Kaunitz Project [moved over to NTW engine!]

[JaM]

yep, and that was exactly what i had in mind when we discussed tactical maneuvers...

[DriftKings]

Great analysis! But also keep in mind the author only has so much room on a canvas. Regiments and Corps were present at most of these battles. But the Artist can only devote so much to historical/technical accuracy before it detracts/distorts the "Art" itself.

Sole reliance on Art for reference is never good, and can lead to numerous inaccuracies. Period-Specific Military Texts, and Orders of Battle, in conjunction with Diagrams, and Sketches should be the main references; Art can aslo be used but it tends to bend reality, which in turn is what draws you to it in the first place. For example, if someone assumed night skies were like van Gogh's Starry Night, they'd be very disappointed.

Anyway just my 2 cents. Take it with a grain of sand.

[Kaunitz]

@bloody Bill: Wow, thats weird. You should have the option to pick Hussars as the Prussian player. Are the "2nd Hussars" (the ones you should get) limited in some way? I can't remember to have bought any DLC... That's the only explanation that I can think of, since the unit is clearly available in late custom battles (unit tables).

@ Didz: What you say is true, but I do actually think that the painter depicted battalions here, not companies/divisions, and that the small amount (I've been counting the little guys as well ) of soldiers is due to the lack of space on the canvas. I guess painters have a problem to paint linear warfare. Apart from the colours, the units don't offer any "highlights" from a painters perspective, but nevertheless, I think he was supposed to show all the units that distinguished themselves in a particular battle.

Why do I think that these are battalions? For example, take the formations that are leading the attack on the hill. On the Maxen-painting, they don't carry colours. I don't think that the painter simply forgot them. Rather I believe that he painted the converged grenadier battalions that actually led the "battalion column" and didn't have any colours. (The kronoskaf page speaks of 5 grenadier battalions leading the attack of the "main action" though.) Here is a closer look at them - I think the painter even hints at grenadier bearskin caps.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Also, what about the colours? Aren't they an indicator that the infantry units are supposed to be battalions? I wonder though about all the red colours that show up in the paintings. You can read nothing about them on the kronoskaf project or in Duffys works on the Habsburg army. I will need to find a more meticulous article about them. I can't believe that the painter(s!) invented them. And what about the uniforms? On some paintings, you can even differentiate units as battalions/cavalry regiments because of their different uniforms. An example of the Maxen-painting, where you can clearly see a formation with red turn-ups and one with white. If we suspected that the formations shown here are companies of a battalion, shouldn't they all wear the same uniform?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Here's another unfortunately jittered close up of Querfurts painting of Kolin, in which you see different cavalry regiments (differently coloured uniforms) depicted as very small blocks of cavalry. Among the attacking cavalry are the green-uniformed De-Ligne-Dragoons, which stand out prominently also in de la Pegnas depiction of the battle. (by the way, it'a also interesting to note that the painter shows us some peloton-fire here)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

So, I do think that the painters showed different battalions and cavalry regiments in their paintings. They didn't go as "realistic" as to paint individual companies and squadrons, rather the blocks are (scaled-down) symbols for infantry battalions (perhaps regiments?!) and cavalry regiments. Therefore, the battles in my mod look a lot like the presented battle paintings. This also means that the formations on the Maxen painting seem a bit odd (a battalion as a strange solid block?!). I think it was not the intention of the painters to get the paintings 100% realistic. Rather they had to produce some kind of resemblence to the battle (landscape - eg: the onion-domed church tower at Hochkirch, rough position of troops) and he had to depict the units and officers that prestigiously took part in the battle. So I guess it was more important to get many different units on the canvas rather than a single one in a correct scale and formation. Being "mentioned" in the painting was what really counted - but that's just my impression. I haven't read anything about the intention of battle paintings (as far as individual regiments are concerned - it's quite clear that their main purpose was to glorify the generals - Daun)

But I have to add that sometimes the painters did try to accentuate smaller divisions within a unit. For example take a look at this grenadier battalion (well at least I blieve it is supposed to be a battalion!) on the march which is clearly split up into four smaller formations:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

PS: As a sidenote, I find it quite interesting that the Prussian uniforms on all these paintings show a much lighter blue than uniform plates and other depictions of prussian uniforms. Have the colours of the painting changed over the 250 years? Did the painter paint them that way because he knew what they looked like, once they were faded by the sun? Or did he never ever see a Prussian uniform live and just painted them "blue" to his liking (rather unlikely, I think). It reminds me a bit of a contemporary remark (quoted in one of Duffys books) that praised the white uniform of the Habsburg army as one of the most beautiful ones because it didn't fade out, and thus it really looked like a uni-form, in contrast to coloured uniforms that tended to fade out, resulting in a mixture of different colour grades, depending on the individual coats' age.

