The usage/popularity of rifle units.

[KHD|HitmanM4]

Recently i've been discussing the usage and popularity of rifles units with my good comrade, Falkansix. We came to the conclusion that rifle units are being heavily relied upon much more than they were during the time period.

The French for example would use a great number of skirmishing units such as voltigeurs and chasseurs, etc in open formation to cover and screen the advance of the infantry columns. This of course gave the French great success up until arguably the Peninsula when the British had successfully began to counter the French with their own light infantry units. As we know the French weren't great fans of the rifle and i believe they were never implemented on any significant scale.

Last night Lord Thindigital hosted a number of games which curbed the usage of rifles. What he did was if you took one rifle unit you must take several light/skirmishing units. In my case i found the battles much more enjoyable as instead of the usual two or three units of greenjackets i covered my line with four British light infantry units in open formation and I found the skirmishing aspect of the game much more enjoyable and successful.

Now i know rifles can be handy especially during hill assaults but in my opinion if we limit their usage with rules such as LTD implemented the realism and enjoyment of multiplayer may be enhanced.

It would be great to hear everyone else’s view on this.

Cheers
KHD|Hitman_M4

[[GG] Lord Ashram]

A few of us were just talking about this same issue, thinking that maybe what shoudl happen is the COST of rifles should be increased. A major objective of FoB was to remove ancillary rules from NTW games by increasing costs and such. As there will most likely be a FoB update (if for nothing else than for the limboing KGL troops!) I would suggest an increase in cost there.

Very astute observation Hit:)

Ash

[flippyxtrem]

I like Hitmans and Thindigitals idea but i think its a little steep for you to buy one rifle for two light infantry but rather...for every rifle unit you buy you have to buy one light infantry type...something like taht

Cheers!!

[[GG]AndrewKent]

Good idea, Hitman.

Anything that makes the game more realistic is good. Ash's idea of increasing the cost might be one way to handle it, but simple host rules are good, too.

AK

[KHD|HitmanM4]

Ashram, increasing the costs will worsen the situation if anything. In my opinion most players will purchase the same amount of rifles thus with the added expense it will have a have a knock on effect on the quality of the rest of their army.

If there ever was to be another update these are the things i suggest:

1) The moral of French line is increased and a higher bonus for fighting in column.

2) French Jageurs units never existed, remove them.

Now this seams to weaken the French in some ways but i believe the following will even it out:

1) Seriously lower the size of rifle units to all those who have them in the game. With the unit size on normal a rifle unit of 30-40 men would be a more realistic reflection.

Therefore with the rifle sizes drastically cut any player wishing to exercise the French column tactics aren’t shot to pieces before they get to the opposition line. In my opinion it will also enhance more realistic skirmishing between volts, chasseurs, British lights, etc. Also the statistical morale and column enhancement should make the columns much more successful.

[[GG] Lord Ashram]

I had suggesting a shrinking of rifle units to a size smaller than light, but was told that was not being considered, and that instead costs should be used. If a player buys expensive rifles and it makes the rest of his army weak, so what? The player will lose, and will eventually stop buying too many rifles:)

Ash

[KDH|AtilaElZipper]

This debate is one that has raged in all Total War communities since the creation of the series.
The debate splits into two:
1) Should the game strive for perfect balance between opposing armies, ie: each unit has its appropriate strenght/Weakness (rock/paper/scissors)
2) historical accuracy: unit sizes or availability in accordance with Historical fact.
In this instance the Mod Creator holds the deciding vote in striving for Balance or Historical Fact.
In my opinion if balance is key, then Unit Cost is increased/decreased according to unit effectiveness.
If historical accuracy is the main aim, then adjusting troop sizes to a true size, adusting their strenght/weakness and the removal of inapropriate troops from armies that did not historically used them should be implemented .
On a personal note I am a big fan of historical accuracy, my buzz is not the winning or loosing the battle ( As you all know I loose significantly more than I win) but the participation in a battle recreation that will give me an idea of how these battles,that I have read so much about, may have occured. The greatest enjoyment I have had playing this game to date was the Eastern Alliance Campaign because Ashram went to trouble of producing army lists that resembled armies of the period and curtailed the use of "Super-Troops" who invariably had appeared in regular Nap games in unrealistic numbers in order to produce a "winning army".
I hope this helps and that no offence has been caused by this post.

Good luck guys

Zipper

[[GG] Lord Ashram]

I appreciate the support! Personally I rather enjoyed both the balance of the armies, as well as the company idea; it caused me to naturally think of my units as being divided into individual commands under an overall command structure!

Anyway, I think the rifles should be balanced out with either size or cost; I don't know about the idea of balancing out with artificial rules; that was what FoB was for!

Ash

[flippyxtrem]

I AGREE WITH HITMAN 100%!!

Rifle units should be smaller like 50 men something like that because rifle units were small like that...

alright some guy here wants to use the internet gonna be nice and let him...

Cheers!!

[KHD|falkonsix]

As I feel partly responsible for the initiation of this debate along with my good friend Hitman then I feel it only appropriate to make a contribution.

As the new boy on the scene perhaps there are those amongst you who might be interested in the 'take' on NTW of a Napoleonic wargamer of more tears standing than I care to admit. My apologies if it runs to the length of a short story. I'll try to keep it shorter than 'War and Peace'!

I discovered NTW couple of weeks ago purely by chance. I was very, very impressed. This is the system that most figuregamers ( of which there are many ) dream about. No lengthy hours setting up terrain, unpacking figures, setting up games, shovelling them about the table in a visually pleasing yet cumbersome fashion. No, this appeared to be the ultimate answer to all wargamers prayers. I have nothing but praise for the Lordz. They have done a magnificent job. I owe them.

