nwg

Righto, so, theres not enough differentiation. This is the stuff I need to know. There are several ways to approach rectifying this, one of them which I'd like to explore is this:

1) Keep their long maximum range as now (190ish yards)
2) Improve their effective killing range to be the same as musket lights, currently its less and was done this way to spread the kills out over a much longer maximum range and to try and somehow account for their rate of fire which is far too fast.
3) The range at which they will stop to shoot, which is currently 60 IGU (about 80 yards) is about 10 yards longer than a light musket. I'm keen to keep this the same as now for reasons I'll go into if anyone is interested. I'd prefer to improve accuracy/kill zone related stats first.
4) The above changes will increase the cost of rifles. Not sure by how much yet, but lets assume 50f+. They will definitely 'feel' different to the light musket troops again but at increased cost will anyone find them attractive?

An open question in all of this is how to make a genuine effort to account for rifles firing about 2x-3x as fast as they should be.... anyone got any ideas?




You are right, I've always been a bit unsatisfied myself. We've tried a few things over the months/years but howitzers are such a funny beast. We're even having similar sounding conversations in relation to howies in ETW and in ETW the ballistics are much much improved over RTW.

Something I need to understand right up front, before considering a decent response to the problem is this:

- Is it the 'shell' type ammunition or the howitzer unit itself that is the source of the problem? How do people feel about the 6 gun cannon batteries when they use shell? Is it effective?

I have my own thoughts on this but I'd like to get interested players responses before I show my hand on this issue lest I poison peoples view.




Yes, to me as well, but I wonder if its an optical illusion of some type. I've been pondering stuff like this in a post or two over at the NBC.

Was messing about over easter with the only 4v4 map available. For those who don't already know, you -can- set up a game as per RTW, with a 4v4 map using 'fake' generals and play the game with only two main armies. The map is much larger, much better, however, it surely still feels cramped. I wonder if its just that the maps are too busy and the troops move too quickly? Need to really fool about a bit more.

Dougies experiments of several weeks ago seem to indicate that the maps are roughly the same size (in IGU) as RTW, so perhaps the problem is that the models we are using are simply too large (as pondered in the NBC posts).




I have them turned down a bit, I'll have to check, perhaps the I need to reduce them to 'low' detail (if not done already).




The best NTW2 maps IMHO were the fairly basic ones. Essentially flat with enough low undulating hills to make artillery interesting and enough trees to provide a bit of colour and doubt but not so many as to hamper your movements. ETW maps are way to complex, too many no-go zones, rocky outcrops, trees, massive hills and valleys...too much all in one map.

Cheers, M.

No one will object to a cost increase if they are turned into a better unit, sounds ok to me.


I'm still not sure about this, they are a good option to have, but hard to tell how effective it is.

Its an important question because it strikes to the issue. Is it the shell thats deemed to be too ineffective or is it the howitzer unit, which uses shell sure but is subtly different in other ways to the larger cannon batteries?

Moo.

This Rifles issue is starting to bother me
On one hand i think yes i wont to see them in the game because they are available and making them significantly better than traditional lights (but not to powerful) at a higher cost is the way to go.
Then I'm thinking in the reality of a Napoleonic battlefield were they really a better option than traditional light infantry, the fact that they were used primarily only by the Brits would suggest that they were not, the slow rate of fire being the obvious reason.
OK guys i dont know a great deal on this subject so perhaps you guys could enlighten me,
Were rifles used for very specific specialist tasks or in the same way as light infantry ???

OK guys heres a laugh why not give rifles longer range and better accuracy than lights, but balance this out with something else (not sure what as its clear you cant slow down there rate of fire )
Basically giving them the same overall killing effect as lights and at the same PRICE
If you are then the Brits you will take a unit or two of them to add a bit of colour and because you feel a Brit army should have them.
After all in the game that this is how they are being used in exactly the same way as we use lights.