PS II: These Prussian fusilier and grenadier caps give an nice impression of what "blue" (and red, or pink? I'll check the regiments...) would have looked like (I hope it can't be all attributed to the preservation conditions?). The blue looks pretty much like the blue in de la Pegnas paintings...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Compare the blue with the blues in this one, which look a bit more "green":


(also notice that the turn ups of the Habsburg soldiers to the right are of different intensity, one of them dark-blue, the other one rather tourquoise...)

Yet another PS:

I was wondering about this poor little fellow:



I think that the painter captured a cruel scene here. The aide de camp seems to have taken off his tricorn to greet, but where did his head go? The red spray and the small pink dot to the left might give us a hint...

[Didz]

Great analysis! But also keep in mind the author only has so much room on a canvas. Regiments and Corps were present at most of these battles. But the Artist can only devote so much to historical/technical accuracy before it detracts/distorts the "Art" itself.

True, but I doubt that the artist would resort to employing a figure scale to jam as many battalions onto his canvas. So, unlike a wargamer I think it's safe to assume that paintings are depicting warfare on a sacale of 1:1.

Nevertheless, any artists impression of warfare has to be interpreted in the light of context in which it was painted and particularly whether the artist was motivated by technical accuracy or emotional propaganda.

One can see an amazing example of the two extremes by comparing Lady Butlers painting of the Charge of the Scots Greys with the same event as depicted by Dighton. Ultimately, of course it needs to be remembered that paintings are not primary historical evidence of anything, but they can help us visualise what combat looked like, given the absence of photographs.

@ Didz: What you say is true, but I do actually think that the painter depicted battalions here, not companies/divisions, and that the small amount (I've been counting the little guys as well ) of soldiers is due to the lack of space on the canvas. I guess painters have a problem to paint linear warfare. Apart from the colours, the units don't offer any "highlights" from a painters perspective, but nevertheless, I think he was supposed to show all the units that distinguished themselves in a particular battle.

Interesting....so you actually think the painter WAS using a figure scale system. It seems a bit unusual but i wonder if it was recognised practice to do that. I'm assuming that these paintings pre-date the invention of wargaming, so the idea of scaling battalions down to a small number of figures would not have come from H.G. Wells and his contemporaries, so perhaps it came from the artistic community in general.

Why do I think that these are battalions? For example, take the formations that are leading the attack on the hill. On the Maxen-painting, they don't carry colours. I don't think that the painter simply forgot them. Rather I believe that he painted the converged grenadier battalions that actually led the "battalion column" and didn't have any colours. Here is a closer look at them - I think the painter even hints at grenadier bearskin caps.

Well actually I was looking at those and without trying to count the number of men in each block, my impression was that it looked like an attack in column of divisions. Which also explained the absence of colours. Although, I wasn't sure whether or not company colours were carried in the period depicted.

Even if they were depicting the Converged Grenadier Battalion they might still be showing one battalion in column of divisions.

Also, what about the colours? Aren't they an indicator that the infantry units are supposed to be battalions?

That would be a natural assumption, but there are a number of alternative explanations. The simpliest being artist license e.g. the artist felt it added to the composition. But assuming for a minute that the figure scale is 1:1 and the artist was faithfully reproducing what he saw, then we might have discovered something interesting about battlefield control in the period.

I know for example that flank markers in French campanies carried flags and pennants that plugged into the end of their muskets to help troops keep alignment on them in the smoke of battle.

Perhaps Austrian divisions had their own manoeuvring flags to help troops keep their unit cohesion. Bearing in mind that in Austrian tactical formations the division was a significant manoeuvring unit, almost as important as a battalion.

