Kaunitz Project [moved over to NTW engine!]

[Kaunitz]

IMPORTANT NOTE:
THE KAUNITZ PROJECT IS IN THE PROCESS OF MIGRATING FROM ETW TO NTW
(new thread: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=532933)
THE ETW ENGINE IS NOT STABLE ENOUGH FOR MULTIPLAYER GAMES.


SOON FEATURING:
MEGASALEXANDROS "PREUßENS GLORIA" MODELS
WANGRINS "NEC PLURIBUS IMPAR" MODELS

This is the notorious "Kaunitz Project" for vanilla-ETW - a mod on which I've been working since 1st April 2010, including minor and major breaks. It all started here, well hidden in the DMUC-submod-board. The Kaunitz-Project is a custom battles-only (i.e. no campaigns!) mod aimed at multiplayer games. The mod tries to deliver a more "realistic" and - as a consequence - more "interesting" experience to players, for which reason it makes use of all the moderate means that the engine provides, regardless of the AI.

Detailed description

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Gameplay on the "grand tactical" level

One of the main reasons why vanilla battles felt so dull to me was because they didn’t force you to make a lot of decisions. All you had to do was to move forward your whole army and then maybe try to turn a flank with a single unit of cavalry. But wasn’t that what 18th century battles looked and felt like? Well: no! It’s not history that provides us with boring battles, it’s the game. Reading accounts of actual battles gave me much more exciting pictures of 18th century warfare than playing the game did. I came up with many reasons of this mismatch and I tried to tack in my mod as much as the engine would let me.

The most important issue is the complete lack of a grand-tactical level, which is a real pity given that the grand tactical aspect is where a computer game could surpass even the best tabletop game. Basically speaking, vanilla battles begin at a point at which an 18th century general would have already done his job. Once the opposing armies were “locked” in combat, a general had very limited means to affect the further order of events – instead, he had to rely on the competence of his subordinates. The generals’ main task was located on an earlier stage of the battle, namely to bring about favourable situations for his own troops, which puts a big emphasis on what I call manoeuvring. It is this aspect that decided battles and that makes 18th century warfare so interesting for me.

As it is, the game doesn’t provide us with means to represent manoeuvring. Every movement of your troops is visible to the enemy who can react directly – without any delay of time! – by a simple click. In reality, a general would be unable to overlook the whole battlefield and he would depend on information being brought to him by aide de camps. He had to make up a picture in his head of what was happening, where the main force of the enemy was, etc. If he found himself in the unpleaseant situation to change the plan, he would need to send out aide de camps to his brigades – which, of course, took time. To sum it up, in reality battles were characterized by restricted lines of sight, a huge delay of orders and (sometimes contradicting) information of any kind (the aide de camps also needed to find their moving recipients in the chaos of battle), and by unrelieable subordinates (misinterpretation of orders, positions,…).

Due to the precarious communication conditions, the outcome of battle depended quite a lot on the “initial plan” (the “dispositions”) that the attacking general and his subordinates designed before the battle. Flank movements like in the battle of Leuthen or at Brandywine were decided upon before the battle, they were not “ad hoc” decisions and were something completely different from the common “let the single cavaly unit charge into the flank” that we get in ETW.

I think it is obvious that hardly any of the points mentioned can be modelled in ETW. For example, we would need multiplayer battles with fog of war (you shouldn’t even be able to see your your allies’ units!) and players shouldn’t be allowed to communicate with each other during the battle. Players should need to make up a plan before the battle – for example, a player could have the task to move to this or that position and then attack in this direction at 4 o’clock. Alas, we can’t have that.

What I’ve done is, first, to scale everything down to 4:1. By this, maps become 4 times bigger, which means that there is more distance between the armies at the start of the battle (more time/space to manoeuvre), and we can actually bring in a “fog of war”, which would have been unrealistic if we kept the scale to 1:1.

The fog of war means that all units are basically hidden from the enemies’ sight. You will not know the whereabouts of the enemies’ position from the start. How/at what ranges can you discover the enemy? First I thought about “realistic” distances, so that an enemy unit would be spotted with the plain eye at about 1400 yards (350 ingame yards, according to the scale). But this didn’t lead to satisfying results. The game does not take into account hills and other terrain that would block lines of sight. And then, I didn’t like the fact that the general (you!) could instantly see an enemy that one of your units could see. As I’ve said before, if the discovery of an enemy came as a surprise, the respective commander would have to send out an aide de camp to the general, which would take time. So what I’ve done is to further decrease spotting ranges for individual units, so that enemies will only be discovered when they’re comparatively close. Thanks to the scale, this doesn't lead to a lot of stress for the player. You will still have enough time to see the enemy before he strikes you, it’s just that even if you react to it, your units won’t be there in time! I have to admit however, that the close spotting ranges do not feel very "intuitive". You will have enemy units appear in the middle of a plain out of nowhere. Blame it on the games' lack of any kind of sight-obscuring haze, not on me. You can also see it differently: whereever you move a unit to a position, this unit will be supposed to hold that position. According to its orders to defend, the unit will hold its position during the time that the aide de camp is on his way to the general (and back). This should also make scouting a bit more risky and it will increase the importance of cavalry. Maybe we will see some more recognaissance "in force", that is: advance guards.

The decreased spotting range has positive effects: 1) reconnaissance is very important. Send out your hussars and light troops and/or build an advance guard. The low detection ranges also mean that an advance guard is actually capable of screening the troops behind (without having to move too far ahead) so that the enemy cannot see them without pushing the advance guard back. 2) The role of reserves is greatly enhanced because battles become more chaotic and unpredictable. In post 86 and 88 (page 5), you can read an after action report which shows that this system can bring about very interesting situations. My flanking manoeuvre was stalled by my enemy deploying a second reserve line, while earlier, he himself didn’t dare to push forward aggressively against my “demonstrating” wing. Moreover, I first had to make out where my enemies’ flank was.

In general, the fog of war feature means that you as the player are forced to imagine and think much more, just as a general would have had to. Since your “vision” is extremely limited, you have to anticipate your enemies’ movements/plans much more. Questions will spring up: Does he have some reserves there? Is this his flank? What happens if I push forward here? Why isn’t he already attacking me? Does this single advancing unit herald the attack of a larger force, or is this only a distraction? Of course, the whole thing is becoming the more interesting, the bigger the armies and the more the players. 1 versus 1 engagements don’t enfold the full potential of this feature. In games with more units, much extremer local superiorities can be achieved, whereas with 20 slots, you will have to split up your army in a rather predictable manner (some cavalry, some artillery, some eclaireurs, some line units – there’s not much left to form a flanking party of). I really wanted to get rid of the arcade-aspect of the game. Players should win because they anticipated the movements/positions of the enemy, not because they could click faster than their enemy. I tried to put much more emphasis on planning and anticipation rather than on ad-hoc-reaction (but micro-tactical mistakes can still cost you a battle).

