Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 149

Thread: OFFICIAL: Battle Realism Mod {{Version2}}

  1. #101
    Eldgrimr's Avatar Biarchus
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Regnum Sweorum et Gothorum
    Posts
    641

    Default Re: OFFICIAL: Battle Realism Mod {{Version2}}

    What difficulty settings should I use for the most realistic experience?

  2. #102

    Default Re: OFFICIAL: Battle Realism Mod {{Version2}}

    Quote Originally Posted by ZombieZleeping View Post
    What difficulty settings should I use for the most realistic experience?
    The best over all experience is on hard.
    However, if you are new, then you might want to practice on normal.
    Very hard may result in more Pyrrhic victories which can be frustrating.
    MODDERS WANTED | MY PATRONAGES
    Imperial Splendour is looking for Modders and Researchers. SEE AD HERE
    If interested, contact PikeStance(Mod Leader/Manager) or Quintus Hortensius Hortalus (Mod leader /Lead Artist)

    Under the Patronage of Omnipotent- Q | Member of the House of Wild Bill Kelso
    Patron of
    _Tataros_
    | Magister Militum Flavius Aetius | Alwyn | Lord Oda Nobunaga | Massive_attack |
    Proposed the Following for PHALERA: Mangalore & sumskilz | OPIFEX: wangrin, z3n, and Swiss Halberdier


    Honourable Society of Silly Old Duffers | House of Noble Discourse

  3. #103
    Eldgrimr's Avatar Biarchus
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Regnum Sweorum et Gothorum
    Posts
    641

    Default Re: OFFICIAL: Battle Realism Mod {{Version2}}

    Should I pick hard for both campaign and battle?

  4. #104

    Default Re: OFFICIAL: Battle Realism Mod {{Version2}}

    Unless you are brand new to Total war games, then you probably should play at the Hard level (Campaign).
    For the battle, try a battle on normal. If challenged, leave as is, if not move up to hard.
    MODDERS WANTED | MY PATRONAGES
    Imperial Splendour is looking for Modders and Researchers. SEE AD HERE
    If interested, contact PikeStance(Mod Leader/Manager) or Quintus Hortensius Hortalus (Mod leader /Lead Artist)

    Under the Patronage of Omnipotent- Q | Member of the House of Wild Bill Kelso
    Patron of
    _Tataros_
    | Magister Militum Flavius Aetius | Alwyn | Lord Oda Nobunaga | Massive_attack |
    Proposed the Following for PHALERA: Mangalore & sumskilz | OPIFEX: wangrin, z3n, and Swiss Halberdier


    Honourable Society of Silly Old Duffers | House of Noble Discourse

  5. #105
    Eldgrimr's Avatar Biarchus
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Regnum Sweorum et Gothorum
    Posts
    641

    Default Re: OFFICIAL: Battle Realism Mod {{Version2}}

    I'm not new at all, I've played Total war for over 5 years.

  6. #106

    Default Re: OFFICIAL: Battle Realism Mod {{Version2}}

    I noticed the other day that French Dragoons, the ones in green have very low accuracy. So low they're useless in a shootout. Is this deliberate? I'm reinstalling Empire now so I can check.E

    Edit: That was Rise of the Republic. The French get the same in IS in late custom battles.

    Edit Edit: British and French Dragoons both have awful accuracy, perhaps put them on par with line infantry? Since they're not as useful at it anyway, since they lack the numbers.
    Last edited by Hazzard; October 17, 2016 at 05:20 PM.

  7. #107

    Default Re: OFFICIAL: Battle Realism Mod {{Version2}}

    I do not alter any individual unit stats except spacing.
    The specific stats is determine by historical records. It would not be anywhere near accurate to have dragoons to be as good as standard line infantry.