Just a thought but it would be cool if the painting was actually trying to tell us something that has so far gone unnoticed.

On some paintings, you can even differentiate units as battalions/cavalry regiments because of their different uniforms. An example of the Maxen-painting, where you can clearly see a formation with red turn-ups and one with white. If we suspected that the formations shown here are companies of a battalion, shouldn't they all wear the same uniform?

Yes.....but sometimes it might just indicate that we are not seeing what we think we are seeing.

In another painting you showed me it was clear that the uniforms were changing along a line of infantry with two pair blocks having the same uniform and the next paired block a different one. The assumption being that each pair block was a regiment. However, careful study of the line in front of them suggested that there were another set of pair blocks with the same uniform in that line. So, it looked as though instead of seeing a line of battalions in line what we might have been lookng at was a line of battalions in column of division deployed side by side. Perhaos a reserve formation waiting to be moved forward.

Here's another unfortunately jittered close up of Querfurts painting of Kolin, in which you see
different cavalry regiments (differently coloured uniforms) depicted as very small blocks of cavalry. Among the attacking cavalry are the green-uniformed De-Ligne-Dragoons, which stand out prominently also in de la Pegnas depiction of the battle (also, there's a quote refering to them in my quote-collection).

Ah! well cavalry are much easier to explain, as they normally charged and manoeuvred as independant squadrons and troops, and so a forced of several regiments would quite easily become mixed up during an attack. Dighton's painting of the charge of the Scoys Greys shows a similar confusion of diffrent uniforms mixed together, and primary accounts of the charge confirm that squadrons and troops rapidly became intermingled as officers led their men to attack different targets of opportunity. There is even one instance where an Officer having lost his own troop, attempting to purloin a troop from another regiment with a similar uniform and had to be told by an NCO to mind his own business.

So, in fact, I'd be more suspicious if cavalry were depicted in solid regimental blocks, as thats not the way they fought.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The thing that really intriguesme about this detailed shot you posted is the configuration and depiction of the supernumery ranks and the stange configuration of the flags over the units. There seem to be a awful lot of mounted officers, suggesting that just about every officer was on a horse (obviously some are cavalry units so that makes sense, but even so there are a lot of mounted officers).

Likewise the number of flags flying over some units is weird and they aren't all the same. There seem to be multiple flags which to me look a bit like French Tri-colours with blue red and white aspects to them and then there are those strange reddy-brown flags mixed in with them again, and unless I'm mistaken they are not all in the front rank of the formation either. And yet other units like the one firing on the right don't seem to have any flags at all, which is a stragne inconsistency if the artist had a flag fixation.

Really odd....and this section of the painting is taken from the right flank where the Austrains seem to be deploying to face a threat to their flank isn't it. So, these are troops in the process of changing formation.

As for uniform colours the behaviour of dyes in this period did vary according to the source of the original pigment. I've certainly read that the French blue uniforms of the Imperial Army faded over time as the blue dye leached out of them, so its possible that Prussian uniforms may have behaved ina similar way if they used the same pigments. British uniforms reacted differently depending on the manufacturer of the cloth and what dye he had used. In Spain they were said to go darker as the yellow pigment leached out of the cloth first leaving the jackets brick-red or brown in colour, whereas at Waterloo we are told quite clearly that the red pigment was leaching oout of the new jackets staining the mens breaches and accoutrements pink. Apparently, in Spain the loss of the yellow pigment also resulted in the rifle green jackets worn by the 95th turning dark blue, resulting in them getting mistaken constantly for Portueguese, or worse French.

Certainly, cash strapped Prussia would not have replaced infantry jackets simply because they had faded. There were rigid rules about how long a jacket had to last (something like 20 years if I remember rightly) and conisderable effort was made to avoid having to replace uniforms. this was the period when cuff buttons were introduced on Prussian jackets to prevent the men using their cuffs to wipe their noses. It being realised that wiping ones nose or face on the sleeve of your jacket caused wear and tear.

[Didz]

Ok! Kaunitz has pointed out to me that the things I thought were tricolor flags were actually officers standing in front of their companies. So, that's down to my poor eyesight rather than any querky command and control system.