However, as this system alone is a bit too restricted, I also allow for “General”-units. These units represent the general and his staff. It is a fragile unit whose purpose lies in its larger detection range. Thus a flanking movement will be discovered earlier if “you” are present on the respective flank. The unit is not supposed to act on its own for it can be caught by light cavalry, and, if unlucky, can be shot down by chasseurs. So it's not neccesarily a good idea to let the general scout ahead on his own. By loosing your general, your army will be virtually blind. It is problematic though that the enemy always gets to know íf he has killed your generals' unit.

Another point of notice: For the fog of war feature’s sake I’m not a big fan of implementing all kinds of uniforms (uniforms on a regimental basis) into the game. If all your units look the same to the enemy, it will be harder for him to gauge the strength of your troops (Is this the same unit as before, or does he have two units here?). Therefore, I plan to keep the roster really small, based on unit types rather than individual regiments. It’s bad enough that players will be able to tell the difference between grenadiers and ordinary line infantry from exaggerated distances.

Apart from the implementation of a fog of war- feature, there are more reasons in favour of the 4:1 scale. It’s hard to explain in detail, but outflanking a line that stretches over 1000 yards (ca. 8 units according to the scale) is something very different from outflanking a line that stretches only over 250 yards (8 units of the same size on a 1:1 scale). There are different effects of scope. A line of 250 yards can realign itself comparatively easily and quickly, a line of 1000 yards certainly can’t. So, to make manoeuvres effective and and interesting option to players in the first place, we need to have an appropriate scale.

One more point to add here is that in mid 18th century battles, the roles of attacker and defender were always very distinct. In most cases, the defender remained idle in his defensive position. ETW doesn’t allow us to distribute roles to players. But I’d suggest that – if both players agree – they can still act according to roles. An interesting approach would be to deny the "defender" a "generals staff"-unit, so that his information on the movement of the enemy will be very restricted, forcing him to act more cautiously and to keep his troops more together.

Gameplay on the "small tactical" level
(wip; Honestly I don't know where I should even begin.) A very simplified provisional list:

• more reasonable (but still a bit too high!) casualty rates. If the looser takes a bad beating, he usually loses about 50% of his troops. This is achieved by more reasonable morale settings in combination with a more authentic effect of musketry and by the implementation of more realistic movement mechanics (you'll need cavalry to shatter a disrupted enemy!). A retreating unit is always faster than an advancing unit!
• There's now much more distinction between troop types (especially cavalry and infantry) in order to give them their historical roles; I had to strip infantry off the ability to form square since the instant square is a game breaker. Basically you'll have to put infantry in a very deep formation so that it can turn quickly enough if threatened by cavalry in order to fend it off with musketry. This is not exactly how squares were supposed to work (firepower..) but it's a better representation than the instant square. Also, the "foot print" of vanilla squares (even the pike square!) was much too large, giving a square a wider frontage than the same unit in line formation. If you play the mod you will see that my solution isn't even that unbalanced.
• Cavalry is much more inflexible than in the vanilla game and can't deploy in the flank of the enemy as quickly as before.
• bigger emphasis on proper deployment. 1) units move much slowlier and are more cumbersome. 2) Due to the reduced firing arcs, gaps in your line are extremely dangerous and flank supports are more important. The reduced firing arcs also give the game a much more realistic feel - keep in mind that the battalions represent frontages of about 200 men, packed closely together, so that it's zone of fire would be limited to it's front only. A battalion can now hardly ever engage more than 2 battalions at the same time and is more prone to threats from the flank.
• As the game is much more morale-driven, the casualties will (and historically should!) be very one-sided in some situations. Shock actions are not attritional in nature. It's more like: hop or drop!
• I've attempted to implement a "cohesion" system (instead of the vanilla "fatigue"), so that a unit's fighting capabilities and morale will be reduced in certain situations. There are now more statuses and gradiations than just "ready" and "routed". For example, the cohesion system is used to make the first fire of a unit (i.e. when it is still "fresh") the most accurate one. Accuracy decreases very quickly after the first discharge.
• The tactical units (battalions and squadrons) should all have their historical frontages (less true for artillery, I'm afraid).
• Complete rework of artillery. I've tried my best to make artillery as realistic as possible. Most importantly, the trajectories should now be flat, so that artillery will have problems with firing down- or uphills. Generally speaking, if you're used to vanilla, you'll be disappointed about the effect of artillery. But you should also keep in mind that 1) units move much more slowly in this mod (crossing artillery's field of fire can take some time...) and 2) when imagining the effect of artillery, keep in mind that one soldier model represents 4 "real" soldiers. Artillery will always need support units if you don't want it to be overrun.
• Shock actions both by cavalry and by infantry are extremely hard to model with this engine. I'm afraid that shock actions still lead to much too high casualties for the looser (very bad for cavalry engagements!!). The overall results (who routs?) are quite satisfying though. Bayonet charges are modeled in a special way. A charging infantry unit will actually gain momentum (represented by fatigue recovery) while charging (from a certain distance on), while the defender will keep loosing cohesion if he keeps up his defensive fire. Now, either the defender's fire will break the charger, or the charger manages to make contact. In the ensuing melee, the charger will rout the defender very quickly because of the cohesion/momentum-difference. This is the only way to model bayonet charges so that the defender can't simply "counter-charge" in the very last moment in order to get the same charge-bonus as the attacker.

Immersion-content
(wip)
New sounds
Unit cards
No new models yet (hopefully I manage to implement the models of "Nec Pluribus Impar" and the "Seven Years War Mod" for version 2.0)
No new music (but I can recommend "40 Years in the Family" by the Tippecanoe Ancient Drum and Fife Corps in order to get attuned; example. Iwas really luck to find this on Itunes because the tunes are short and simple, played by but a few fifers and drummers)

Video material and battle reports

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Here is a commentary by the user mAIOR on a battle he fought against the AI (version: kaunitzmp6). (7 parts)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Here is an introduction to the mod by the user Didz, who explains the basics of the mod (4:1 scale) in a battle against the AI. The record is based on an earlier version of the mod (27th may 2011), but the design philosophy and the explained concepts are still valid. (5 parts)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

My battle report of one of my first multiplayer games versus "bloody bill". One of my most interesting battles so far (based on an earlier version of the mod).

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Narrative and maps: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...5#post10311415
Screenshots: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...5#post10312105

A battle report (including a video) of one of my battles against the user Cangry

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...6#post10633656

List of extraordinarily helpful and responsive betatesters
(more credits will show up in the mod's main menu-background-video)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

(listed by the point in time that they've taken a big interest in the mod)

Didz
Dee Jay
saddletank
bloody bill
Cangry
Filip von Zietek
mAIOR

Contemporary art

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

A small collection of contemporary art refering to the third silesian war.