    When I play I tend to use dragoons as medium cavalry. The exception is if I want to get into a position quickly. I would rush them to position and dismount them and send in the next line infantry to replace them. Then they "saddle up" and cover the flank.
    Last edited by PikeStance; October 21, 2016 at 08:22 PM.
    MODDERS WANTED | MY PATRONAGES
    Imperial Splendour is looking for Modders and Researchers. SEE AD HERE
    If interested, contact PikeStance(Mod Leader/Manager) or Quintus Hortensius Hortalus (Mod leader /Lead Artist)

    Under the Patronage of Omnipotent- Q | Member of the House of Wild Bill Kelso
    Patron of
    _Tataros_
    | Magister Militum Flavius Aetius | Alwyn | Lord Oda Nobunaga | Massive_attack |
    Proposed the Following for PHALERA: Mangalore & sumskilz | OPIFEX: wangrin, z3n, and Swiss Halberdier


    Honourable Society of Silly Old Duffers | House of Noble Discourse

  8. #108
    Neron25's Avatar Foederatus
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    27

    Default Re: OFFICIAL: Battle Realism Mod {{Version2}}

    Great submod Pike, but AI standing 5 meters of my line infantry and then start shooting. Btw is there a way to change firing by ranks to firing style like in vanilla on early game? Thanks

  9. #109
    Meraun's Avatar Decanus
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    527

    Default Re: OFFICIAL: Battle Realism Mod {{Version2}}

    Is this Mod savegame compatible?

    w a r f a r e a c t i v i t i e s | s p e c i a l i s t p r o t e c t i o n i n c
    Meraun | HIVE | Community Veteran

  10. #110

    Default Re: OFFICIAL: Battle Realism Mod {{Version2}}

    I do not have any issues at all.
    MODDERS WANTED | MY PATRONAGES
    Imperial Splendour is looking for Modders and Researchers. SEE AD HERE
    If interested, contact PikeStance(Mod Leader/Manager) or Quintus Hortensius Hortalus (Mod leader /Lead Artist)

    Under the Patronage of Omnipotent- Q | Member of the House of Wild Bill Kelso
    Patron of
    _Tataros_
    | Magister Militum Flavius Aetius | Alwyn | Lord Oda Nobunaga | Massive_attack |
    Proposed the Following for PHALERA: Mangalore & sumskilz | OPIFEX: wangrin, z3n, and Swiss Halberdier


    Honourable Society of Silly Old Duffers | House of Noble Discourse

  11. #111
    Laetus
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Quezon City, Philippines
    Posts
    5

    Default Re: OFFICIAL: Battle Realism Mod {{Version2}}

    I tried this mod out, with IS 2.2.1b and been having a problem with it, when i tried to play a custom battle they were already facing each other at point blank range and a whole volley from both sides didn't even kill a single man. Did i do something wrong? Ended up uninstalling it.

  12. #112
    Laetus
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Quezon City, Philippines
    Posts
    5

    Default Re: OFFICIAL: Battle Realism Mod {{Version2}}

    Edit: Sorry for the bad explanation, Anyway. What i was trying to say is as soon as my army got close to the enemy and began to shoot at them at point blank range i noticed that none of the AI's troop were dying even after the 2nd and 3rd volley. Is this how it's meant to work? Or did i do something wrong?

  13. #113

    Default Re: OFFICIAL: Battle Realism Mod {{Version2}}

    Hello,


    first I’d like to say that I really enjoy what you've done with your Mod. The battles feel really great and tactical and I like the fact that you have to win 2 or 3 Battles in a row to destroy an enemy army. Makes things much slower and more realistic.


    I started my latest campaign with Portugal and came across something odd. I fought a battle against Mysore ... and everything went great until it didn't. There were two enemy units left on the field, a half dead militia unit and a unit of rocket artillery. My army was still fine, consisting of Company Troops, Regular Infantry and the rest were Sepoy’s. The losses were low but then from one moment to the next my whole army routed, just turned tail and ran and I don't understand why ... I never encountered that with other European powers.

    Was my chosen Formation wrong? Double Line, 3 men deep, the second Line a bit smaller than the first.
    Portugal’s Unit stats not suited for the Mod?
    Is rocket artillery that strong on morale?

