks of 2,000 French dragoons, each time delivering a volley at 20-30 paces. The dragoons lost only 10-15 horses but the square held fast and it was enough to discourage the attackers.
- In 1813 at Dennewitz, one squadron of Prussian dragoons received volley at 30 paces and lost 28 men and 41 horses.
- In 1814 three newly raised Russian battalions were attacked by French cuirassiers. The Russians delivered volley at 60 paces killing not a single man or horse. The cuirassiers however turned back and retired.

Now, cavalry would have a hard time engaging a square head on (horses were trained but still not suicidal) and most of the time they wouldn't be able to attack the square (it's not possible to represent this fully in game) so that's why with lethality lowered, horses would reach the square and not get 30% casualties as is presently the case:

-"[At Waterloo] No actual dash was made upon us [our square]. Now and then an individual more daring than the rest would ride up to the bayonets, wave his sword about and bully; but the mass held aloof, pulling up within 5 or 6 yards ..." (- Mark Adkin - this is the guy responsible for many of the square invincibility myths)

I don't know what affects morale in game but cavalry charging unloaded squares should cause some panic and I know some of the examples can't be replicated in game but slightly lowering unit cohesion for squares in presence of cavalry should work no? Low casualties for attacking cavalry would represent the fact that squares mainly worked in a standoffish way and not at all a cavalry shredder they currently are killing however the unwary cavalrymen who got a bit too close.


Some further examples taken from Didz new topic and some extra info I found:

John H Gill "1809 Thunder on the Danube Volume III Wagram & Znaim" page 43 relates an incident involving the Kaiser Hussars (Gill cites in his footnotes Treuenfest Husaren-Regimenter No 1 Kaiser pages 253-254) on 2 June 1809 near Jedlinsk. A force of Poles (mainly green infantry) plus cavalry against a mixed force of Austrians. The Austrian cavalry drove off the Polish horse, but the Polish infantry performed well under heavy artillery fire & resisting Austrian cavalry attacks until a Corporal of the Kaiser Hussars compelled his horse to leap into the Polish ranks, killing himself & his horse. As a result the square collapsed and 500 Poles surrendered.

was reading of another incident involving a Prussian square at Katzbach (possibly formed by a battalion of the 4th RIR, though I am still looking for a detailed Prussian account of the incident).

The square was caught in the open by French cavalry in the midst of a torrential downpour, which had rendered their muskets useless. French Cuirassiers attacked the square several times but the appalling conditions and the resolute behaviour of the infantry prevented either side doing much harm to one another, and the ground became so churned and muddy that eventually the cavalry could not even charge anymore and the two sides ended up virtually eye to eye hurling insults at each other.

The cavalry had no artillery or infantry on hand, and so this ridiculous situation continued until eventually the French 6th Lancers appeared on the scene. With their longer reach the lancers found that they could stand just out of reach of the Prussian's bayonets and stab at the soldiers in the outside ranks of the Prussian square. This exercise continued for some time until the Prussian nerves began to break and in trying to avoid the jabbing lance points they created a weakness in the wall of the square that the cavalry could push into and expliot and the square dispersed.

From this website regarding the battle of Hanau after Leipzig:
For those not wishing to see the full account of the battle, this was a charge done vs infantry in squares who were so far unmolested apparently albeit a bit nervous due to the artillery barrage that had driven both skirmishers and their cavalry which tried to take out the french battery.

At the sight of the bearskins the Bavarian infantry recoiled in consternation. Wishing to check the disorder at any cost, General Wrede made all the cavalry at his disposal charge our guns, and in a moment the battery was surrounded by a cloud of horsemen. But at the voice of their intrepid chief, who, sword in hand, was setting the example of a valiant resistance, the French gunners seized their muskets and remained immovable behind the carriages, whence they fired on the enemy at close quarters. Numbers would, however, have triumphed, but that at the Emperor's order the whole of Sébastiani's cavalry and that of the guard, grenadiers, dragoons, chasseurs, Mamelukes, lancers, dashed furiously on the enemy, killing a great number and dispersing the rest. Then, flying upon the squares of Bavarian infantry, they broke them with heavy loss, and the routed Bavarian army fled towards the bridge and the town of Hanau.