Sources used

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Here is the list of articles and books that I've drawn on for this mod (apart from Didz's invaluable help, that is). Note that there are a lot of titles in it that touch on the American Revolution and Napoleonic warfare rather than the third Silesian War. This is simply due to the fact that the latter conflicts seem to have attracted much more (recent) scholarly interest, especially when we talk about the micro-historical approach which is necessary if you want to model game mechanisms. There are also articles in it that don't deal with warfare/"mechanics" per se. I have not listed the basic resources such as the "Grosser Generalstab" or the kronoskaf Seven Years War homepage. I've marked the titles that I considered extraordinary detailed and thus extraordinary helpful from a wargamers'/modders' perspective:

Rory Muir, Tactics and the Experience of Battle in the Age of Napoleon (New Haven / London 2000). (!)
Michael Hochedlinger, Austria's Wars of Emergence 1683-1797 (Modern Wars in Perspective, London u.a. 2003).
Matthew H. Spring, With Zeal and with Bayonets Only. The British Army on Campaign in North America, 1775-1783 (Campaigns and Commanders 19, Norman 2008). (!INCREDIBLY INTERESTING!)
Brent Nosworthy, Battle Tactics of Napoleon and his Enemies (London 1995).
Christopher Duffy, The Military Experience in the Age of Reason (London/New York 1987).
Franz A. J. Szabo, The Seven Years War in Europe 1756-1763 (Modern Wars in Perspective, Harlow u.a. 2008).
Claus Telp, The Evolution of Operational Art 1740-1813. From Frederick the Great to Napoleon (Cass Series: Military History and Policy, London/New York 2005).
Christopher Duffy, Prussia's Glory. Rossbach and Leuthen 1757 (Chicago 2003). (!)
Thomas J. McGuire, The Philadelphia Campaign (2 Volumes, Mechanicsburg 2007). (!)
George Nafziger, Imperial Bayonets. Tactics of the Napoleonic Battery, Battalion and Brigade as Found in Contemporary Regulations (London/Mechanicsburg 1996). (!)
Sascha Möbius, Mehr Angst vor dem Offizier als vor dem Feind? Eine mentalitätsgeschichtliche Studie zur preußischen Taktik im Siebenjährigen Krieg (Saarbrücken 2007). (!)
Sascha Möbius, Beschleunigung von militärischen Bewegungen im 18. Jahrhundert am Beispiel der preußischen Taktik in den schlesischen Kriegen. In: Hartmut Heller (Hg.), Gemessene Zeit - gefühlte Zeit. Tendenzen der Beschleunigung, Verlangsamung und subjektiven Zeitempfindens (Münster/Hamburg/Berlin 2006) 235-265. (available online: http://www.matrei.ruso.at/dokumente/04_zeit_moebius.pdf)
Sven Externbrink, "Que l'homme est cruel et méchant!" Wahrnehmung von Krieg und Gewalt durch französische Offiziere im Siebenjährigen Krieg. In: Historische Mitteilungen der Ranke-Gesellschaft 18 (2005) 44-57.
Marian Füssel, Das Undarstellbare darstellen. Das Bild der Schlacht im 18. Jahrhundert am Beispiel Zorndorf (1758). In: Birgit Emich, Gabriela Signori (Hg.), Kriegs/Bilder in Mittelalter und Früher Neuzeit (Zeitschrift für historische Forschung Beiheft 42, Berlin 2009) 317-349.
Marian Füssel, Der Wert der Dinge. Materielle Kultur in soldatischen Selbstzeugnissen des Siebenjährigen Krieges. In: Militär und Gesellschaft in der Frühen Neuzeit 13/1 (2009) 104-121. (available online: http://opus.kobv.de/ubp/volltexte/2009/3075/pdf/mgfn13_01.pdf)
Marian Füssel, Die Aasgeier des Schlachtfeldes. Kosaken und Kalmücken als russische Irreguläre während des Siebenjährigen Krieges. In: Stig Förster, Christian Jansen, Günther Kronenbitter (Hg.), Rückkehr der Condottieri? Krieg und Militär zwischem staatlichem Monopol und Privatisierung: Von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart (Krieg in der Geschichte 57, Paderborn u.a. 2010) 141-152.
Alexander Balisch, Die Entstehung des Exerzierreglements von 1749. Ein Kapitel der Militärreform von 1748/49. In: Mitteilungen des österreichischen Staatsarchivs 27 (1974) 170-194.
As a whole: Bd. 3 of the "Schriften des heeresgeschichtlichen Museums in Wien": Maria Theresia. Beiträge zur Geschichte des Heerwesens ihrer Zeit (Graz/Wien/Köln 1967).
Johannes Kunisch, Der kleine Krieg. Studien zum Heerwesen des Absolutismus (Wiesbaden 1973).
Marcus von Salisch, Treue Deserteure. Das kursächsische Militär und der Siebenjährige Krieg (Mlitärgeschichtliche Studien 41, München 2009). (very good for the Saxon/Polish army and the Prina "campaign"!)
Reed Browning, The War of the Austrian Succession (New York 1993).
verschiedene Beiträge in: Wolfgang Adam, Holger Dainat (Hg.), "Krieg ist mein Lied". Der Siebenjährige Krieg in den zeitgenössischen Medien (Schriften des Gleimhauses Halberstadt 5, Göttingen 2007). (from a military perspective especially the article by Bernhard Jahn about the converse interpretations of the battle of Lobositz (which was a draw, really *g*).)

For those interested: There are many more articles by Sacha Möbius and Marian Füssel that I haven't read yet. Just take a look at the publication lists on their respective homepages.

Quote collection

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

This is a collection of quotes that fit to this mod and will maybe be implemented into the game. I'm especially searching for quotes from the Seven Years War, although I've also added some of the American War of Revolution. I'd be very thankfull if you have some quotes too! I'm not very picky. I list quotes that are in some way interesting for me, either because they tell us something about tactics, because they give us a small glimpse in a soldiers' feelings and everyday life, or because they include some bonmots or heroic deeds. (You could also help me with good english translations )

1) Feldmarschall Daun responding to colonel Thiennes’ offer to let the De-Ligne-Dragoons charge during the battle of Kolín (1757): „Mais vous ne ferez pas grand cause avec vos blanc-becs!“
Thiennes: “Blanc-becs, montrez que vous savez mordre sans avoir de barbe, montrez que pour mordre il ne faut que les dents et pas de barbe!”
“But you won’t achieve much with your greenhorns ("without beards")!” Thiennes: “Greenhorns, show how you can bite, even though you have no beards! Show that it just takes teeth to bite, but not beards!”
2) "Nebst dem könnt Ihr gäntzlich versichert seyn, und Ich verpfände Euch Mein Kayserlich Königliches Wort, daß bey einem glücklichen Ausschlag Euer große Verdienste mit allem dank und Gnaden ansehen, hingegen einen unglücklichen Erfolg Euch nimmermehr zur Last legen werden."
(last page of the letter of Maria Theresia to Feldmarschall Daun, ordering him to break the Prussian siege of Prague, Wien, 7. Juni 1757)
"I assure you and give you my word as empress and queen, that in case of success I will hold your services very dear and I will be grateful, however in the case of a defeat I will not blame you."
3) "Avez-vous entendu une semblable cannonade? Pour moi je n’en jamais entendu de pareille!" (Frederick II to General Major Syburg refering to the cannonade at the battle of Torgau 1760)
"Have you ever heard/been in such a cannonade? I haven't!"
4) „Nur einmal schielte ich auf die Seite und sah, daß ein Unteroffizier in meiner Nähe von einer Granate zerrissen wurde, daher ich um so mehr abgeschreckt ward, neugierig zu sein.“
(Lieutenant Christian Wilhelm von Prittwitz /battle of Kolín, 1757)
"Only once did I squint aside, only to see how an NCO close by got torn by a grenade. From that moment on, I didn't dare to be so curious anymore."
5) A quaker-woman to General Knyphausen before the battle of Brandywine Creek 1777: "My dear man, do not go down there, for George Washington is on the other side of the stream, and he has all this world with him."
Knyphausen: "Never mind, Madam. I have all the other world with me."
6) „I hope … that we – (I mean the English) – may be a bit more closely drawn toegether for the attack. For unless we are, I cannot yet reassure myself that infantry with its files four feet apart can capture intrenchments by escalade, or hold its ground against cavalry.”
(Hesse-Kassel Colonel von Donop in a letter to the Prince of Prussia, 2. September 1777, refering to the open order commonly used by the British during the American War of Revolution)
7) "Ich zu meinem Teil hatte die Ehre zu Anfang des Treffens, dass mir nahe über dem Kopfe vorne durch die Spitze des Hutes eine Flintenkugel drang und nicht lange darauf eine zweite durch die große Krempe der linken Hutseite derart, dass mir dieser vom Kopfe fiel. Ich sagte zu denen von Hertzberg, so nicht weit von mir standen: "Meine Herren, soll ich den Hut wieder aufsetzen, den die Kaiserlichen so gerne haben wollen?" "Ja freilich", sagten sie, "der Hut macht dir Ehre."" (Officer Ernst Friedrich Rudolf von Barsewisch during the battle of Hochkirch)
At the beginning of the battle I had the honour to receive a bullet through the front tip of my hat, close to my head, and only shortly afterwards a second one through the left brim of my hat, so that the hat fell off. I asked those of Hertzberg, which were standing close by: "Gentlemen, do you want me to put the hat on again, that (the hat) the Imperials seem to want so much?" "Why of course!", they said, "it/the hat honours you!"
8) "Auf dem Wahlplatz eignete ich mir eine österreichische Grenadier- und eine Husarenmütze zu. Von ersterer brauche ich das Bärefell vor den Bauch, und von dieser das Schaffell zur Nachtmütze." (anonymous Prussian soldier after the battle of Lobositz)
On the battlefield, I took/acquired an austrian grenadier- and husar-cap. I used the bearskin of the former for my belly, and the sheepskin of the latter for a nightcap.
9) "Der König bezahlte jedes Canon, so dem Feinde genommen wurde, 100 Ducaten, vor eine Fahne 12 Ducaten und eine Estandarte 24 Ducaten." (memoires of the royal servant Karl Gans Edler zu Puttlitz, refering to the rewards that Frederick promised before the battle of Leuthen)
The king rewarded every gun taken from the enemy with 100 ducats, an (infantry-) banner (Fahne) with 12 ducats, and a (cavalry-)banner (Estandarte) with 24 ducats.
10) Daun on the issue of making a military career in the habsburg army more attractive for the nobility: "l'honeur et le sang (...) font bien moins (...) le mouvement interieur de l'home que l'interet et la convenniance particulliere qui trespasse sur tout malheureusement che nous."
11) "Whenever the attack proves too serious, they [the American rebels] retreat, and to follow them is of little value. It is impossible on account of the thick woods, to get around them, cutting them off from a pass, or to force them to a fight. Never are they so much to be feared as when retreating. Covered by the woods, the number of enemies with which we have to deal can never be defined. A hundred men approaching may be taken for a corps. The same are attacked, they retreat fighting. We think ourselves victors and follow them; they flee to an ambush, surround us and attack us with a superior number of men and we are the defeated.” Lieutenant Du Roi
12) “A pursuing army is always impeded by the effort that is necessary to maintain its own order; while, whether from terror, for safety, or for rallying, the speed of the fugitive is unrestricted. Hence, cavalry are the military means for rendering disorder irretrievable.” Otho Williams, continental army officer

Banners

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Additional stuff

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

A collection of the expertises written by the user Didz (needs to be updated!)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Didz on artillery
Didz on artillery accuracy/trajectories
Didz on artillery ranges and trajectories
Didz on the lethality of artillery
Didz on artillery movement rates
Didz on attack column formations
Didz on column versus line engagements
Didz on artillery reloading speed and british/french/prussian fire drills
Didz on spotting ranges
Didz on austrian/prussian movement speed (pace)
Didz on bataillon movements/formation changes
Didz on fire drills
Didz on campaign/army movement speed 1 &2
Didz on movement rates/cadence and the speed of formation changes

Unit-roster of Austria and Prussia (needs to be updated!)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

As for the costs: You can see that the costs are set so that players should agree over the amount of points for each battle. I don't want to limit players in any other way.

Schema:
Name (number of models) available for factions (AUstria/PRUssia)
cost
detection range (wood/scrubs/open)
characteristics

HEADQUARTER

General staff (2 men) AU,PRU
cost: 8
detection: 40/230/250 (AU), 40/255/275 (PRU)

INFANTRY

Chasseur company (20 men) PRU
cost: 2
detection: 45/70/80
accurate fire (rifles), detection bonus in difficult terrain, low morale, open order, ammunition: 20

Grenzer (70 men) AU
cost: 4
detection: 45/70/80
accurate fire (muskets), detection bonus in difficult terrain, medium morale, open order, ammunition: 30

Infantry bataillon (140 men) AU, PRU (slightly higher morale than AU)
cost: 4 (AU), 5 (PRU)
detection: 30/70/80
medium morale, ammunition: 60

Converged grenadier bataillon (120 men) AU, PRU (slightly higher morale than AU)
cost: 7 (AU), 8 (PRU)
detection: 30/70/80
high morale, high cohesion, morale shock resistant, ammunition: 60

CAVALRY

Hussar squadron (40 troopers) AU, PRU
cost: 3
detection: 30/85/95
low morale, detection bonus in open terrain

Dragoon squadron (30 troopers) AU, PRU
cost: 4
detection: 30/70/80
medium morale

Cuirassier squadron (30 troopers) AU, PRU
cost: 6
detection: 30/70/80
high morale, high cohesion

ARTILLERY

3pdr regimental gun / "grasshopper" (1 gun model) AU, PRU
cost: 2

Battery of 4 6pdr guns (2 gun models) AU, PRU
cost: 4

Battery of 4 12pdr guns (2 gun model) AU, PRU
cost: 11

Explanation of some “characteristics”

accurate fire (muskets)

higher range, higher accuracy, slower reloading, accuracy less affected by cohesion (a unit can keep up its accuracy even when it keeps firing for a long time, or moves around quickly)

accurate fire (rifles)

like accurate fire for muskets, but with bigger effects in all 4 aspects (range, accuracy, reloading, accuracy-cohesion)

open order

the unit is allowed to go into skirmish formation and can thus enlarge its “zone of fire” significantly, although with decreased fire density; the units’ regular formation might be less dense than that of ordinary infantry; the unit is more flexible (slightly faster movement, faster turning)

high cohesion

the unit can keep up its cohesion better and regains cohesion faster (a low cohesion leads to lower morale and lower accuracy)

Current unit cards

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Flikitos]

Oh so great mate! Downloading! Have you receive my PM?