    I did notice that the rockets routed my General the second before everyone ran. I wouldn’t be asking if only the Sepoy’s ran but Company and Regular troops as well? Against some militia?!

    Please help and explain!

    Regards
    Xipo

  14. #114

    Default Re: OFFICIAL: Battle Realism Mod {{Version2}}

    Artillery units do more morale reduction than damage. However, the general running away also effects your units morale. It is advisable to keep your General away from risk.
    Also the number of men within a unit isn't the only thing that effects morale. You may have a lot of men, but if they are already uneasy and hey get shot at and the general runs, then that may be too much for them to handle.
    I do not think that it was Mysore that cause the specific problem; however, I did not change individual units stats. They may be a balance issue. If there is an issue here, it is most likely that rockets reduces morale more than it should.
    Keep me posted on anything else you may have noticed. Balancing is probably something we will have to look into at some point.
    MODDERS WANTED | MY PATRONAGES
    Imperial Splendour is looking for Modders and Researchers. SEE AD HERE
    If interested, contact PikeStance(Mod Leader/Manager) or Quintus Hortensius Hortalus (Mod leader /Lead Artist)

    Under the Patronage of Omnipotent- Q | Member of the House of Wild Bill Kelso
    Patron of
    _Tataros_
    | Magister Militum Flavius Aetius | Alwyn | Lord Oda Nobunaga | Massive_attack |
    Proposed the Following for PHALERA: Mangalore & sumskilz | OPIFEX: wangrin, z3n, and Swiss Halberdier


    Honourable Society of Silly Old Duffers | House of Noble Discourse

  15. #115

    Default Re: OFFICIAL: Battle Realism Mod {{Version2}}

    Quote Originally Posted by ReadyFire View Post
    Edit: Sorry for the bad explanation, Anyway. What i was trying to say is as soon as my army got close to the enemy and began to shoot at them at point blank range i noticed that none of the AI's troop were dying even after the 2nd and 3rd volley. Is this how it's meant to work? Or did i do something wrong?
    You have to understand, one man does not equal one man, but a several.

    I am not sure what you mean by "point blank range." The default vanilla settings are used. So, it is the same difference as if you were playing vanilla. I personally, would like the armies to start at a distance to make it more difficult for the human player, but a decision was made to keep it as it is.

    You have to understand, one man does not equal one man, but a several. So, not taking a casualty does not mean no one died, it means not enough men died to show it.

    The game calls it Fatigue, but I mod it as "Cohesion." This means as the unit shoots each volley they become less organized and less effective. Shooting at maximum range and then moving closer is not a very good idea. You shooting at max range (least effective distance) when your unit is most organized. When you move closer and with each volley you becomes less and less effective. My guess is, you shot a few volleys at maximum range, march forward, and shot again, but your unit was already losing cohesion. You should avoid shooting at maximum range at all cost.

    Personally, I march to at least half the distance, then fire one or two volleys, reduce the distance by half, and fire two more volleys, then I like to charge with bayonet.
    MODDERS WANTED | MY PATRONAGES
    Imperial Splendour is looking for Modders and Researchers. SEE AD HERE
    If interested, contact PikeStance(Mod Leader/Manager) or Quintus Hortensius Hortalus (Mod leader /Lead Artist)

    Under the Patronage of Omnipotent- Q | Member of the House of Wild Bill Kelso
    Patron of
    _Tataros_
    | Magister Militum Flavius Aetius | Alwyn | Lord Oda Nobunaga | Massive_attack |
    Proposed the Following for PHALERA: Mangalore & sumskilz | OPIFEX: wangrin, z3n, and Swiss Halberdier


    Honourable Society of Silly Old Duffers | House of Noble Discourse

  16. #116

    Default Re: OFFICIAL: Battle Realism Mod {{Version2}}

    After reading allot of good reviews on IS I kicked Darthmod a few days ago to the bin and reinstalled Empire to mod it with IS 2.21b, partially the battle enhancements and this one. It sounded amazing and at first I thought it is awesome. Though after a few hours into my Prussian campaign I have to say while I like the general direction there are some things that are really off-putting. Now after like 100 turns and at war with either Sweden, Poland, Austria, Hannover and Courland or all of them at once I think I can give you my findings.