General Wrede, being a brave man, determined, before owning himself beaten by a force of half his own strength, to make a fresh effort. Assembling all his available troops, he attacked us unexpectedly. The musketry-fire suddenly drew near to us; again the forest re-echoed with the roar of the cannon, the balls whistled through the trees, bringing great branches down with a crash. The wood was too deep for the eye to penetrate; through the shade cast by the thick foliage of the huge beeches one could barely see the occasional flashes of the guns. On hearing the noise of this attack the Emperor sent off in that direction the grenadiers of his Old Guard, under General Friant. These soon repulsed this last effort of the enemy, who quickly left the field of battle and rallied under shelter of the fortress of Hanau. During the night they abandoned this also, leaving a great number of wounded, and the French occupied the place.

Another quote of interest:

The last cannon-shots which I heard in 1813 were fired at the battle of Hanau, and that day went very near to be the last of my life. My regiment charged five times—twice upon infantry squares, once upon guns, and twice on Bavarian cavalry; but the greatest danger which I ran arose from the explosion of a wagon full of shells, which took place close to me.

Cannister:
From my post at NTW3:
During testing, cannister from a 6 pounder had an accuracy of 13% vs a target 1.9m high and 30m wide at 228.6 meters (300 paces) 12 pounder was 14%. battalion volley was 25% now knowing that in battle it was more like 1/500 hit rate for muskets at these distances (approximately max range in NTW3) and considering the same relation applies you have approximately a 1/1000 hit rate. So cannister at long range was not effective at all.

According to Haythornthwaite in battle, results varied. At smolensk four squares were under fire for three hours by 12 guns and only suffered 119 casualties. On the other hand, at Austerlitz Lannes suffered 400 casualties in 3 minutes by 40 guns. It all depends on the range. Tests were made using solid targets so you had to consider troop spacing in the equation and soldiers being hit by multiple shots as well.

So I think light cannister should have very high dispersion creating little casualties at long ranges (anywhere from a range of 70 to a range of 40 or 50) and be brutal at close range. Also, is it possible to change the quicklime projectile and make it fireable by cannons as heavy cannister?




Cheers...

[JaM]

Thanks, good idea.

about canister - in NER I have considered all canisters to be heavy canisters. Range of fire is abstract, and follows the optimal effective range instead of maximal range. If you play ER, there you could see artillery development in this area - there are about 3 big artillery reorganizations - early guns firing light canisters only, early guns are mostly heavy hard to move pieces. as technology progresses, lighter caliber are available, while old guns obsolete, new guns are faster to reload, are more accurate than same size old guns. next advancement allowed another accuracy and reload speed boost, made howitzers available and also came with heavier canisters, which have less projectiles,but longer range and higher lethality, so light canister could be deadlier at very short range, heavy canister is better at range due to larger balls and greater kinetic energy. Last reorganization just added horse artillery..

[mAIOR]

Yes maybe just having heavy cannister is a better idea. Good good I was wondering about cannister since the French used it offensively and that's impossible with light cannister due to the huge dispersion rate. How many bullets did you give for heavy cannister per gun? I made some simple math for the most extreme example and the battle where Lannes lost 400 men over several units in 3 minutes, in game it should represent roughly 80 kills in 30secs (1:5 time scale) on several units that's roughly 30% casualties if one considers one regiment alone. Facing approximately 6 shots per gun with 40 guns so that's 240 rounds overall so you get a kill rate of 1.67 men per round. What's the scale of artillery in this game (how many real guns does each represent)?




Cheers...

[The Lions Den]

The only one thing I have to say about NER is that the French ships seem much weaker than Englands. When I play a custom battle. And no matter how hard I hit the English ships they never seem to get much damage. But when they hit me. My ships get destroyed very quickly and sink. Other than that. I love this mod with all my additions to it. Thanks, JaM

[mAIOR]