However, I thought it might be interesting to do a quick comparison between the diagram of the Austrian company organisation I have in Nafzigers book Imperial Bayonets and the image in the painting. Just to see how closely it matches. (see below) In nothing else it gives some indication of the attention to detail applied by the artist.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Note:

I've assumed throughout that the company officers are standing to front and centre of their men leaving just the NCO's in the supernumery rank behind.

In practice the Captain would probably be in the centre of the image on the painting although his position in the line is on the right flank.

I've assumed that the NCO's acting as platoon flank guides for each of the four platoons are stationed in the ranks, and I haven't tried to isolate them as they would look pretty much the same as the other rank and file.

I've also highlighted a number of flag like items in the painting (see the yellow circles) that I can't make out, not sure what they are but they seem to be positioned more or less at what would be the centre of each company e.g. the point at which the two platoons meet.

It might be my eyesight again, but to me the unit on the left of the line look like they have red facings a breeches, whereas those on the right are white.

[bloody bill]

Kaunitz buddy, It was a DLC for my hussars got em now ready for battle

[Kaunitz]

@ Bloody Bill:
Oh I'm sorry for your expenses! I'd have uploaded another version with non-DLC-hussars in 2-3 weeks. Tell me about your battles!


@ Didz:
Unfortunately, not much is known about Hyacinth de la Pegna. Kaunitz called him from Brussels to Vienna in 1759. Born in Brussels in 1706, de la Pegna had spent a at least 16 years in Rome, and he had also been in Paris and Turin. A letter (from de la Pegna to Kardinal Albani; 26. June 1759) survived in which de la Pegna mentioned that he was painting a "Gallerie de tableaux" for which he had to visit Dauns army. So he might have inspected the battle fields live. But I don't know whether he experienced a live battle. And I don't know how intensively he researched the battles that he was to paint.

I’m not sure if de la Pegna, Findenigg and Querfurt consistently applied a strict scale when they were painting the troops. Rather I think they made it look good. Therefore I think you might be a bit over-interpreting the formations on the picture when you compare them with military manuals. My thesis is that the painters simply wanted to capture the “look” of the units. They put the soldiers into three ranks, added officers around them at reasonable looking intervals, added colours and put enough soldiers into a formation to make it look “good”. For the close ups, they meticulously captured the details of the uniforms.

The reality of the military happenings and military/organisational details – if the painters had a concept of this "reality" at that time at all! – was not their main focus. The action itself does not fit the reality of a battle (the opposing sides are much too close to each other, etc…but we do get quite a lot of smoke!) but rather they fit the established conventions of “battle paintings”. For example, I don’t think that the painters even tried to capture how cavalry “really” fought. Rather we see an ideal-image of abstract blocks in perfect order. Indeed - at least that’s what I believe – the painters seem to be more concerned with the “feeling” of a battle, more than they were concerned with “depicting” the actual technical details of the fight. Its more a drama of magic than is is a photograph of dull reality - with the exception of the uniforms in which the "ideal" world colonizes reality to some extent. It would very interesting to go into detail and to find out if the paintings capture a single moment in a battle or combine different moments in a battle into a “narrative” picture (as lots of battle paintings do), and how they’ve coped with the issue of distance and visibility. Did they combine different locations of the battle field into one painting? What is maybe outstanding is that de la Pegna and also Findenigg departed a bit from the very abstract depiction of battles. They mixed in some genre-scenes, like lost soldiers searching for their regiments. So there is an interest in the small individual soldier in the paintings, and I don't know if that was very common in mid 18th century battle paintings. On the other hand, when I think of David Morier and his almost funny paintings of individuals or groups of soldiers during the Austrian War of Succession, it probably was! It fits well to the increasing interest of mid 18th century in common people and "character" - series of porcelain-statues of ordinary characters became fashionable in Vienna at that time, as well as collections of prints of streetvendor-characters.