    The feeling is right. Lower quality infantry runs at a cavalry charge. You have to manoeuvre your units carefully and then get rewarded with satisfying charges to the booming sounds of the artillery. Very nice.

    But also it feels wrong while I really like the direction.

    Artillery, can't hit and with the few pieces per unit they really feel useless at the moment. I mean they were not that accurate but they should be able to hit into amassed enemy formation more often than every other game. They are unable to hit units RIGHT in front of them which is not a very realistic feeling but simply frustrating.
    So far I haven't obtained alot of experience and if the vanilla system of obtaining it is in place then gathering experience will be an impossible task to perform and your units will continue to run as soon as they boop their noses with the enemy. Which brings me to the next thing: Morale breaks way too easily.
    With many units base stance being "shaken" it sometimes needs just a sprint (though the fatigue mechanic is probably the thing I like most about this mod) or an enemy close-by (doesn't even need to shoot at you) for them to run. When citizens defend their hometown they run extremely fast and feel very worthless. Fleets start routing at the very beginning of a battle cause they lost too many guns in a prior battle, even if their hull ist fine.
    Cavalry really feels way too strong atm while I am fighting against Poland Lithuania. I can walk with my line infantry directly in front of one of their dragoon units (literally two steps directly in front of them) and not down a single rider in 3 salvoes while they can then simply start to charge the distance of 1 meter and break my unit. That is simply frustrating, and...
    Musket fire is way too inaccurate.

    Guess I need to elaborate on this why it doesn't feel realistic at all to me. A musket was an inaccurate piece back then. Whether be it due to the smoothbore nature of the barrel, material impurities or a bad bore. And yes, it was due to those reasons cavalry started to become a more dominant force on the field over the course of the 18th century giving them confidence in their abilities up until the first world war. But it was not that inaccurate as it is currently in this mod... on short range. The reason commanders ordered their men to hold their fire until the enemy was close was not only for morale reasons but that at the range of about 40-50 yards the fire density of closed ranked infantry created a zone where the probability to be hit was very high.

    Currently you can stand literally in front of an enemy unit and your salvoes will do nothing and that is not correct. Up close it shouldn't be that 99% of the shots are being shot over the target.

    To visiualize this I took all my skill to create this awesome graphic.
    [IMG][/IMG]

    The black 2D cone symbolizes how it should be, standing for the probability zone of a dude with a musket at about 100 yards where a hit is very unlikely but possible and the closer a target gets the higher the probability becomes of being hit. Red symbolizes what it currently feels ingame as, if you have the tracers enabled, you see how the vast majority of shots go over a unit.

    My recommendation is to increase artillery accuracy slightly, maybe change the morale a bit (though I haven't had units yet who inspire others and I really like that I need to order my general around to rally my troops) and change the way musket fire works.

  17. #117

    Default Re: OFFICIAL: Battle Realism Mod {{Version2}}

    Quote Originally Posted by DonKarst0n View Post
    The feeling is right. Lower quality infantry runs at a cavalry charge. You have to manoeuvre your units carefully and then get rewarded with satisfying charges to the booming sounds of the artillery. Very nice.

    But also it feels wrong while I really like the direction.

