[Feedback & Discussion] Napoleon Empire Realism

[Prussian Patrician]

Comparisons:

Note: As is true with all units of the same type, any differences amongst units (unless explicitly stated otherwise) are slight, such that their use is more important than their statistics – i.e. Dragoons/Landwehr, when used properly, shall defeat Cuirassiers/Fusiliers of Line.

Cavalry:
Cavalry Types:
Cuirassiers: Overall the ‘king’ of cavalry, competent in both anti-infantry and anti-cavalry roles – as a result of good melee attack/defence and an excellent charge bonus.
Dragoons: An effective cavalry unit, similar to cuirassiers, though slightly inferior.
Lancers: Devastating in charges and whence attacking disrupted infantry (routing units). Their low melee defence does, however, make them vulnerable in lengthy engagements and against coherent infantry.
Hussars: Brilliant swordsmen, noted for their speed and bravery – like lancers, competent in attacking disrupted infantry, but without a proficient charge.

Note: I have considered the melee attack of lancers and hussars to be greater than that of cuirassiers and dragoons, as to emulate their effectivity in fighting disrupted units. However, the melee defence of the former should be considerably less than the latter, which isn’t a worry when chasing routing units, and should therefore be inferior in lengthy cavalry engagements.

Melee Attack (Descending Order):
Lancers, Hussars, Cuirassiers, Dragoons
Charge Bonus (Descending Order):
Lancers, Cuirassiers, Dragoons, Hussars
Melee Defence (Descending Order):
Cuirassiers, Dragoons, Hussars, Lancers
Bravery (Descending Order):
Hussars, Lancers, Cuirassiers, Dragoons
Discipline (Descending Order):
Cuirassiers, Dragoons, Lancers, Hussars
Duty (Descending Order):
Cuirassiers, Dragoons, Lancers = Hussars
Morale/Steadiness (Descending Order):
Cuirassiers, Dragoons, Lancers = Hussars
Stamina (Descending Order):
Hussars, Lancers, Dragoons, Cuirassiers

Cavalry Factions (Proficiency of cavalry by nation):
General Ranking (Descending Order):
Austria = Prussia, Russia = Great Britain = Minor Nations = France (French cavalry was generally weaker than Russian or British cavalry, in terms of skill, but superior in bravery)

Note: Hungarian Hussars should rank as the best hussar type (neglecting special units), whilst Prussian Dragoons should rank as the best dragoon unit (neglecting special units). Furthermore, KGL Dragoons and Dragoon Guards should rank equally with Austrian Dragoons, and Prussian Hussars should rank equally with KGL Light Dragoons and Russian Hussars. Whilst French cavalry was inferior in terms of statistics, they should have an additional bonus to their bravery (thereby yielding effective cavalry whence used daringly). It may also be said that Prussian cavalry should receive a bonus to discipline, as well as – together with Austrian cavalry – a bonus to duty. The Cuirassiers should all rank similarly regardless of nation. Also note that Cuirassiers without armour should retain better stamina than those with armour, as well as the stamina of hussars and lancers should be superior to dragoons and cuirassiers – in general, Russian cavalry had more stamina than their more western counterparts, but at the cost of weaker horses.


Infantry:
Elite Infantry: Proficient in every category, though inferior to skirmishers in terms of firearm capability.
Grenadiers: Drawn from the ranks of Line Infantry as a superior fighting force, grenadiers are only surpassed by Guard Infantry (although exceptions do occur).
Light Infantry: The emphasis of training being placed upon firearm capability and independent action, Light Infantry regiments have been known to incorporate talented soldiers regardless of height requirements – and have, therefore, attracted an infamous reputation of exclusion to those inadequate for the ranks of line infantry (though, in some cases, prove accurate).
Line Infantry: The standard fighting force of the Napoleonic age, trained in both firearm and bayonet capability.
Militia: In contrast to the regular army, militia are an irregular force drawn from the civilian populace. Although generally inferior to line infantry, they have found themselves being pressured into use as front-line combatants – and have therefore adapted as such.
Skirmishers: Noted for their marksmanship, skirmishers are drawn from the ranks of line infantry – and have even included professional hunters within their ranks.