Historically, french ships are weaker than English due to different approaches to Naval Engagements. France doctrine was to shoot away at the rigging from afar until objectives were fulfilled and then withdraw as soon as objectives were completed. They would only close in to "duke it out" in close range engagements when absolutely essential. That's why generally (save a few exceptions I shall mention latter) French ships were faster than English ships albeit at the cost of lower structural integrity. This doctrine is the reason why so many naval engagements with the French appear to be tactical draws while in fact for the French were tactical or strategic victories.
English approach to naval combat however was to get snug and close to the enemy and try to blow it apart. Gastly little buggers. No finesse at all; just like a bulldog. This happened for many a reasons being one of the most important, their geographical position. They're an Island so the Navy was pretty much all they got. So, English ships began to be developed for close range fighting which means, they need stronger hulls at the cost of some speed.
Now English doctrine while apparently effective was actually not. In many battles Nelson was lucky because the French were already so scared of the British and their mad ways of getting close to you for absolute carnage would raise anchor, try to escape and avoid duking it out. This is one of the reasons French lines were broken so many times. In the trying to avoid some crazy ass British ships coming at you at ramming speed you'd open vulnerable spots in your line. The perfect example of what the French could have done to counter this English kamikaze tactic was perfectly shown at Trafalgar When Nelson in HMS Victory (100) got the beating of a lifetime by the French ship Redoutable (74). The French captain maintained the position in the line in order to protect Bucanteur (80) stern and didn't flinch. So Victory in effect got hit from a long distance away up to the snug range the English were so fond of. when under fire, Nelson remarked "It's to warm work to last long" showing that he expected that the French would again try to avoid close action at all costs. By the time HMS Victory was close enough to engage, She had already sustained some damage, had several casualties including two of Nelson secretaries and lost her wheel. When the French engaged at close range, they quickly silenced HMS Victory and they were boarding her when HMS Temeraire (98) passed through the other side of Redoutable and unleashed a devastating close range volley that swoop both French and English decks killing or wounding most of the French crew since they were exposed on deck to board Victory. Total tally for the French were 300 dead and 222 injured out of 600 men serving the ship.
In the Action, HMS Victory lost 57 dead and 102 wounded. there are no records of French casualties in the Redoutable pre-close range broadside but the were not as heavy as the English since the logs from both sides indicate two things:
1st HMS Victory evacuated the upper deck. This shows that they were under severe pressure.
2nd The descriptions of the Boarding action state that HMS Victory deck was littered with corpses when the close range exchange finished.

I think this shows quite well the difference in doctrines and what the French could've achieved had they actually tried to prevent the English from breaking.
French exceptions to the lower hull strength for speed are the Téméraire class ships of the line (74) which is the class Redoutable was part of.
Ócean class Ship of the line (120) which had a displacement of 5,000 Tonnes. Roughly 1,5 Victories.

What you are experiencing is weird. Are you using SOTL to do some damage? In this mod since Naval battles are extremely realistic, a carronade Frigate is the smallest ship you can use to inflict some damage. And even that is at very close range. Some older SOTL like 50 or 64 gun ones can be slightly damaged by something smaller especially if you manage to catch them through the stern.
I can send you my replay of my version of Trafalgar when I humiliated Nelson's fleet (2 ships sunk, rest of the fleet captured with no losses on my side) for you to see the tactics I used and (modesty aside) take some pointers. In this mod ships behave with extreme realism so getting the wind on your back is essential. I like the battle of Trafalgar I made because I started with the wind against me and still served a crushing defeat to the English with a side dish of you. :p



Cheers...

[JaM]

Probably he just witnessed the Animation bug of NTW,where damage is not added visually to ship,but it still counts if you check hitpoints.



There is one thing i would like to add to NER in the future, just need to find out how to do it best - infinite naval battlefield. currently naval battlefield is just too small, and practically you make two maneuvers with your fleet and you will hit the border. I have increased the size in addon mod (graphic addon),but it also made deployment zones more away. Instead i would like to have let say 100x larger map than right now, but deployment distances the same... But there is one negative about this - time limit - if you fight against enemy who can avoid you, you will lose the battle... or if you can avoid AI fleet, AI will loose... which could be quite an exploit. (anyway when i tested this few times in ER, if AI jump your fast ship with big ships, its natural you will avoid the fight. No sane captain would accept the fight anyway... soif you manage to avoid them and time limit runs off, they lose, and run away from you on campaign map, which is not realistic, but at least it makes you escape..)

[mAIOR]

Yeah the lack of visible damage from front and back is a bit disapointing. But still, after some broadsides are exchanged, the damage on the sides of the ships is amazing!
Btw, I'd like to allow this thread for historical facts only. Maybe start editing the original posts to keep examples from things I or other people discover. What do you think?