And I do think that there was a certain fascination with the fetching little world of uniforms, not unlike to the fascination that strikes miniature-wargamers and Total War players today (just take a look at how many uniform-threads are on this board!). Remember that photo of the mid-18th century tin soldiers that I’ve sent you, and also the contemporary uniform-plates are an indicator of the charm of the cohesive little ideal-world of uniforms. Also for the soldiers themselves, the uniform functioned as an identity-marker (the look, and also the quality). I think you can feel the fascination when you look at some of the paintings. With all the meticulous details of the uniforms and some genre-scenes (e.g. the waiting cuirassier smoking his pipe on the left hand side of the Hochkirch-painting), the paintings sometimes give me the impression of a picture-book. So, apart from the glorification of Feldmarschall Daun, they clearly satisfy curiosity. It’s a bit like a uniform-plate in action, and the style of the figures almost seems a bit naive. But that’s just my impression as a non-art-historian.

So, to sum it up, it's really hard to determine which parts and aspects of a battle the painters captured. The paintings are ranging somewhere between genre, emotion, narration, military ideal (as seen in manuals?), reality of battles (experienced?), and individual battles (locations, personalities). It's hard to determine where the drama stops and where the photograph sets in, and some aspects can be attributed to both worlds (e.g. the platoon fire that we can see, or Grenzers deployed in close order*). I'd only regard the paintings as a photograph of almost empirical evidence as far as the uniforms of the habsburg soldiers are concerned (and perhaps Dauns face ).

What I like is that these paintings still lack the military-nationalist pathos that came up in Napoleons time and that also the Total War Franchise and most mods cultivate. I'm really sick of all those "devotion, ideal, sacrifice"-ETW-videos, which try to make us believe in some deep (nationalist) virtues and mysteries behind warfare. Even as an idea it is so anachronstic for this period, in which "sacrifice" in battle was not regarded as a virtue but as unprofessional cowardice. It would be interesting what kind of videos we would get if the producers used contemporary music like Bach and Vivaldi instead of hollywood movie scores. It guess its pretty hard to achieve an explicit nationalist pathos with music like this or this. They give us an idea though what is really missing in ETW: monarchial pomp and glory of princely houses/dynasties.

I’ve thought about the flank-guides as well, but then I’ve never read about them in Duffys work, and also de la Pegna doesn’t show them in his “close up”-scenes (e.g. in the painting of Hochkirch). Apart from that, the flags we see are always very big and cumbersome and therefore wouldn’t qualify as flank markers, and they are always depicted in pairs in the centre of the formations.

As for the question of colours, I’m quite confused. The kronoskaf-page metions that the first battalion of a regiment would carry a white Leibfahne and a yellow Ordinairfahne, whereas the second battalion would carry two yellow Ordinairfahnen. But clearly we can also see red flags on the paintings. Perhaps some regiments still used the colours of the old Ordinairfahnen-schema (the introduction of the kronoskaf article allows for yellow, red, red-white-red and green Ordinairfahnen, the 1742 schema only allows for red Ordinairfahnen). So my guess is that red Ordinairfahnen were still in use. The only thing that makes me sceptical is that we also see a combination of a red and a yellow banner on the Maxen-painting. Did this regiment use a mix of red and yellow Ordinairfahnen? The white Leibfahne, however, is always "correctly" portrayed in combination with a (yellow or red) Ordinairfahne.

*Actually there should be a painting of 1762 in a palace in Austria (Schloß Hainfeld) that allegedly shows Grenzers in close order, firing by platoons. *g* And I've read about a painting of an Austrian military camp during the War of Austrian Succession in the Oberhaus-Museum in Passau (Germany), in which Grenzers (or at that time still: Pandours) are - in contrast to other troops - never depicted in formation, but only in small groups, occupied with tasks such as fishing, searching for food, molesting women, etc.

[bloody bill]

Hey no prob buddy, I will get a couple games in today. If all works out I can send a battle report or replay.

[Kaunitz]

A BBC-documentary on Frederic the Great and his historical reception: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WMNk...eature=related

PS: GREAT NEWS! Deejay as the herald of joy has just told me that the "fear range" does work in Napoleon! Now that is really some exciting news, and I'm currently downloading NTW (steam offer )! I hope to find the time to do some small tests this evening. Still I won't be able to seriously work on the mod for the next 1,5 weeks though. After that, I'll be back! And if the "fear effect range" holds its promises, there are plenty of improvements to come! For me it would be a real explosion of possibilities in terms of bayonet charges, cavalry-cavalry, and cavaly-infantry mechanics!