As i have said before i don't think Howey's are not a million miles from being correct.
They are as M has also previously said a psychological weapon as much as anything else.
I believe it is the effectiveness of shell regarding the number of kills that is the issue, and a slight improvement in this would be welcome.
I often use the shell option from my traditional arty when the battlefield condition dictates, but i don't feel it is terrible effective.

For me its about finding a logical place for them to live. What do we want from these troops. For sure even by 1815 there were very few by way of percentage of any nations total armed force.

In game, why would we want to use them? Thats the nub of the question for me.




The British rifles in their various forms have gained quite some fame in the English speaking world, but it would be wrong to think that the Brits were the primary users of light rifle troops. The various German states had been using them a while and in decent numbers Prussia being the largest and most obvious, other countries also used them in small numbers, Austrian Jaegers were often rifle armed, Russians had small numbers of rifles in their Jaeger battalions also.

I can't find a single report of a light formation that I can definitely identify as having been armed with rifles operating at battalion level or above. It appears, though its only a hunch really, that these guys were sent out as companies or platoons to do specific things where high accuracy and range were an advantage and slow rate of fire was not necessarily a drawback.

Without much doubt on my behalf for the regular fighting as we are depicting in CB sized battles, the light troops favoured volume of fire over accuracy and range and appear to mainly have been armed with muskets as a result.

In Russia and France rifles were issued to some of the elite light formations and then withdrawn again (??!) there must have been a perception of bad performance or something.....




Yes, this is a little bit similar to the train of thought I was following in CB321. Make small distinctions but essentially a unit with the same overall killing power as a standard light unit. So, I left their extremely long maximum range but much reduced their effective killing range (the range under which most of the enemy casualties occur). This was meant to provide the effect of these units being really really annoying to an enemy commander who couldn't even really use his own light effectively to remove the rifles, yet, ultimately they are not mass killing machines because their slow rate of fire (in CB, their low -effective- range) precludes this.

What we -could- do is increase what I call the 'aiming range' which is the range at which a unit will stop moving and shoot its first volley (as distinct from maximum range which can be much much longer) yet still keep their effective range rather short. This will (I think) have an emphasising effect on their performance as it is today, something like this:

- Rifles will easily out range musket armed lights
- Lights will have to move closer to rifles to engage them, but will cause more casualties at this range as their effective range is slightly longer (trying to make up for rifles reloading too quickly)
- Line muskets are shorter ranged than both the above and will have to move quite a distance to be able to return fire, however, when they do they will easily outshoot both light and rifles
- All three types of troop offer similar killing ability at extremely close range (about 40 yards) though admittedly few units end up this close together without a melee happening shortly afterwards.




Yes, this game is not a skirmish game so we can't use lights/rifles as snipers (and wouldn't care about such tiny casualty rates anyway). Don't forget as we discuss this though that Brunswick Avants, Prussian Jaegers (called Shutzen in-game), Prussian Guard Jaegers and Portuguese Rifles will all benefit in the same way.




Mmm. My own feeling is that the accuracy is still down, but then, perhaps this is not such a bad thing. I think most folks would agree that strangely enough rockets seem to be really quite effective and their accuracy is horrid!

If I increase the size of the howitzer batteries they will start to behave more like very accurate rocket batteries....lots of volume will translate into lots of kills, but I am concerned about this because of their newly added canister ability I think this will overpower them.

So, I'm now thinking of increasing the howitzer accuracy just the tiniest amount, perhaps adding a little more ammunition but increasing the 'area of effect' of the shells, each time a shell actually hits something the effect will be greater. Unfortunately all this improvement cannot do anything but increase their cost still further, though I guess its possible for me to refactor all the artillery...in any event, howitzers will probably become the most expensive of batteries.

Its all good stuff Gents. Thanks for the input. A bit more chatter then I'll spit out some numbers for us to consider.

Regards, M.

I've seen this, but why not buy a normal howitzer unit ?.