General ranking of Elite Infantry and Grenadiers (Descending Order):
Old Guard, Guard Infantry (Foot Guard, Life Guard Foot, etc.), French Young Guard, Prussian Grenadiers, Russian Grenadiers, Austrian Grenadiers = Generic Grenadiers (Minor Nations) = French Grenadiers.

Note: As with Cuirassiers, elite infantry (such as Grenadiers and Guard Infantry) received extensive training regardless of their parent nation – and are therefore similar (though the dilution of these units did affect their ability, and as such I have ranked the units corresponding to their exclusiveness). When composing their statistics (as to fit the general ranking aforementioned), one may draw from the differences between the respective line infantries. The following is with respect to the generic description of grenadiers. They should be recruited with three chevrons of experience.

Austrian German Grenadiers:
+ Discipline
+ Duty
(Solid square formation)

Austrian Hungarian Grenadiers:
+ Melee Attack
+ Brave
(Solid square formation)

French Grenadiers:
+ Brave
+ Duty
(Hollow square formation)

Prussian Grenadiers:
+ Charge Bonus
+ Brave
+ Discipline
+ Duty
(Solid square formation)

Russian Grenadiers:
+ Brave
+ Discipline
+ Morale
(Hollow square formation)

Light Infantry:
As aforementioned, superior to line infantry in terms of firearm capability, though inferior in the use of the bayonet (light infantry should also posses slightly superior duty). Amongst themselves, it must be noted that the Grenzers possessed superior skills in melee combat, and Prussian Fusiliers and French Chasseurs should be ranked equally – with the former slightly superior in firearm capability, whilst the latter somewhat better with the bayonet. They should be recruited with two chevrons of experience.

Note: The following is with respect to the generic description of light infantry.

Grenzers:
+ Brave
(Solid square formation)

Chasseurs:
+ Brave
(Hollow square formation)

Light Foot:
+ Discipline
(Hollow square formation)

Prussian Fusiliers:
+ Discipline
(Solid square formation)

Russian Jägers:
+ Morale
(Hollow square formation)

Line Infantry:

Note: The following is with respect to the generic description of line infantry. They should be recruited with two chevrons of experience.

Austrian German Fusiliers:
+ Accuracy
+ Reload
+ Solid against cavalry (I believe that this trait may be emulated by increasing the mass of the unit model – Austrian Infantry, in particular, was described as solid, and even withstood some cavalry charges without forming square)
+ Discipline
+Duty
(Solid square formation)

Austrian Hungarian Fusiliers:
+ Reload
+ Melee Attack
+ Charge Bonus
+ Solid against cavalry
+ Brave
(Solid square formation)

French Fusiliers of Line (Grande Armee):
+ Accuracy
+ Reload
+ Melee Attack
+ Charge Bonus
+ Brave
+ Disciplined
+ Duty
+ Morale
(Hollow square formation)

French Fusiliers of Line:
+ Accuracy
+ Melee Attack
+ Brave
+ Duty
+ Stamina
(Hollow square formation)

Prussian Musketeers:
+ Accuracy
+ Reload
+ Charge Bonus
+ Solid against cavalry
+ Brave
+ Disciplined
+ Duty
(Solid square formation)

Russian Musketeers:
- Accuracy
- Reload
+ Melee Attack
+ Charge Bonus
+ Discipline
+ Morale
(Hollow square formation)

British Foot: (Note: I lack sufficient information to offer further description)
++ Accuracy
- Reload
+ Discipline
(Hollow square formation)

National Guard:
(Should be changed from militia type to line infantry type – as national guard cohorts were used as standard line infantry –, and should be recruited with one chevron of experience)
- Discipline
+ Duty
+ Stamina
(Hollow square formation)

Landwehr:
(Should be changed from militia type to line infantry type – as they were used as standard infantry –, and should be recruited with one chevron of experience)
- Discipline
+ Duty
+ Stamina
(Solid square formation)

Skirmishers:

In general, Austrian and Prussian Jägers should be superior to French Voltiguers (the former being professional hunters, whilst the latter drawn from the ranks of infantry as the best marksmen). They should be recruited with three chevrons of experience.