PS: I can still need some help for the translations of the quotes (in post 1, last spoiler box), especially to make the english translations less halting.

[Didz]

Oh! Good if you're going to start modding NTW, then there is hope that it could become worth playing yet.

[JaM]

that explains why i had completly different results than you had... i was testing it in NTW...

[Kaunitz]

Yes, I just tested it again in ETW...it didn't work. I'm going to do some tests in NTW (too lazy to set up my pack.file right now) as soon as possible. If it works, I'm in a real dilemma: better maps and mechanics (Napoleon) versus great Seven Years War models (Empire)...

[Kaunitz]

Now you have to tell me how you two did that, JaM and DeeJay. The fear effect range doesn't work for me in NTW either. I set the "unit frightened" factor to -40 (for testing purposes), the fear effect range to 10, but still, the enemy units don't rout at a distance of 10 in game yards, but at about 100 ingame yards. Obviously the game was using my modded morale table (since the units routed), but the fear effect range simply DOES NOT work! I can not reproduce the results that you've described. This is quite disappointing I have to say.

Another test showed me that the "fear_effect_range" doesn't seem to work at all, or at least it must be something completly different. It doesn't react when I set a "higher" fear effect range either. I just hope that it is not "unused" (read: broken/non-existant) as so many other important factors (like the fatigue factor "under artillery fire"). Very frustrating. And I don't have a reason to switch to NTW anymore. So please tell me that I'm doing something wrong, Dee Jay, JaM, ...CA?

Edit: The other problem that showed up (and that I was aware of for quite some time) is that all soldiers in a unit can fire, not only the first few ranks - a column can have a devastating effect. DJ told me to increase the models height, but it didn't work for me. I'm going to have a look at a mod in which it works, I guess....

[Dee Jay]

I noticed that with the fear range as well, I was told that it works, but it seems it doesn't. That is frustrating....
I actually do think that the fear range factor might be something else, because it has no effect in Napoleon or Empire, or at least not the effect we were expecting.

And sorry about the all troops in the column firing thing, I told you to put 1.6, but it should be 1.7 it only makes the front 3 ranks fire, but we cant stop the guys on the side of the column firing.

[Kaunitz]

I noticed that with the fear range as well, I was told that it works, but it seems it doesn't. That is frustrating....
I actually do think that the fear range factor might be something else, because it has no effect in Napoleon or Empire, or at least not the effect we were expecting.

Yes, it is either used for something else or unused. It's a such a pity. This means my plans for a super-improved new version are gone. So I will stick to what we've got now and try to improve it. I'm not sure yet if I will switch over to NTW. It's so disappointing. You would believe that it's easy for developers to implement a "fear range" - I mean: It can't be so difficult!! They have customizable "hiding ranges" as well...

And sorry about the all troops in the column firing thing, I told you to put 1.6, but it should be 1.7 it only makes the front 3 ranks fire, but we cant stop the guys on the side of the column firing.

It works! Awesome! Thank you so much for that, Dee Jay!

I've had the chance to play Art of War yesterday (a battle against the AI), by the way. Apart from the big sizes for cavalry and artillery (which makes both of them very cumbersome), it really plays like the Kaunitz Project, which I liked of course . Indeed NTW plays a bit "smoothlier" than ETW and the maps are better (I actually had to put my army into column in order to move it through the woods on a street on the Galicia-map). Some things I noticed:

- Do you like the giant muzzle flashes in NTW? Can one get rid of them? A small muzzle flash would be okay, I guess, but these look like machine gun fire.
- There's no smoke!
- I liked the flute-tune for marching units.
- You're not using my "latest" musket sounds. I don't know if you're not aware of that or if you just prefer the old ones.
- What is really annoying are the bowling-like "knockbacks" casued by artillery. I'd search for a way to get rid of them. It would be great of the formation would just fall into disorder, but the knockbacks are ridicolous. The cannon-ball-ground-impacts, on the other hand, are better than in ETW in my opinion.
- I'm not so sure about disabling all the radar-map-icons. It makes battles really much more stressful. I think the "Fog of War" aspect is sufficiently portrayed by the hiding mechanism. Disabling all the uit icons can lead to very "unrealistic" situations if the general happens to be looking at the other side of the battle at that moment. There would still be someone in charge of the battalion though, who would order it to form square, for example.