    Artillery, can't hit and with the few pieces per unit they really feel useless at the moment. I mean they were not that accurate but they should be able to hit into amassed enemy formation more often than every other game. They are unable to hit units RIGHT in front of them which is not a very realistic feeling but simply frustrating.
    So far I haven't obtained alot of experience and if the vanilla system of obtaining it is in place then gathering experience will be an impossible task to perform and your units will continue to run as soon as they boop their noses with the enemy. Which brings me to the next thing: Morale breaks way too easily.
    With many units base stance being "shaken" it sometimes needs just a sprint (though the fatigue mechanic is probably the thing I like most about this mod) or an enemy close-by (doesn't even need to shoot at you) for them to run. When citizens defend their hometown they run extremely fast and feel very worthless. Fleets start routing at the very beginning of a battle cause they lost too many guns in a prior battle, even if their hull ist fine.
    Cavalry really feels way too strong atm while I am fighting against Poland Lithuania. I can walk with my line infantry directly in front of one of their dragoon units (literally two steps directly in front of them) and not down a single rider in 3 salvoes while they can then simply start to charge the distance of 1 meter and break my unit. That is simply frustrating, and...
    Musket fire is way too inaccurate.

    Guess I need to elaborate on this why it doesn't feel realistic at all to me. A musket was an inaccurate piece back then. Whether be it due to the smoothbore nature of the barrel, material impurities or a bad bore. And yes, it was due to those reasons cavalry started to become a more dominant force on the field over the course of the 18th century giving them confidence in their abilities up until the first world war. But it was not that inaccurate as it is currently in this mod... on short range. The reason commanders ordered their men to hold their fire until the enemy was close was not only for morale reasons but that at the range of about 40-50 yards the fire density of closed ranked infantry created a zone where the probability to be hit was very high.

    Currently you can stand literally in front of an enemy unit and your salvoes will do nothing and that is not correct. Up close it shouldn't be that 99% of the shots are being shot over the target.

    My recommendation is to increase artillery accuracy slightly, maybe change the morale a bit (though I haven't had units yet who inspire others and I really like that I need to order my general around to rally my troops) and change the way musket fire works.
    An important distinction you need to make is I change "fatigue" to "Cohesion." In other words, effective command. The AI cannot handle fatigue. It often "run" its units indiscriminately across the battle field. To minimize this, a different approach is taken. When units are in a secure position and at rest, they gain "cohesion." The AI does do a good job of not running to the battle lines, so this approach works well.

    There is also TWO no nos.
    1. Never run your units prior to combat. hey should march into battle. Units didn't run at lines unless they were charging with bayonets and even then it was a short distance. You shouldn't either unless you want them to lose "cohesion" and break. You mentioned that you "walked" up to dragoons and didn't inflict casualties. You shouldn't lose "cohesion" by walking. You will if you run and you will if you have been shooting or if you had previously engaged in a change with that unit.
    2. Do not shoot at maximum range. It is not effective and your units will love "cohesion" and shoot poorly. With each volley they lose cohesion, thus effectiveness. As I stated in many responses, it is better to march to have distance and then shoot one or twice. You may even continue to a closer range. This will result in more effective first shot effectiveness. The AI will shoot at range and you will take minimal casualties. You will fine that you will inflict more in the end and they most likely break. If not, a charge while in close range will usually cause them to break. This is also true for artillery. You can shoot at distance, but you will be less effective. What is cool is to wait until the enemy gets close, and then shoot canister. It usually inflicts massive casualties and the unit generally routes off the map. Artillery is less affected by "cohesion" than infantry. In my test, in battle in which artillery is not used, the battle is close. I introduce artillery and I win the battle easily, so I know it is effective. Generally, units strongest reaction is being shot at by artillery. If you watch, it is always the biggest concern. This was equally true in the 18th century. Now, is it as effective as in vanilla? No, and it will never ever be either. vanilla is a joke. Each time I increase the effectiveness of the artillery, it either increases units probability to route due to increase casualties or if I raise the morale it leads to 25% increase in casualties per battle. This means the losing side which normally lose 15-50% casualties will lose 35% to 75% casualties. That puts me right back where I started from. My recommendation is to learn to micromanage your units so that they do not shoot too often causing a loss of cohesion. I also suggest using reserves, so that you can pull out units that have engaged from the onset of the battle.