Campaign Movement:

A general ranking of the campaign movement range, by faction, is included below in descending order:
France, Prussia, Austria, Russia = Minor Nations, Great Britain (though KGL units should be ranked together with Austria)

Artillery:

The general ranking of proficiency, in descending order, by faction is as follows:
France, Russia, Austria, Prussia, Great Britain = Minor Nations

[JaM]

in NER 5 single unit is battalion, squadron or battery. I decided to go with this to have proper Tactical representation over Strategic. This way i can place cavalry into 2 ranks without unit being way too wide, which creates a lot of problems with unit maneuverability. Cavalry was 80 in version 4, but was reduced to 60 in version 5 for that particular reason.

Having cavalry in more ranks would make them extremely vulnerable to artillery fire. Cavalry unit of 60, typically losses 2 men per artillery hit, while unit of 80 in 4 ranks would lose 4 every hit... which means, Cavalry with 60 men had to be hit 30 times to wipe out, while unit with 80 only needs to be hit 20 times - of course unit would rout faster, but 80 men in 4 ranks would get to routing point faster than 60 in 2 ranks.


Personally, my approach to unit limit was to get the overall numbers of men serving in army and scale it. then divide that number by number of regiments. Any "custom" regiment would just distract the number of "generic"regiments by 1.

[Prussian Patrician]

Ok, then I'll update the cavalry into units of 60 - interestingly, I noticed that the later reforms had cavalry form into three ranks (as you currently have it) during manuerverment, whilst in two ranks during their attack. With regards to the unit, I agree that the Cavalry unit should represent a squadron, whilst the infantry unit should represent a battalion. If we were to consider the in game representation on a actual scale, the 60 cavalry unit would represent half a squadron (and therefore 1/8th of a regiment, of 4 squadrons of 120/160), whilst the infantry unit would represent company of a battalion (4 companies being in this battalion, and, with two battalions in a regiment, the infantry unit would again represent 1/8th of its actual size) - whilst some regiments were organized slightly differently, the 1/8th scale would remain. In this, whilst on the battlefield, one can consider a cavalry unit as a squadron and an infantry unit as a battalion - and on the campaign map, one can consider the unit as a regiment. This would mean that you are commanding a brigade in battle, whilst a division on the campaign map. In fact, keep the cavalry unit limits that I have given (they don't have to be updated as they, together with the infantry and artillery, are scaled at 1/8 - even at 60 men per unit).

[JaM]

5.2 update im working on in parallel with ER 5 will bring some interesting changes:

- ship hull resistance will be increased for Line ships, so they will be very resistant to guns smaller than 12 lber. Frigates will be resistant to 6lber calibers. 38-gun Frigate will have same resistance as 50-gun 4-rate, therefore it will become a lot more useful against smaller ships.

- Town Garrison will be renamed to Garrison Infantry and will represent Line infantry units assigned to defend the towns. These units will get comparable stats to standard Line Infantry, therefore defender will now have advantage of "free" Line Infantry Battalions. Intention is to make these battles more challenging as city battles outcome means you lose or keep a province..

- Artillery accuracy and dispersion will be modeled similarly as infantry (negative accuracy values, counterbalancing the unit accuracy bonus) Artillery units will be more accurate at 1/3 of its range, while long range fire will be a lot more random. Dispersion values are now based on actual historical data.

- and of course lots of minor tweaks and fixes

[Prussian Patrician]

Regarding my proposed unit limits and statistics, I'd be happy to help you with any queries that may arise - I assume that the implementation of which may take its time (considering the overhaul to factors of morale: bravery, steadiness, discipline, duty), and would only be included in lager updates (say version 6 or 5.5 - unless you would hope to do it sooner).

[JaM]

yeah, i need time to process it. changes i mentioned, i have already tested, therefore they are good to go.. unit limits are something to think about in near future as part of bigger update.

[Prussian Patrician]

Good to hear.

[Prussian Patrician]

Furthermore, I forgot to mention that Prussian Landwehr infantry were issued 60 rounds of ammunition - and were, therefore, similar to usual line infantry in this regard (I believe that regular infantry was also issued a similar amount).

[JaM]

ok, ill adjust that, btw, if you have some info about standard ammo loadout for other countries, feel free to post them.

Overall, i decided to adjust all armed citizenry units across the board, and convert them into Line Infantry units that are a bit more useful. This will make cities easier to defend / harder to take. For Prussians and Austrians, Citizenry was replaced by Landwehr units (stats are now adjusted as well, with small morale bonus), others, especially minor nations got their citizenry units modeled on Line Infantry. (French have their National Guard, and British have Fencibles)

[Prussian Patrician]

Sure, I shall see if I can find anything on the subject - though, from what I have gathered up until now, it seems that (as I have stressed before) nationality didn't have that much influence on the unit (though there were differences in the philosophy involved), but rather the difference was only noticeable between the different unit types. i.e. Russian line infantry was similar to French line infantry, though Russian infantry placed greater importance on the bayonet over the musket (but this should not mean that Russian infantry should win by default in melee combat). Regarding ammunition, it seems that line infantry carried about 60 rounds, whilst light infantry carried about 100.

[Prussian Patrician]

Having mentioned the differences as a result of nationality, I feel that I should stress how best to emulate the historical variation of units. Essentially, one should compose stats for each unit type (be that heavy Cavalry, light Cavalry, line infantry, light infantry, skirmishes, etc.), which should differ accordingly - I shall refer to these as base units. Regarding the different national philosophies, one should slightly modify the stats of these base units, such that they vary according to the nature of the aforementioned philosophy. With this I shall leave a short synopsis of the national philosophies for different unit types - I based my previous recommended unit statistics on these:

Cavalry:
Austria:
Excellently trained, disciplined, and holding a strong sense of duty (would return after routing)
France:
Lacking in skill, though making up for it in bravery
Great Britain:
Alright Cavalry, KGL units as good as Austria/Prussia.
Prussia:
The same as Austria.
Russia:
Alright Cavalry, good stamina.

Infantry:
Austria (German):
Well trained, Disciplined, Duty, solid
Austria (Hungarian):
Proficient in melee, hot blooded (brave)
France (Grande Armee):
Well trained, disciplined, esprit du corps (brave; hoping to live up to Regiment fame), well rounded with musket and bayonet
France:
Well rounded with musket and bayonet, stamina (maneuverable units)
Great Britain:
Well trained, disciplined, emphasis on aiming the musket over rate of fire
Prussia:
Well trained, disciplined, duty, charge bonus (described as being taller and physically stronger to French troops, though with less stamina - hence, proficient melee combat, but only until they get tired; charge bonus runs out)
Russia:
Disicplned, emphasis on bayonet over musket, steady (harder to break; never retreat)

[JaM]

recently i've been working on two separate things:

- Improved Sailing model with better defined speeds based on wind direction, and adjusted turn rates based on inertia available (turns are faster if you enter into them with speed). Overall, it makes big difference between small and large ships, will give frigates maneuverability advantage over ships of the line making them more useful. at the other side, ships of the line will be able to sail as fast as frigates with good wind. Ketches and Sloops at the other side will get a lot better speed sharp against the wind, and highest turn rate of all ships.

- Infantry Unit speed, maneuverability and cohesion adjustments. As you all know, AI likes to run around with its units, which means it always ends up with disordered units. Only way how to treat it, is to not penalize running.. Yet with running not penalized, it would force everybody to run his units to gain advantage, which is not very realistic. Therefore, i have decided to adjust units speeds, making normal walk slower, while run speed (only Infantry) got decreased to "quick march" speed territory. this way, units wont move too fast around, yet "running" will still be useful to overcome those larger distances with new deployment areas that make battlefields a bit larger. At the same time, i have removed cohesion penalty from running, assuming that units are now moving the speed they can keep their formation intact. Yet, to not make it too simple, instead, i have reduced the unit maneuverability speed down, so turning a Line infantry unit deployed in 3 ranks will be a lot slower than before. It also means, that deeper formations will be not penalized by this that much, so for player, it will make sense to march in columns and only form line when necessary. It also means there will be a delay before AI or player can react on flanking maneuvers.

Of course this change would make "walking" pointless, therefore instead, walking will now have reduce disorder at 50% rate to being idle. which means, you can use walking to improve cohesion of the unit, technically "reforming the ranks". This will also work under fire, but at reduced rate (idle = -12; walk = -6, being under fire from muskets = 3, being under artillery fire = 12 therefore while under small arms fire, walk cohesion reduction will be -3, idle -9, while artillery fire will stop cohesion bonus to apply)

Cohesion will be now solely focused on shooting and fighting, as it directly impacts these two areas. Disordered infantry also got speed bonus, therefore any unit that ends up being routed due to melee, will be able to get out faster.

Overall, this change will give some advantages to aggressive use of infantry, especially to the units with high morale, which can sustain being hit by projectiles and taking casualties yet still carry on maneuver under fire. it also means that defending unit that keeps firing will be at disadvantage over approaching enemy about to charge.



Cavalry will keep movement penalties as before.

[JaM]

Guys, whats your take on square formation? I'm currently starting to consider to replace it with Pike Square formation completely.. 2 rank square is way too inefficient, doesnt provide enough of firepower, which was essential for square to hold off the cavalry, while 2 rank square is not that vulnerable to artillery either, considering that typical square had 3-4 ranks, which means any hit would kill at least 6-8 men hitting the square, i even think Pike square is closer to this - yes, hits might produce more killed, but at the other side, pike square is smaller target therefore its harder to hit with multiple hits at the same time..

Pike square has a superior firepower with a lot more men firing, which is a lot better deterrent to cavalry. At the other side, Pike square can be adopted a lot faster from column (6-9 ranks deep). Eventually, it was even mentioned that infantry was capable repelling cavalry while in column formation, therefore pike square would be good combination..

[Marcus Vitruvius]

I've actually thought of this before while playing your mod. Unfortunately, I'm in the process of building my new pc so I haven't had the chance to play the latest version of NER...I welcome this change though. It always felt underwhelming using the square formation because of the firepower issue. Yes, it routed cavalry with ease but it never felt "satisfying" to use (if that makes sense).

[Prussian Patrician]

Regarding the historical use of the square formation (hollow square or solid square formation, the solid square being the pike square formation), only Austria and Prussia made official use of the solid square - whilst France, Great Britain, and Russia made use of the hollow square. As a result, Austrian and Prussian squares were easier to form and maneuver, as well as one could say better against cavalry attacks (though this may be debated), though largely vulnerable to artillery. In this, the advantage held by those nations using the hollow square was a decreased vulnerability to artillery fire, though at the expense of the aforementioned advantages of the solid.

[Prussian Patrician]

Furthermore, the solid square was a lot easier to handle, and were even capable of being formed by Prussian Landwehr.

[Gustav Mahler]

In other mods, like LME4, full square (pike square) is used to great success. I had a battle on normal difficulty in NER where my Prussian army was completely routed by French cavalry, although my experienced line infantry formed hollow squares. It was so disappointing. The squares could not hold the attack of French heavy cavalry. So I am 100% for full square.

[JaM]

ok then, in next update, full square will be given to all instead of hollow square. thanks for feedback

[Aerys IV le Grand]

Guys, whats your take on square formation? I'm currently starting to consider to replace it with Pike Square formation completely.. 2 rank square is way too inefficient, doesnt provide enough of firepower, which was essential for square to hold off the cavalry, while 2 rank square is not that vulnerable to artillery either, considering that typical square had 3-4 ranks, which means any hit would kill at least 6-8 men hitting the square, i even think Pike square is closer to this - yes, hits might produce more killed, but at the other side, pike square is smaller target therefore its harder to hit with multiple hits at the same time..

Pike square has a superior firepower with a lot more men firing, which is a lot better deterrent to cavalry. At the other side, Pike square can be adopted a lot faster from column (6-9 ranks deep). Eventually, it was even mentioned that infantry was capable repelling cavalry while in column formation, therefore pike square would be good combination..

Hello ! Thanks for your great mod !
I totally agree with this idea, I was about to complain about square inefficiency in NER. I made some tests and a 60 Dragoon unit was able to totally break a 200 Line infantry square. The square was formed in time. I've repeated this test several times and the result was the same. I think squares indeed really need some adjustments

I really love your mod by the way, I cannot thank you enough

[JaM]

5.2 is up