Cheers...

[JaM]

Sure, do you have admin rights,right?

[mAIOR]

No need of such privileges since original post is mine.

Updated first post btw.



Cheers...

[The Lions Den]

Thanks mAIOR for that info. Very helpful. You guys are great.

[mAIOR]

First post updated. Will reorganize it latter. Organise by type and by dates. Entries on the battle of Dresden added.



Cheers...

[LawL_LawL]

The French should also be weaker at sea due to severe constraints with man-power and ineptitude of higher echelons of leadership within the French Navy.

IIRC Villeneuve wasn't even supposed to leave port to engage the British fleet, I think he was actually being removed from his position as admiral, but took to sea in hopes of catching glory before it left him behind for another admiral.

Not to mention appallingly poor gunnery aboard many French ships, for various reasons, one which was due to some officers subscribing to the idea that sending shot to the depths without purpose is but a waste.

[JaM]

Yes, French fleet was in very bad shape, during revolution,but it started to recover under command of Latouche Treville. he even managed to humiliate Nelson on one occasion, but then he died, and Villeneuve took over. Anyway Napoleon was not very kind to naval power, and he often took best men from it, especially to artillery, so ships didnt had enough of experienced men. Some commanders for example mentioned that some guncrews forgot to load a solid shot and fired blanks, others didnt clean the gun properly and got killed by exploding charges during loading process etc...

[Kellerman]

Cavalry had a good chance vs isolated squares if they didn't manage to break the charge.



-"[At Waterloo] No actual dash was made upon us [our square]. Now and then an individual more daring than the rest would ride up to the bayonets, wave his sword about and bully; but the mass held aloof, pulling up within 5 or 6 yards ..." (- Mark Adkin - this is the guy responsible for many of the square invincibility myths)

Some further examples taken from Didz new topic and some extra info I found:

For those not wishing to see the full account of the battle, this was a charge done vs infantry in squares who were so far unmolested apparently albeit a bit nervous due to the artillery barrage that had driven both skirmishers and their cavalry which tried to take out the french battery.



Cheers...

I'm sorry, but you cannot simply count up the number of times cavalry broke a square in the Napoleonic era and come to certain conclusions. One has to distinguish between unsupported cavalry charges and unsupported squares. Breaking a supported square in the Napoleonic era was almost always due to very unusual circumstances or events - such as a dying horse rolling into the ranks and thrashing around in death throes. You cannot point to every example of a broken square and say things like "Cavalry had a good chance versus isolated squares" - because you are not accounting for these other factors.

Horses will not approach a bayonet wall. Even in a charge, the horse will balk and throw the rider once it becomes aware of the fact that it is running towards shiny pointy things. Horses are not stupid, and this particular set of instincts could not be trained out of horses. Your example of the Waterloo quote is simply an account of the fact that the horses on which the French were mounted would not approach the bayonet wall. So, the many charges of the French cavalry at Waterloo were futile; because they were unsupported by infantry or artillery they had no chance of breaking the squares no matter how many times they "charged" - and it was more of a saunter through a muddy garbage pit than a charge.

Broken squares were almost always the result of something besides cavalrymen and the horses 'breaking' the square formation. It could be artillery, or some supporting infantry, or a random event, or a morale collapse. The instance in which the dying horse thrashed around in the ranks of a French square and the charging cavalry subsequently broke the square is, according to my sources, "the only known instance in the Napoleonic Wars of a supported French square being broken by cavalry." This is one instance of a supported square being broken in 16 or 18 years. This doesn't translate into any kind of cavalry having a good chance of breaking a square, especially if the cavalry itself has no combined arms elements in support.

I may as well address another issue while I am posting. I noticed in the description of this mod, the modder said : "Soldiers reload faster, and will deliver more volleys. Instead of being hit with 1-2 volleys, now attacker will get 5-6 salvos instead. This also makes Line infantry units fire semi-continuously, but it is also easier to run off ammo. Musket accuracy was adjusted to produce realistic number of casaulties."