    On the mechanic Side: The game has certain aspects that cannot be change. If the effectiveness of the muskets is increased, then this will cause units to break faster and lead to unnatural number of dead that did not happens in the 18th century. In order to "wipe out" the enemy you will have to seriously outmaneuver the AI. The mod is more tactical and demands the use of smart tactics to be successful. Gaining a decisive victory requires careful attention and a hands on approach to the battle. This was done on purpose to make the battle more difficult. It is also important to note that one man does not equal one man, but a group of men.

    Fleets. I am actively modding fleets. However, if they engage in a battle in they lost a significant number of guns, it is probably not a good idea to engage in another battle if you can avoid it. I am currently, working on the morale system that will cause ships to route prior to losing too many guns and men. I am also working on the AI to keep and repair ships instead of simply destroying them when they lose a battle.

    Thanks for the feedback.
    MODDERS WANTED | MY PATRONAGES
    Imperial Splendour is looking for Modders and Researchers. SEE AD HERE
    If interested, contact PikeStance(Mod Leader/Manager) or Quintus Hortensius Hortalus (Mod leader /Lead Artist)

    Under the Patronage of Omnipotent- Q | Member of the House of Wild Bill Kelso
    Patron of
    _Tataros_
    | Magister Militum Flavius Aetius | Alwyn | Lord Oda Nobunaga | Massive_attack |
    Proposed the Following for PHALERA: Mangalore & sumskilz | OPIFEX: wangrin, z3n, and Swiss Halberdier


    Honourable Society of Silly Old Duffers | House of Noble Discourse

  18. #118

    Default Re: OFFICIAL: Battle Realism Mod {{Version2}}

    Hello Pike!
    I must say I've fell in love with your mod just after first custom battle. I'm big fan of realism.


    But a the same time, I also (like some before me) feel there is something not alright.


    Started test battle - 1 on 1. I've marched into maybe 20 meters ahead of enemy not shooting single bullet. AI started to shoot at max distance, and they took me one man. Ok. Before I've stopped and prepared to fire they managed to take me two more I believe. But what happened next was realy strange. Being this 20 meters before enemy, and shooting those three salvos (fire by rank) resulted in no casualties (or enogh casualties to be depicted if yoy prefer). I had the feeling that my accuracy got worse instead of better.


    I wonder also what are yours sources when it comes to 18th century warfare? I'm asking because as some others, I was reading also something oposite than stated here - that, yes, charges were used by commaners because of their shock effect on opponent morale, but it wasn't something that troops would do eagerly, and as such they were uncommon, and they rather kept firing at each other. Not saying they were simply standing still - manouver, especially flanking, seemed to be key to success. However I've read a lot recently also about napoleonic warfare, so maybe I do mess something up.


    Second thing - I like that cohesion system. But in another test battle, after wining, I've pushed continue button and send my cavalry to chase enemy. But at some moment they bounced... I assume this is because of lost of cohesion, fine... but It is hard for me to imagine, that cavalry would turn back in panic, while chasing that one last unit with left to enemy (so there wasn't another threat) and was escaping in equal panic. From what I know, its after main battle, in phase of pursuit, were biggest casualties (but again, perhaps I remember this from napoleonic warfare, not sure). And btw. I've met several times opinion, that while highly inaccurate, artillery was causing most of deaths.