+rep for you! I will test it immediately!

[Dee Jay]

Thanks for this Kaunitz, I have been waiting for it for a while +rep

[Dee Jay]

Hey Kaunitz, I was wondering if you are eventually going to buy Napoleon: Total War? Because I'm pretty excited to create a 7 Years War Overhaul Mod for the game, but I'm not going to do it by myself, I want to create it with you. What do you say ?

[Kaunitz]

To be honest: I'd really like to help you but there are two issues:

1) (the main reason) The next semester, starting in October, will be pretty rough for me. I'm moving plus I will write my diploma thesis. So I simply won't find the time for such a major project - not in the next 6 months at least. So I have to dissappoint you. It's better to say it now rather than saying yes and taking leave without a word afterwards.

2) (the minor reason) I pretty much can't mod anything apart from sound and battle mechanics. When it comes to campaigns, models, textures, maps...I really have no clue. Also I'm still unsure about the choice of NTW instead of ETW for such a project, given that there's already lots of great 7 years war stuff around for ETW in terms of models (Sponge, Nec pluribus impar). In contrast to that, I haven't even seen a single mid 18th century tricorn for NTW models yet.
Okay, there are some advantages in regards to campaigns as you've pointed out (more detailed map, more focus). But once you've played ageod's "Rise of Prussia", your passion for ETW campaigns will quickly fade away. So basically, I'm not very interested in Total War campaigns. True, they're more interesting if you want to play through a period of 100 years, but I'm more the "the more detail and focus, the better"-type of player.

I hope that I don't dissappoint you too much. You see, I'm struggling to bring even this comparatively small Kaunitz mod to a "finished" state. I don't have time for such a big undertaking (and indeed it is big!!) right now.

[Dee Jay]

No problem, thanks for your reply Kaunitz

[Kaunitz]

Some tips on the usage of cavalry

I usually take a cavalry-infantry mix of 50-50%. Don't be afraid to take a lot of cavalry. 1 unit represents 1 escadron, and 6 escadrons historically made up a single regiment.

My favourite way to use cavalry in my mod is to use it as a mass in two lines on one flank. The other flank of my battle line is either secured by terrain or massed artillery. Since I don't have to worry about casualties (no campaign! ) I usually run big cavalry attacks in this way:

First, I attack with the first line (3-4 units) to break the enemy. Don't be afraid to go frontally. Manoeuvering around the enemys flank does not only take time and is very cumbersome (cavalry gets very confused by any other movement than "straight ahead"), but also, you will expose the flank of your infantry line (which is not so much an issue when playing against the AI, I admit). It's important that the units advance in a neat line so that they give "flanks secure" support to each other, and, if one unit is routet by enemy fire, the others can continue the charge. It isn't even that important to make contact with the enemy in an "unrouted" state, just be sure to get some chaos into the ranks by touching the enemy and carry away as many enemy units as you can. Actually cavalry is very hard to control once you've unleashed it (or once you order a squadron to turn 90 degree *g*) and the tidy formations are very quickly lost. There won't be a lot of casualties among the enemy infantry at this stage (much more on your side though!), but the important thing is that you rout them. Inevitably, your suqadrons will rout as well in this process, but they can draw back behind the second line and rally there.

Second: This is the time to use the second line of cavalry. Exploit the rout and shatter the enemy! Having all your cavalry set to "guard mode" helps to prolong their pursuit before they will draw back. Also, if the enemy still has reserves, be sure to get the routers in the line of fire, between the enemy reserves and your pursuing cavalry. This kind of two-wave cavalry charge, which results in heavier casualties for the enemy than any other method of fighting (casualties of over 50% for the pursued battalions can hardly be achieved in any other situation!), only works when you've got enough units of cavalry at hand. A single escadron is quite useless and won't be able to put up enough pressure. The bad thing is that an enemy square can ruin your day. If you don't watch out and keep your distance, the fire of squares can force your cavalry to withdraw. Luckily, the AI has the strange habitof dissolving its squares in times of immanent danger. In my last battle, I routed two squares of grenadiers who opened up their squares just before contact...

So the main message I wanted to get across: In order to use cavalry to its full potential, you need to have lots of it! This is mainly due to the fact that there are lots of "double routs" in this game, and you should always have squadrons at hand to exploit them. Try to use your squadrons in a kind of rotating manner. Unneccessary to say that this kind of attack works best when the enemy cavalry has already been defeated. This is not really difficult against the AI, even though if you don't watch out, you might be surprised. Cavalry engagements are a gamble. In one of my battles, I've lost my whole cavalry mass of 6 units in less than a minute to a flank charge of a few (2-3) AI squadrons.

[Kaunitz]

The square-ability problem is now fixed (new download link in the first post). 6prds (CTD) and cavalry can no longer form pike squares now. Although this reminds me of a contemporary picture showing Austrian cuirassiers forming a kind of cavalry square against Ottoman cavalry. Moreover all artillery is drawn by 2 horses now as in the DMUC version.

Sorry for the inconvenience for my 3 downloaders. As a compensation, I posted this very nice contemporary painting of the battle of Kolin (parts of which you already know if you've seen my intro video ):

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Kaunitz]

Here's a very small video giving you an impression of the current sound-pack. It shows a battalion of grenadiers finishing off an already exhausted line battalion with a battalion-volley at about 100 yards (remember the 4:1 scale).

[Dee Jay]

Very nice Kaunitz, did you make it yourself?

[Kaunitz]

The video? Yes, of course, you can judge it by the bad quality and by the fact that 3 people have downloaded the test version so far.

[Dee Jay]

Actually add one to that download, I forgot to get it

TESTING NOW

[Kaunitz]

Glad to hear that! Perhaps you would like to dare an online battle some time? After more than a year of "development", I'm really curious how it plays against human players who understand the "fog of war" and who don't let their units run and engage in a piecemeal manner. The scale of 4:1 and the slow deployment should give the fog of war a real importance (the more the bigger the armies and the longer the battle lines get; I don't know if it works that well with 20 units per side already). Even though you're in Australia and I'm in Austria, we seem to be online at the same time quite a lot!
I'm prepared to reduce all my graphic settings to "eye cancer" in order to offer an unlaggy experience.

[Dee Jay]

Tested a battle, Austria vs Prussia, each side had 4 units of line, 2 of Grenadiers, 2 of Light, 2 of Light Cavalry, 2 of Heavy Cavalry, and 4 of Light Guns on the grassy flatlands map.

I gotta say Kaunitz, I am pretty happy with most parts of your mod, after finally playing it, the mod is much better than it looks in the movies (it still looks good in the movie, it's just better when you actually play it).

Also, you said that you are not happy with the light infantry, and would like some suggestions to improve them, I am here to help out, what exactly is it that your not happy with them?

EDIT: Just saw your post, and I would be happy to play against you tomorrow, about this time?

[Kaunitz]

Hell yeah! Finally I've found someone who's ready to play online!? I'm a happy man now! I'll be ready tomorrow at this time (2pm Austrian time/GMT+1). Thank you very, very much! I hope we will get it working. In fact I would change quite a lot of things without having to worry about the lousy AI, but we can try it with this AI-adapted-version first.

The problem with light infantry is that you cannot use it in a very flexile way. You can't choose to use them either as ordinary line infantry or skirmisher infantry. The game doesn't allow two firing/morale/movement mechanisms on one unit. So I had to fix them to "skirmish order": They have very low morale, high accuracy, slow reloading, they're faster than line infantry and have a better arc of fire. In my mod, this means that skirmishers are really just a supporting unit and it's reasonable to prefer ordinary line battalions to fill up the army slots. In an online battle with FoW, though, I guess they can be quite usefull (especially in woods where cavalry moves at snail-speed).

Oh, and I'm also very interested to hear what you didn't like!

[Dee Jay]

Well Kaunitz, I think it would be better to fix them to just using that support, light infantry formation.

The way I done it in my mod is give them about 60 men, make their rank spacing 2.1, make their file spacing 2.5 and make them only 2 ranks. Also, you should remove the Light Infantry behavior ability from them, because that is not as good as the formation I have above (it perfectly suits the Napoleonic period, not sure about the Seven Years War though). Everything else you have for them is fine, just try this out and see how it works, you know more about the Seven Years War than I do .

The way this suits the Napoleonic Wars, is the French Voltigeurs (elite light troops) would deploy into this formation just before firing at the enemy. It was a very loose and wide formation, but not like light infantry behavior in the vanilla game. Instead of them all spacing out away from each other, the men at the front would have one man beside them or behind them, their "buddy", these buddys are the second rank of the formation. Thats about it to explain about that formation.

Also, you should add me on Steam, my name is Dee Jay (just like on here) and my avatar is a Horse Chasseur (need to tell you that because there are thousands of Dee Jays

[Kaunitz]

I've sent you a friend-request on Steam!
And I couldn't help uploading a first multiplayer version.

--> LINK FOR DEE JAY: http://www.gamefront.com/files/20760792/kaunitzmp.7z <--

- It differs in that walking infantry now gets tired (for the AIs sake, infantry recovered while walking in the singleplayer-version). This makes fatigue-resistant troops (grenadiers, lights) a bit stronger.

- Some changes to light infantry (units of 34 now, a bit more dispersed as suggested by you)

- Included a "generals bodyguard"-dummy-unit. We can play 1:1 on 2:2-4:4 maps this way, giving the AIs armies one dummy unit each. The dummy unit is practically unable to move and has its line of sight reduced to 1.

- For our small game of 20 versus 20 slots, I've reduced lines of sight to: 20 (woods), 150 (scrub), 180 (grass). Remember though that the generals unit is always visible, as well as running units.

- Charge fatigue changed to - (!) 10. It's an attempt to give the charger more momentum as it should be. I hope that a counter charge in the last moment doesn't work as this factor increases with time.



Multiplayer games make me creative. I've already toyed with this idea some time ago:

What if we allow one "generals headquarter"/General-unit for each player. This unit should have a rather far reaching line of sight, which represents the radious in which information/depeches can reach the general (you!) comparatively quickly. All other units have their line of sight reduced quite a lot - since light infantry muskets have a range of 75 in this mod, I'd suggest a line of sight of 80 in the open. This is of course far less than the unit would be able to see. The crux is that the exact moment of the "sighting" doesn't matter. What matters is how quickly the message reaches the general so that he can react (by giving orders to his other troops). So, for example, instead of immediatly reacting to a flank attack, there would be a delay if the general was positioned on the wrong flank. Individual units can still react (a line of sight of 80 still offers time to adapt), but it will be more difficult to react to a sudden thread with the whole army. Of course one would have to restrict the mobility of the generals headquarter, making it slower than ordinary cavalry (to prevent it from riding around in front of the army), and having its speed suffer a lot when it gets tired (fatigue movement speed malus). If the general gets shot, it will be a very interesting "blind" battle... Basically, this "system" would make sending out isolated units or splitting up your army a quite risky undertaking. (One could also allow two or more generals, or headquarters of different qualities/lines of sight)

For example: take a large scale flanking attack (imagine Fredericks oblique order! )

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Vanilla ETW: There cannot be a flanking manoeuvre as you can see every move of the enemy and turn your line of battle in accordance to his movements. Thanks to the incredible flexibility of linear formations in ETW, you simply can't be caught flat-footed.

ordinary FoW: As soon as you discover the flank manoeuvre with one of your units (given a relatively short but acceptable "sight" of perhaps 1000yards/250 ingame yards), you can begin to build a new battle line to counter the flanking movement. If you don't have some cavalry ready on that flank and your enemy does, it's getting a bit grim!

edit: I've just made a small test battle with this setting, and my flanking attack dissolved into a musketry shootout in a wood which lasted for almost an hour until my units finally broke and started to run out of ammunition. I blame this on the small forces involved. The bigger the battle, the more decisive a flanking attack gets. With only about 14 units involved per side, it didn't really work as intended.



According to the "system" outlined above: Lets say you, as the defender, have a battle line of 8 bataillons, plus some gaps in between for a total frontage of about 1200 yards/300 ingame yards. Now, as the general is positioned in the centre of the battle line, and quite some distance away, the information that his army is being flanked needs some time before it reaches him. Therefore, the player/army gets less reaction time and the enemy units are not revealed until they're already very close. Your battalion can still react in time before the enemy is in reasonable musket range, but your "army as a whole" will have less time to react. With ordinary FoW, we're speaking of perhaps 10 minutes reaction time (a bit less given that units move a bit faster than they should because everyone was complaining ), whereas in the diagram below, it would be about 3-4 minutes.

[img][/img]

Agreed, 1000 yards is a bit short - in larger battles, one could set the range to more realistic ranges. True, it would be a very clumsy improvisation - but better than nothing. You could try to lure your enemys attention to the right flank with a diversionary force, while you strike on the exposed left flank to his full surprise. As a general, you'd have to choose where you put your focus. On the other hand I can imagine situations in which this system can lead to tricky results (e.g. by keeping your fire, you can mask your own artillery until the enemy is within 80=320 yards if the enemy HQ is far away).

[Dee Jay]

I added you on steam and downloaded your multiplayer version, and I like your idea of the HQ general thingy

And I'm glad that you changed the light infantry, not the way I would have done it, but it's better than before

And just a hint for our game today, I'm not that good as far as I know

[Kaunitz]

I’m back from my online game with DeeJay and I’m very pleased to say that the mod did live up to my expectations. It was by far the most interesting ETW experience for me so far. Both games we played ended up with me having a CTD though. Dee Jay didn’t seem to have a problem and stayed in the game. The second battle lasted about 30 minutes and I’m happy to provide you a small battle report. I hope that the chronology of the events is at least roughly correct. And please excuse the bad english, I'm in a hurry.

For some reason we both picked Austria, so we were having a small civil war on the “Provence” map. As this was a test game, I didn’t have a real masterplan. In the diagrams, I am the white player, Dee Jay is the black one. The only spice in my plan were two battalions of grenadiers on my right flank which were supposed to march around DeeJays flank.

The diagram shows the predisposition of the battle. I presumed that DeeJays main line was positioned behind his skirmishers which were already visible to me. I didn’t see anything of DeeJays strong right flank at that time. I positioned my light infantry inside the wood, and put my centre behind them, all still invisible to Dee Jay. The grenadiers started their flanking march. In order to screen their advance, I sent out a squadron of cuirassiers in front. It’s always a gamble: does the enemy react aggressively when he sees your screening unit and moves close (thereby uncovering your “screened” forces)? Or does he react defensively, holding his position and letting your screened force continue uncovered. In this case, Dee Jay didn’t react swiftly - he stayed cautious and let his three squadrons hold their position for the time being.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The opening shots were fired by my 12pdrs on my left flank at maximum range, targeting DeeJays impressive battery of two units of 12 pdrs (representing 16 guns). As his battery was positioned on the hill and most shots bounced off in front of his guns, my fire proved to be quite ineffective. This counter battery fire continued for quite some time, I believe about 8 minutes. At the end of the day, Dee Jay told me that I had indeed managed to take down one or two of his guns.

I started to feel a bit unsure about the isolated screening squadron on my right flank and wanted to get forward some more of my cavalry squadrons. Dee Jays light infantry had taken up position in a small wood though, opened fire and took down 4 troopers, which made me draw them back again.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Finally, Dee Jay unleashed his three squadrons on my screening force. I can’t quite remember how he did it, but he managed to outrun my squadron and attack its rear, which routed my squadron. Meanwhile, DeeJays skirmishers in the wood discovered my flanking grenadier battalions. There was no reason for hiding any more. Instead, time was essential! So I began to move the grenadiers towards what I rightly believed to be the left end of Dee Jays line. His cuirassiers didn’t come any closer so I didn’t have to put my grenadiers in square formation. Nevertheless I put my remaining two squadrons on this flank into a position to counter charge should Dee Jays cuirassier come closer.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

In order not to let Dee Jay rearrange his line to counter my “not so surprising” flanking manoeuvre, I felt I had to get some pressure on his centre and bind him there. So my centre started to advance. Unfortunately there's no way to have rough terrain disrupt formations in ETW. So my lines had no problem to advance out of the wood without having to stop to dress their ranks. My skirmishers pushed forward under the fire of Dee Jays skirmishers. As soon as one of my line battalions opened fire on the skirmishers in the woods, Dee Jay let them retreat. His other skirmish line in front of his main line couldn’t resist the sight of the advancing line and routed. As my line was getting close, my skirmishers got into safety behind the line battalions.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Now the battle reached its first turning point. Dee Jays centre opened fire as soon as my troops were within musket range. While I had planned to only bind his centre, seeing this mistake I now changed my mind and decided to go in for some shock action. And quite successfully so! While Dee Jays centre kept up the lively fire, my centre kept coming closer and closer. Then finally, my battalions stopped and delivered (almost simoultaneously) nice battalion volleys into Dee Jays line. It took two volleys and all three of Dee Jays battalions were on the retreat.

But, as all my cavalry was spread on my flanks and there was this little wood in the way, I didn’t have the means to exploit the collapse of Dee Jays centre, especially because he still had the full strength cuirassiers on his left flank. Apparently it paid off for him that he hadn’t engaged my grenadiers, so now his cuirassiers were ready to cover the retreat.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The problem was that the advance of my centre opened up a nice gap in my line, between my left flank and the centre. Here Dee Jay got a bayonet charge with one of his grenadier battalions going. I have to apologize that bayonet charges are still kind of broken. It’s extremely hard to model them in a believable way. The result was that both units that took part in the close combat routed.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Now there was a bit of a lull in the battle. I was quite unsure what to do as Dee Jays centre retreated and then started to rally on the hill. I couldn’t quite follow him without danger of tearing apart my line and offering opportunities to his cavalry. So I continued conservatively, giving my grenadiers time to close up to my centre. Obviously, due to the fast collapse of Dee Jays centre, my flanking attempt had failed, and now everything seemed as if another frontal engagement would ensue.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Meanwhile, Deejay carefully advanced with this right wing, a few battalions exchanging fire at long range for some time. Dee Jays grenadier battalion suffered quite a lot in this drawn out fire fight, loosing 20 men (representing 80). Also, three squadrons of cavalry took position, apparently in order to secure the right flank of his right wing.

Nevertheless, the situation here was quite favourable for me. If Dee Jay wanted to go on the offensive with his infantry, he would have to secure his flank against my cavalry. However: he couldn’t do this with his own cavalry because if he ventured too close, my artillery would be in a good position for some nice canister shots. Nevertheless, Dee Jays right wing moved forward.

Two of his battalions were already advancing within musket range (my battalions stopped their fire in order not to suffer the fate of Dee Jays centre), whereas one of his battalion was still moving to reinforce the right flank, peppered a little bit by grape shot by my 12 and 6pdrs (though there was a hill, which helped this column to survive ).

Then came the cavalry charge. As I had hoped for, the rain of canister shot routed one of Dee Jays charging squadrons, stripping the other two squadrons of their morale support. A short and heavy clash of five squadrons followed, and in the end, all three of Dee Jays squadrons routed, whereas I lost 1, if I remember correctly. As a very nice side effect, Dee Jays advancing infantry column routed as well at this terrible sight. The right flank of DeeJays right wing was now open and exposed. I started to take up a position as to put some cavalry pressure on it. The right-most battalion of Dee Jays right wing formed square and was broken by the close range fire of my battalion which I let advance for that purpose. Between my left wing and my centre, however, one of his grenadier battalions had managed to break through after a lively fire fight.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quite simultaneously to the action on my left wing, I tried to exploit a gap between Dee Jays centre and the skirmisher line that built Dee Jays left wing. There were some very chaotic moments until I concluded that this attempt had failed, mainly because of the support of Dee Jays cavalry that was positioned behind his line and poured into the flank of my squadrons. In hindsight, maybe it would have been better to advance frontally against the skirmishers, even though they had cav support behind. The last thing that happened before I had the CTD was that our centres opened fire at each other at mid range.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Surely it would have been a very interesting game. Dee Jays successful grenadier battalion could have tried to roll up my centre, as I was not able to get some cavalry on it quickly (damn those woods!). Some of his right wing-squadrons could have rallied after their catastrophic charge. On my right flank and in the centre, were I suspected my grenadier battalions to defeat Dee Jays rallied troops, I’d say that chances were still even, even after my unsuccessful attempt to break through. It was a very intense fight with some commemorable incidents: close range musketry, a bayonet charge, and failed cavalry charges on both sides. There were attempts to turn flanks and to create gaps in the opposing line. What I found very interesting is the flow of the game. I really like that there's not a giant general action of the kind you get in vanilla ETW. Instead, most of the time, only parts of your army are engaged, which is how I think it should be. Once both sides are committed as a whole, the battle would end up in a bloody attrition-shoot out-contest, which is what 18th century generals usually tried to avoid. Another important aspect of this mod is that the focus on morale rewards the usage of proper tactics. Unlike in vanilla ETW, where there's always some kind of attrition involved, it is possible in the Kaunitz Project to rout units with minimum damage to yourself, a good example being the column on Dee Jays right flank. It makes engagements more decisive as the winner can carry on with comparatively fresh and unscratched troops.