PS: Another big issue came up: In NTW, you always have to pick a "general" as your first unit. The problem is that the general is the HQ-unit with increased detection range and that the first-picked unit is ALWAYS visible to the enemy. This means that your opponent will always see where your HQ is positioned, and since a HQ is a fragile unit, it is most likely that the main army is close to it. Needless to say that this sucks big time! In ETW, you could show the opponent an unimportant line battalion or a squadron and keep your HQ (with the increased detection range) well hidden. I don't know if there's a way to overcome that.

[Dee Jay]

Thanks Kaunitz, I enjoy getting feedback from the master

And I will put those radar icons back in.

I didn't realise that you upgraded your sound pack, I shall update my mod right away

The muzzle flashes and smoke effects are all vanilla, I have been working on the mechanics lately and not worring about the visuals very much, but i will fix those.

About the cannon ball effect, how it knocks everyone over, aparently that cant be removed. But, it might be realistic, because irl when a unit man was hit by a cannon ball, it would kill him and create a shockwave that would knock down everyone around him, most likely not killing them.

And you must have played version 6, because that had the large cavalry sizes, I just uploaded version 7 today which is much better

[JaM]

its not just soldier model height in battle_entities but also other parameters as well - major one is the column after ellipse column - it actually specifies the space soldier has around him. If you set it to 0.1, then soldier will be allowed to occupy same space, which makes line shorter, and also blocks the LOS so rear ranks wont fire. In my mods i used 0.1, then moved to 0.2, and with next versions i plan to go with 0.5, which allows more men firing, but still provides enough of LOS barrier so once unit is in deep formation/column soldier after third rank wont fire at all.


Btw, cavalry is best to set to 1, that way cavalry combat looks ok, and cavalrymen are not closely grouped to each other into single "blob" - i had this problem with infantry too when using small values (0.1-0.2) it was major reason why i increased it to 0.5, even if it means that more soldiers from third line will fire.

[JaM]

Kaunitz: Are you using recent_casualties_shock_threshold value in your mod? I just recently found out that it actually represents % casualties in last 4 seconds needed for morale shock so having it too high (vanilla value was 20!) makes unit never go into shock,because it is very hard to deal 20% casualties in 4 seconds.... instead much lower numbers should be used to have it realistic..

[Didz]

Kaunitz: Are you using recent_casualties_shock_threshold value in your mod? I just recently found out that it actually represents % casualties in last 4 seconds needed for morale shock so having it too high (vanilla value was 20!) makes unit never go into shock,because it is very hard to deal 20% casualties in 4 seconds.... instead much lower numbers should be used to have it realistic..

Interesting that sounds a bit like the flinch point system used in the WGRG Napoleonic rules for tabletop wargames.

One point was awarded for every 6% of a unit who became casualties in a single turn. The difference being that at the end of the turn the points were traded-off against those inflicted on the enemy, so that only units with 'Net Flinch Points' suffered a negative reaction. The theory being that generally units were encouraged by seeing a visible impact of their actions on the enemy, as much as they were discouraged by seeing the impact the enemy were having on them.

As a game mechanic it seemed to work very well, especially in the resolution of column attacks and cavalry charges. The only negative aspect was that because the tests were unit based larger units had a distinct advantage even if opposed by an equal number of men in several smaller units.

However, that could be overcome by sensible rulings from the games moderator. For example, I always ruled that if a column was formed from more than one battalion then it's unit size was deemed to be that of the entire column not of it's leading battalion, and likewise of opposed by more than one battalion in the line then the unit size was arbitarily deemed to be the of all the units engaged.

The only condition being that all the units so grouped had to suffer the same consequences.

[Kaunitz]

I was 95% sure that the recent casualties entries refer to 6%/10%/15%/33% etc. casualties that need to be inflicted within a preset time-span ("recent casualties shock threshold") in order to trigger a morale malus. How did you test it? I'd be happy to stand corrected!