  19. #119

    Default Re: OFFICIAL: Battle Realism Mod {{Version2}}

    Quote Originally Posted by Sherab View Post
    Hello Pike!
    Started test battle - 1 on 1. I've marched into maybe 20 meters ahead of enemy not shooting single bullet. AI started to shoot at max distance, and they took me one man. Ok. Before I've stopped and prepared to fire they managed to take me two more I believe. But what happened next was realy strange. Being this 20 meters before enemy, and shooting those three salvos (fire by rank) resulted in no casualties (or enogh casualties to be depicted if yoy prefer). I had the feeling that my accuracy got worse instead of better.
    This is strange. Though I will take a a man or two loss marching forward, I have never not hit the target. This is true even with using militia units. I will test this out again and see if I can replicate this scenario.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sherab View Post
    I wonder also what are yours sources when it comes to 18th century warfare? I'm asking because as some others, I was reading also something oposite than stated here - that, yes, charges were used by commaners because of their shock effect on opponent morale, but it wasn't something that troops would do eagerly, and as such they were uncommon, and they rather kept firing at each other. Not saying they were simply standing still - manouver, especially flanking, seemed to be key to success. However I've read a lot recently also about napoleonic warfare, so maybe I do mess something up.
    The 18th Century is not Napoleonic battles. The late campaign would be closer. I read several sources. Too many. In some cases, i have read description of battles as well as read on standard tactics at the time. They were related to 18th century warfare and not early 19th century.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sherab View Post
    Second thing - I like that cohesion system. But in another test battle, after wining, I've pushed continue button and send my cavalry to chase enemy. But at some moment they bounced... I assume this is because of lost of cohesion, fine... but It is hard for me to imagine, that cavalry would turn back in panic, while chasing that one last unit with left to enemy (so there wasn't another threat) and was escaping in equal panic. From what I know, its after main battle, in phase of pursuit, were biggest casualties (but again, perhaps I remember this from napoleonic warfare, not sure). And btw. I've met several times opinion, that while highly inaccurate, artillery was causing most of deaths.
    As I already explained, I am limited to the game mechanics when modding. It is impossible to replicate accurately warfare of the people. Sacrifices were made. If I increase the firepower/accuracy of artillery, then units will be routed very easily. If I increase morale, then units will lose 50% or more of their men. An alternative is to reduce the number of artillery pieces. However, when I suggested a 1/2 ration, the other developers said no. I read some material that stated that artillery would often demoralize units. I used that has a basis for creating the system I have created since I couldn't reduce the effectiveness of the artillery by reducing the number of pieces to 1 or 2. But as I mentioned above, when the AI has artillery and I do not, I lose, when I have the artillery and the AI does not, the AI loses. It does have a profound impact on the result of the battle. I even did a test when I ineffectively placed my pieces and the AI managed to effectively place his. The result was a defeat. In the future, I do plan on creating my most ideal battle tactic as an permanent submod, but for now, this is for development for installment in IS. With less pieces (1/2) then i can have artillery be more effective, but the player and the AI will have to use them more smartly. (also reducing to 1/2 makes the frontage issue more accurate as a two piece artillery takes up half a battalion (our units in IS are battalion, not regiments).
    MODDERS WANTED | MY PATRONAGES
    Imperial Splendour is looking for Modders and Researchers. SEE AD HERE
    If interested, contact PikeStance(Mod Leader/Manager) or Quintus Hortensius Hortalus (Mod leader /Lead Artist)

    Under the Patronage of Omnipotent- Q | Member of the House of Wild Bill Kelso
    Patron of
    _Tataros_
    | Magister Militum Flavius Aetius | Alwyn | Lord Oda Nobunaga | Massive_attack |
    Proposed the Following for PHALERA: Mangalore & sumskilz | OPIFEX: wangrin, z3n, and Swiss Halberdier


    Honourable Society of Silly Old Duffers | House of Noble Discourse

  20. #120

    Default Re: OFFICIAL: Battle Realism Mod {{Version2}}

    This is strange. Though I will take a a man or two loss marching forward, I have never not hit the target. This is true even with using militia units. I will test this out again and see if I can replicate this scenario.
    I was testing this on Alpine passage map. Early period. Normal difficulty. Maybe this has something to do with terrain roughness? However I observed casualties that close only ones. So maybe this is not repetitive and I had bad luck. I test it again too.

    The 18th Century is not Napoleonic battles. The late campaign would be closer. I read several sources. Too many. In some cases, i have read description of battles as well as read on standard tactics at the time. They were related to 18th century warfare and not early 19th century.

    I didn't meant to suggest your sources are wrong. I rather wanted to read/watch them too. I have read about 18th century warfare too. What I meant was that I've read about early 19th too, so I might be reffering to wrong source by accident.

Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •