Adding Range Damage

Will CA consider using the shooting system (or near to) used in Cossacks 2? Basically, what i mean is 3 zones of damage:

green - furthest away; maybe 10 kills max
yellow - mid range; possibly 25 kills
red - zone of death; point blank - 40/50 kills

Any comments are welcome

PS - imma bit drunk (boxing day!) so excuse the lack of explanation ¬_¬

I believe they will only reduce the accuracy depending on distance since that's what they did in all previous total war series.

You're wrong, the game calculates how the bullets goes, it's completly random.

Originally Posted by S-te-Fan

You're wrong, the game calculates how the bullets goes, it's completly random.

They should keep it that way to

Indeed though they should use the Darthmod (the one that works best for me) lethality scheme. POsitioning becomes a whole lot more vital when your units can shoot all they want at 120 yards and hit air or the occasional poor cow in the fields. But when you position your men close or do a gun march your way up to the enemy line it really pays of seeing 30-50 guys falling flat with 1 volley after which you bayonet them breaking moral.

Empire's projectile system is far more advanced than Cossacks', so it works somewhat differently... I nevertheless want to see far more deadly musket volleys in Napoleon. At point blank range, at least 80% of shots should be hitting something...

Originally Posted by bangell99

Empire's projectile system is far more advanced than Cossacks', so it works somewhat differently... I nevertheless want to see far more deadly musket volleys in Napoleon. At point blank range, at least 80% of shots should be hitting something...

And you base this on what source, exactly?
My reading on the subject of musketry warfare just do not back up this 80% hit rate. Not even at point blank ranges. Time and again I read of fierce combats where battalions were standing a handful of yards apart, blazing away at each other for several minutes. But at the end typically only 5-10% casualties are suffered, which was considered pretty bloody.

Take Picketts charge, since it's so well documented.
The Confederates, charging Union lines through open fields for well over a kilometre against an opponent in good order and armed with rifled muskets with sights and the training to use them, Minié balls and supporting artillery. And yet, despite having a melee at the end, the Confederates ended up with "only" 50% casualties. And with that casualty rate it ranks amongst the more famous military follies, right up there with the Charge of the Light Brigade.
And you think that Napoleonic smoothbores with no sights or aiming drill should achieve an 80% hitrate? They should not be capable of a mere 8%!

Originally Posted by Elmar

And you base this on what source, exactly?
My reading on the subject of musketry warfare just do not back up this 80% hit rate. Not even at point blank ranges. Time and again I read of fierce combats where battalions were standing a handful of yards apart, blazing away at each other for several minutes. But at the end typically only 5-10% casualties are suffered, which was considered pretty bloody.

Take Picketts charge, since it's so well documented.
The Confederates, charging Union lines through open fields for well over a kilometre against an opponent in good order and armed with rifled muskets with sights and the training to use them, Minié balls and supporting artillery. And yet, despite having a melee at the end, the Confederates ended up with "only" 50% casualties. And with that casualty rate it ranks amongst the more famous military follies, right up there with the Charge of the Light Brigade.
And you think that Napoleonic smoothbores with no sights or aiming drill should achieve an 80% hitrate? They should not be capable of a mere 8%!

You too forget that the union center held its fire for a good portion of that charge, and that in the American Civil War, by the time Gettysburg takes place in mid 1863 technology has outpaced the tactics employed by the commanders, so weapons and their range had not been used properly yet.

Originally Posted by Soveriegn

You too forget that the union center held its fire for a good portion of that charge, and that in the American Civil War, by the time Gettysburg takes place in mid 1863 technology has outpaced the tactics employed by the commanders, so weapons and their range had not been used properly yet.

The Union infantry opened fire from between 250-400 yards, and kept up the fire till contact was made. Yet, no where 80% per volley casualties at any time, despite all the advantages they had over an 18th century infantryman. Quite the opposite, the Confederates suffered a 50% casualty rate despite all the cannonballs, shells, grape, musketry and bayonets their way.
The "technology has outpaced the tactics employed by the commanders" refers to the impact of the weaponry on tactics and how to adapt to that. It's in no way a reflection of a lack of understanding of the weapon on hand and it's range. They'd been at war for some time in 1863, I think they figured out how far their weapons fired by then. The ranges indicated on their sights were a big clue.

I believe that the cossack aiming model is already implemented in ETW (except for the presentation so you won't have those green, yellow and red areas).

At point blank you will easily gun down 20 - 30 % of the unit you're aiming at
At long range you'd be surprised to even see 1 soldier going down

Originally Posted by Cinnead

I believe that the cossack aiming model is already implemented in ETW (except for the presentation so you won't have those green, yellow and red areas).

At point blank you will easily gun down 20 - 30 % of the unit you're aiming at
At long range you'd be surprised to even see 1 soldier going down

I don't see it really going to try it out now to find out if you are right however please make it less effective then in cossacks, I once had my russian currasier with anti bullet protection gunned down by 1 infantry unit (I attacked their rear)

Originally Posted by Ulan1990

I don't see it really going to try it out now to find out if you are right however please make it less effective then in cossacks, I once had my russian currasier with anti bullet protection gunned down by 1 infantry unit (I attacked their rear)

Bullet protection ?

You mean the armor ? It's useless .. it might stop a bullet if there is a great distance between the gun & the cuirassier but at medium - close range they might as well wear nothing ..

Do not forget they also have a horse which is not "protected" from bullets and I don't think you'd feel good after falling down a horse at full speed with armor on

Historically, cavalry always has been the problem child against gunpowder units .. it's a matter of striking first and striking at a good time.

Originally Posted by Cinnead

Bullet protection ?

You mean the armor ? It's useless .. it might stop a bullet if there is a great distance between the gun & the cuirassier but at medium - close range they might as well wear nothing ..

Do not forget they also have a horse which is not "protected" from bullets and I don't think you'd feel good after falling down a horse at full speed with armor on

Historically, cavalry always has been the problem child against gunpowder units .. it's a matter of striking first and striking at a good time.

it actualy helps in cossacks however since i was in red it might not, well lesson learned only attack infantry without loaded muskets

So who here wants to realism and have big lethality at close range?


Just because its more awesome.

Well there is always the element of chance. Just because you are a distance away doesn't mean the odd bullet might not hit your men.

In reality , just 5% of the bullets had a good impact.

I would like to see more lethality in point-blank fire only if there is a command you can use to say 'hold until the AI is at the right range for a point blank shot taking into account time needed to raise the muskets'.
I would like to make one point:
The Charge of the Light Brigade was not on the same level of folly as Picketts Charge. With the charge of the light brigade at Balaclava, it nearly succeded, and would have had there not been a Russian cavalry corps right behind the cannons. Even then, if the British Heavy Brigade had charged like they were supposed to, the charge would have been a complete success. Instead the british cavalry commander lost his nerve and didnt charge.