OK, here we go, from my favourite book of all time, The Waterloo Companion by Mark Adkin, page 167/168 :

Sure, and you can imagine why. The battalions are marching into the enemy field of fire. Co-coordinating with separate infantry formations and their own commands to screen your advance would be a nightmare. Better to strip out your own companies and use them under your own direct control.

Thanks for the citations Gunner. I have to say though after reading them and some more material since this conversation began, I am more inclined to leave the rifles as only subtly different to musket armed light.

Best regards,
Moo.

Yes, I kind of destroyed my own argument, maybe best left alone after all, but I don't think I'll be using them in future - they cost 150 more than Lights, if I re-call correctly.

Yes it seems there is only a slight difference in there performance from lights but with a fairly large difference in price

Moopere if we are now not going down the road of improving Rifles performance once more.
Then perhaps we can go the other way bringing performance and price of them and lights closer together ??
Making rifles a unit adding colour and historical feeling to your army ??
To be used as both skirmishers and in the line,
What do you think of that G24

That sounds very good to me, but, Moopere might have some problems with this, as the Rifles have already been weakened a lot, but the price remains too high.....but if something could be done to make the Rifles about, what, say, 75 cheaper, then that might be a good way to go.......in fact the same thing with Howitzers, it's not how "not" good they are, it's more how expensive they are.....so in the same kind of way, how can about 150 florins be knocked off the Howitzers price, without making them even worse than they already are ?.

Its a good conversation and I'm really glad we've had it. I've learned something new too which always puts me into a good mood.

Without a lot of further reading I'm fairly convinced that the real benefit of rifles was probably off the main battlefield. Imagine these guys working in companies harassing an approaching army on the march (but before the real battle) - what a nightmare to be getting shot at from 200-300-400 yards!

Once the battle arrives they change to the 'carbine' shot and join their brothers in the line - really makes a lot of sense.

However, as with many many things, we've playing a game and must make compromises for the games sakes. Howitzer batteries for instance really didn't exist in numbers (some reports of these in early Prussian parade strength but I'm not entirely certain).

I'm happy enough to take a serious think about how we can make the rifles units interesting and relevant without creating a monster.

Lets have a look at whats making up the 150f difference between British rifles and British lights (not KGL, just straight lights)

+2 Primary fire factor. This is going to be worth about 50f alone due to recent weighting changes on the primary fire stat.

+5 IGU in 'aiming range' over lights.

+1 Defensive skill

+1 Morale making them the same as line and just as resilient to cavalry attacks.

They are almost Line stats wise, and this is why they are costing. If we're going to fiddle them a bit I'd be inclined to drop their morale and play with their effective range a bit to bring them closer to musket lights.

Let me play about a little. If we're happy to universally fiddle each factions basic Line as previously discussed this might have some bearing on how units like rifles get tweaked also.

Over this coming weekend I'll publish some numbers in a new thread and solicit some feedback.

Cheers, M

Excellent M will look forward to seeing what you come up with.

Just when you thought it was safe to talk about CB without getting lumbered with a load of work

I write here....perhaps it isnt the right topic.....(you can move it on the topic you prefer).....
Just to tell you that I've installed the CB32 and in a next free night I want to try with you ... thanks to Gunner for the instructions that were really easy to follow
I Ask : crash yet?

Grettings

Hope you have fun with CB32. Most of those who try it seem to enjoy.

As for crashing, yes, it can happen as with standard NTW2. Seems to usually be a problem for MP games at around the 45-50 minutes mark.

Best regards, M.

Yes mate its strange for a long while we had no crashes at all, and all of a sudden we started to have a few.
But as Moopere says any game up to the 40 minute mark seems very stable indeed

I think we are going to have quite a few CB games in the coming weeks so you should have a good chance of a game.
2V2 games in CB are fantastic with some 14k-16k men in the field.
Is your PC OK for handling this number of models ???