This is unrealistic. The flintlock musket had a rate of fire of between 1 and 2 rpm, depending mostly on the level of training but also other factors. There was no army anywhere at this time that had a rate of fire you describe here. Furthermore, after a few shots the rate of fire decreased not due to tiredness, although this contributed, but due to fouling which makes the weapon progressively more difficult to load.

[Kellerman]

I forgot to mention that one reason a number of squares or near squares were broken was due to weather making powder wet. If the square cannot fire volleys, it cannot on it's own prevent groups of dismounted cavalry from approaching the square and attempting to open the formation with melee assaults, usually on the corners. If the cavalry have the freedom to meander around the square while mounted, it is much more possible to cause the square to malform, creating an opening through which a few horses or a platoon could ride into the square center. The infantry, being aware of this fact, were also liable to morale failures if the unit had essnetially no fire to offer.

[JaM]

Kellerman: Musket rate of fire is adjusted to movement rates... 1 minute in game is not 1 minute in reality.. If it was, units would have to move very, very slow, which would have negative impacts on animation (slow motion) therefore i have decided to use different time scale.

[Kellerman]

Kellerman: Musket rate of fire is adjusted to movement rates... 1 minute in game is not 1 minute in reality.. If it was, units would have to move very, very slow, which would have negative impacts on animation (slow motion) therefore i have decided to use different time scale.

In the real world, a unit of infantry advancing to close on an infantry unit defending would get hit with how many volleys from the target unit? As the effective range of the flintlock musket was under 100m, what we are asking here is how long does it take an advancing unit to move about 70 meters at a medium walk? Say that it takes roughly 1 minute, because it has to keep cohesion during the advance, and there are nearly always other factors which render a unit advance a bit slower than one person walking. At best, therefore, a unit advancing to contact would get hit with 2 volleys during the advance. It doesn't matter what time scale you use here.

I make these comments because I've spent some time looking at other mods, and I would say your mod is in the top 3 when it comes to realism, except for this and the idea that "cavalry has a good chance of breaking a square."

[JaM]

Single musket had average medium accuracy at 70m, but we are talking about entire battalion of 600 men. Usual distance at which units opened fire was around 150m (which is currently used as max musket range for line infantry, 75m=25 in game distance units), while average movement speed of Infantry was 50-75m/minute, which means it would take about 3 minutes to close that distance. If average rate of fire is 2 rounds per minute, such unit would have to face around 6 salvos or more... this is what you can expect in ER to get.


Another important thing why increased rate of fire and faster time scale was used is speed of reloading animation - If you set musket reload speed to vanilla value, you will end up with soldiers ramming the bullet 15-20 times to reload musket. This is completely wrong, muskets were smothbore, ramming bullet down the barrel was not that problematic, usually you needed to ram it once. This is only possible with very short reload times, therefore i have decided to go with different time scale, which is also more suited with current movement speed animations. With ER, you will usually see soldiers to ram bullet down the barrel 3-4 times, which represent soldier detaching the ramrod, ramming the bullet and putting ramrod back.

[Kellerman]

Usual distance at which units opened fire was around 150m (which is currently used as max musket range for line infantry, 75m=25 in game distance units), while average movement speed of Infantry was 50-75m/minute, which means it would take about 3 minutes to close that distance. If average rate of fire is 2 rounds per minute, such unit would have to face around 6 salvos or more... .


Another important thing why increased rate of fire and faster time scale was used is speed of reloading animation - If you set musket reload speed to vanilla value, you will end up with soldiers ramming the bullet 15-20 times to reload musket. This is completely wrong, muskets were smothbore, ramming bullet down the barrel was not that problematic, usually you needed to ram it once. This is only possible with very short reload times, therefore i have decided to go with different time scale, which is also more suited with current movement speed animations. With ER, you will usually see soldiers to ram bullet down the barrel 3-4 times, which represent soldier detaching the ramrod, ramming the bullet and putting ramrod back.

AFAIC animations don't matter to me - realistic battle tactics and results do. But, no one is going to release a mod where the animations are completely messed up for the sake of battle realism.

I acknowledge that units opened up at twice the usual effective range of the musket, indeed this was one of the many purposes of bunched up formations in the first place = even if there is virtually no accuracy, 500 shots downrange will hit something, perhaps a few things. However, let's be clear : the *average* rof was not 2 rpm, that was the *maximum* rof. It declined in an almost linear fashion once the unit was even lightly engaged due to fatigue as well as fouling. This doesn't even account for weather conditions - like rain or very damp conditions - which would wet the powder or make the flints unlikely to spark sufficiently if at all. The average rof would be imo about 1.25 to 1.5 rpm, and there are sources for this. Secondly, in the above you correctly point out that the average rate of movement was between 50 and 75m for a formation, but then switch to the lower figure to support the idea that a unit would have to face "six salvos or more." I think between 2 and 4 is a better figure, towards the lower end against poor quality units, fatigued units, or units low on ammunition (to represent the fouling aspect) = (one of the reasons poor units are in fact poor units is lack of experience and training in efficient loading leading to a low rof).

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate your work and the work of other serious modders as well. But I see a lot of tweaks that aren't backed up by historical evidence, or a misinterpretation of the evidence, or a tweak that is realistic but which the ai has no capability to assess and therefore wrecks the game for solo play. Not saying your changes fall into any of these categories, but this is what I've noticed even in the good mods (and yours *is* in that category).

[JaM]

150m range was taken as average effective range for line Infantry. In reality units opened even at greater ranges, firing at 200-250m was quite common. I have chosen 150 as a good average, especially because of AI behavior (longer range would make AI waste its ammo without effect), anyway, 70m effective range only counts if your target single men, not entire battalion.. standard musket was able to kill a man at 300-400m, and battalion salvo at that range had some chances to hit something even at that range (from pure statistical perspective). During training, British unit was able to achieve 28-30% accuracy against Company sized target at 320 yards, Prussian unit achieved 20-21% at the same distance. At 160 yards it was 58% for British and 32% for Prussians - but of course, combat accuracy was much lower, anyway it was not that bad as many people think.

I'm not sure where are you taking sources for maximum rate of fire... rate of fire varied in combat vs training, anyway 2 rounds per minute was something achievable by even average soldier. trained men would do better, elite units could do more. Fredericks II Elite Prussians were able to do 5-7 rounds per minute in training... there is a lot of info on this matter, and i have several good books about this topic.

Fatigue has nothing to do with this, reloading a musket is not that tiresome thing. its not crossbow or bow which actually required physical strength.. average musket was just 4-5 kg heavy, and soldiers of the time didn't carry a lot of dead weight as today's soldiers do. What had impact on fire effectivity was cohesion and chaos, but that only affected the unit order, which resulted in unit dropping fire drill and firing voluntarily. French for example didn't even bother with fire drills and let their soldiers fire voluntarily from the beginning, as they found out it actually increases the volume of fire (fire team doesn't need to wait for slowest men finishing reloading)

Failing is already incorporated, as every weapon has its failing rate added (was not present in vanilla), which together with firing mechanism failing rate produces a lot of misfires already - thing is in the heat of battle, lots of soldiers would not notice their weapon failed. Anyway that is not possible in game, and soldiers attempts to fix their musket and fire again, anyway that actually adds some time... at average, there is about 25-30% chance for misfire with Line Infantry unit.

General Jomini wrote, "This is important question of the influence of musket fire in battles is not new: it dates from the reign of Frederick the Great, and particularly from the battle of Mollwitz, which he gained - it was said - because his infantrymen, by the use of cylindrical rammers in loading their muskets, were able to fire 3 shots per minute more than their enemies." (Before 1730 all European armies used wooden ramrods, the Prussians were the first to adopt the iron ramrod.)

The ratio of musket fire was 1-6 shots per minute, depending on quality of weapon, training and time taken for aiming. Marshal Maurice de Saxe wrote: "Light infantry should be able to fire 6 shots a minute, but under the stress of battle 4 should be allowed for." During the Napoleonic Wars, the Russians trained their young soldiers to load and fire their muskets at least 3 times per minute.

http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/in...etry_firefight

Russians were not that good shooters, they were considered to be the worst, nowhere as good as British, Prussians,Austrians or French... For example, Napoleon often ordered certain units fire drills, like for example before battle of Wagram, entire Tharreau's division had to perform live fire training every morning, where each soldier had to fire 12 cartridges at marks.. Something similar was done in Boulogne camp entire summer, so Grandee Armee was at its top once sent against Austrian army in Bavaria.