I have to remark though that it still plays a bit too fast and flexible in my opinion. I just remembered that I've planned to reduce the infantry turning rate quite a lot for multiplayer games, which should make movement and deployment count even more. Apart from that, the instant square makes unit more flexible as well. E.g. the grenadiers on my right flank could easily march around even though enemy cavalry was nearby/in sight. There's nothing one can do against that.

Both of us seemed quite happy with the results of this mod and Dee Jay agreed that the 30 minutes actually felt like 10 minutes. There was not a lot of emphasis on the FoW-mechanism. But that's mainly because our armies were quite small with 20 units each. Getting flanking manoeuvres to work is very difficult with such small armies, still too flexible units and the current FoW settings (the system that I've outlined above would make quite a difference, I guess). I'm going to upload a version featuring less flexible units and the FoW-HQ-system described above - just in case...

--------------------------------------------------------

The characteristics of the HQ-units would be:
size: 2 models of cavalry; very small hitbox (hard to hit); a comparatively good projectile resistance; low morale; detection range: 40 (wood), 230 (scrub), 250 (in the open); 0 melee skill, 0 fire power; can run but is exhausted very quickly (to prevent gamey tactics and to make it easily catchable for light cavalry if unsupported)

The detection ranges of other unit types in this system:
line infantry/battle cavalry: 20 (wood)/60 (scrub)/70 (in the open);
light infantry: 35/60/70
light cavalry: 20/75/85

Basically I'm testing if the HQ-unit is able to act as I imagine it. I don't want it to be shot down or routed too easily. One shouldn't use the HQ-unit as the (first chosen) "generals unit" in the game, because the "generals unit" is always visible. What could be interesting: the HQ could bring with it a positive morale effect for units close by, simply by having the HQ unit providing flank support to other units (--> morale bonus). There should be some kind of risk involved in this though - there should be a risk of having the general shot. Another interesting aspect: If you bring your general HQ into saftey by drawing it back from an ongoing fire fight, his detection range will draw back with him. This could represent the chaos of battle and the sight-obscuring smoke very well, making it harder to judge enemy movements and position, and also some Aides de Camp might get lost in the chaos.


It all still sounds like utopia. I will test it myself and maybe with Dee Jay if he wants to.

Now here's another download link (currently uploading). The artillery that was unable to hide while walking is corrected now. Ordinary line infantry (but not grenadiers!) have a harder time now if they want to turn. And the general's HQ/FoW system as described above has been implemented. The general's HQ (generals body guards) will be the only unit with a big detection range now. I hope that there will be more need for advance guards and reserves now.

http://www.gamefront.com/files/20764021/kaunitzmp1.7z

[Kaunitz]

So my latest game with Dee Jay gave me quite some things to think about. It ended up as a chaos, units spread out over the battle field.

• The main problem seems to be that units that shouldn't rally anymore still rally. In this case, I got a wonderful flank attack going. Dee Jay expected some troops on his left flank, but he never guessed that there were three battalions, some Grenzers and two squadrons of cuirassiers lurking. A swift attack routed his guns on that wing and sent three battalions running (one didn't even get a possibility to open fire but was carried away with the rest, which was very nice). Then I advanced to roll up his line (which he began to draw back in order to build up a new line - resembling a bit our last game). Dee Jays broken units, however, rallied rather quickly and then advanced into the rear of my "flanking party" as it was rolling up the line. So basically the problem is: If you strike hard at a single spot, then the enemy dissolves, but rallies again to threaten your compact units from multiple directions. This must not happen. Also, the ensuing chaos on the battle field made the game quite stressfull as there were no clear fronts anymore.

I'm going to toy with several factors:
1) Preventing units from rallying: by adjusting the "broken lower threshold" --> after a big morale shock, a unit should be unable to rally
2) Giving players a mean to exploit routs by increasing the speed of cavalry. For multiplayer games, this shouldn't be a problem. Right now, cavalry cannot "run". You can only let it walk, plus it gallops when it is is charging range. For multiplayer games, I can bring back cavalrys' ability to run, but it will be punished with a severe melee-malus (so: if it encounters fresh enemy cavalry, it should loose very quickly). By this you should be able to unleash your cavalry on a routing foe, and, in general, it should force you to act more carefully in presence of cavalry. E.g. Dee Jays line simply slipped away and built a new battle line when I wanted to roll his line up. I'm not saying that this shouldn't happen at all, but it seemed to be a bit too easy.

• Bayonet charges don't work...
• Still units are too flexible. I don't know yet what I can do about it. Increasing walking fatigue handicaps any offensive tactic. I could also further decrease the "turning rate" of units. This will result in an untidy advance (not all soldiers react to a movement order at the very same moment, so the line will be untidy at the start and tidy up only after a few seconds' march) in and more staggered volleys though. On the other hand, this must not be that bad because it punishes the habit of giving too many and tiny movement orders. Right now, I find it a bit too easy to refuse a flank. You can just click on the "backward"-movement button, your whole battalion turns around, bam, and has taken up position a few meters to the rear. Movements liek this shouldn't be that easy. Due to the "Total control" in total war-games, units have no difficulties in acting in pefect harmony. In reality, there was a risk that such a backward movement would screw up your line. You couldn't do such a thing easily when already facing the enemy. Also one of the most typical moments of a 18th century battle, the deployment from marching column into line, is missing in ETW. Hardly any battalion would have been able to walk around in line formation so easily as in ETW.

Some more systematic thoughts on this:
In ETW, you've got only one means to punish units for movement, and this is: "fatigue". It leads to units suffering negative effects (you can set: slower movement, less fire combat and melee combat efficiency, less morale) for "doing things". I decided to take the fatigue mechanism in order to portray "disorder". Now, as disorder is something different than just "getting tired", I want it to work almost "instantly" and recover very quickly as well. E.g. a unit firing a volley will drop to tired in my mod, and after a few more, it will be down to "very tired" - and the efficiency of the fire will decrease accordingly. This is the way to make the first volley the most effective one, as well as to represent the chaos that a unit in a fire combat falls into. On the other hand, a unit will be fresh again very quickly when the fire combat is over. Likewise, an infantry unit that "runs" is exhausted in a few seconds for I regard it as having given up its formation. So basically, you can see that I set very high fatigue rates as well as very high fatigue recovery rates because I want to have "instant disorder". Battle weariness, on the other hand, is represented by experience in my mod (having killed lots on enemies usually means being quite tired and spent).
Now back to the flexibility-problem. If you let a unit turn, it does so in a walking, not in a running manner. Thus there's hardly any disorder-effect kicking in. I'm indeed thinking of increasing walking fatigue very much so that "any" movement for non-elite (read: fatigue resistant; e.g. grenadiers)units is very risky. This would restrict line units to a defensive task, or else their advance would have to be "very" slow-paced, stopping from time to time to redress their ranks (i.e. getting back to "fresh"), even in the face of the enemy. If they don't do that, they won't get any slower, BUT they will suffer morale and musket-power-mali. This, however, would also bring in quite a lot of micro-managing.

Thanks once more to Dee Jay for helping me discover things that I would never see in games against the Ai.