In addition to the above there has been the great pleasure of playing with and against a great bunch of people, all of whom obviously have a love of the period similar to my own. Not, surprising. It was the last 'Gentleman's War'. A period in which tactics, movement, beautifully uniformed troops and commanders of character and ( sometimes! ) great ability combined to form a flowing, exciting style of warfare.

I was a little taken aback then to find that there were many games in which the fabulous potential of NTW to re-create this were stifled. The reason being that the tactics used were more akin to WW1 than 1810. Now I hasten to state that this is a personal opinion. Of course there are many types of players, those who wish to win at all costs, those who wish to re-create an historical scenario and those who just want to enjoy the play, win or lose and some who combine all three.
My argument is this. Younger players and beginners who have not experienced the thrill of the true style of Napoleonic warfare, the sweeping cavalry charges, the spectacular advance of massed columns of
attack will not be allowed that pleasure nor learn the art of tactics of the time. The reason? There is an anomoly in the system that prevents it. So back to the rifle question.

It is not a case of how much should a rifle unit be. It is a case of why they are available in the form they are. A form that grossly overvalues their numbers and effectiveness. A form that distorts the playing of a wonderful gaming system which has the potential of attracting so many Napoleonic enthusiasts and game players and thus adding to the deserved reputation of NTW.

I do not intend to bore anyone with statistics or portray myself as a purist ( which I am not! ) but the following may be of interest to some. The use of the rifle was rare indeed in the scale of things. By far the most famous and effective were the British 95th and 60th Battalions. They were generally operated in company strength and attached to brigades. i.e a unit of 50/60 men. The KGL light battalions had one company out of 10 armed with the Baker rifle till 1815 when they were fully equipped with them. If we take three sizeable actions betwen the British and French, Salamanca, Talavera and Waterloo we find rifles account for no more than 2% of the troops present. Prussia had 2 battalions of rifles for most of the war out of a total of around 80/90 line battalions. There were others but really not in any significant numbers.

I am no doubt preaching to the converted judging by the comments of other contributors here. I personally will include in the games I host a rule saying rifles are permissible in British, Austrian, Prussian and Portuguese armies. Players will be allowed 1 unit per side. In the case of the Brits they must be valour level 3. I would hope that I wont be short of players. I would welcome with open arms youngsters who could experience the excitment that I felt the other evening in a way I have never experienced in years of figure gaming. My French columns of attack advanced in great splendour up a hill into the teeth of a storm of Prussian fire. There was a brief period of fiercely contested hand
to hand fighting. They were hurled back in disarray. It didn't matter. For one brief period I was St Cyr, or Ruffin or Vilatte at Albhuera or Waterloo. They were not decimated at great range by hundreds of rifles and I was not prevented from enjoying the experience. That for me is what it is all about.

I apologise for taking up so much of your time. Thanks for your interest.

Falkonsix

[[GG]AndrewKent]

falkonsix said:

... There is an anomoly in the system that prevents it. ...

Falkonsix

Great post Falkonsix. The 'anomoly' of the overabundance of rifle units isn't the only one that effects NTW's representation of the era, but still, NTW is the best Nap era battle game I've ever come across and, after much playing, I have not in the least tired of it.

Having said that, I dream of a true Napoleonic era computer game...done right. Obviously the technology is there, but the problem is the market.

I've looked at the available info for Cosssacks 2 and Imperial Glory and doubt that either of those will really do it.

The main problem seems to be the compromises necessary to market to a wider audience.

AK

[[GG] Lord Ashram]

A few thoughts on rifles:

I agree about unit size. I have long been a proponent of making rifles units much smaller. However, I was told that unit sizes were not going to be changed; rather, costs would have to be used to make sure that they would be very rare on the field. Make a unit of rifles cost 2000 florins and I promise you wont see more than one on the field!

Also, please remember that rifles cannot be used as they were historically; namely, shooting officers! Therefore they must be given some use ingame, which would be to degrade overall unit strength at range. Obviously, units cant be 20 strong and hope to do that:)

Falk, I too am a huge tabletop wargamer. Make sure to check out my site: www.ironhair.com, and click the Warhammer link. I've got thousands upon thousands upon thousands of painted figures there, including a wide array of historical stuff. The napoleonics stuff isnt up yet, and most of the WWII stuff isnt either, but I'll get that up there eventually.

Thanks,

Ash

[HGLordThindigital]

Hi GG's KHD's, Gentlemen,

I heartily agree with the jist of what Falkonsiz is saying - i freely admit having only limited reading on this period and am no expert.

However it must be as clear to you as it is to me that rifle wielding troops included in the game have been somewhat abused.

Just to explain (and this is my take on things - i am not on the Lordz PR team) - these units were included to add excitement and flavour to the game, it wasnt forseen that online gamers would come to rely on these troops so heavily and as you rightly say, effect the Napoleonic flavour of the game.

In msn chats i have said that we can do a quick cost adjustment when we sort out some outstanding graphical errors. We dont have the time to spend lowering a units numbers - this involves more testing for balance issues than a simple cost change.

In the meantime - I am more than happy with Falkonsix's suggestion to limit rifle armed troops to one per player - or even one per side if they were really so rare.

A shame in a way, because we hoped that the Fields of Battle Expansion would eliminate the need for 'rules'.

When i host (and yes - i actually am on the lobby again!) i generally play
-----------------------------------------------
15k - 20k per army (with 1k - 2k extra for each attacker)

One General per player (Generals give a local morale bonus and therefore introduce a new element to gameplay)

2 artillery pieces per side (I prefer not to play 'battery' rules as this has distinct disadvantages to the already beleaugered attacker.)

and recently ....

players must buy more Light infantry than Jagers/Rifles
(although i do think Falkons rule on this is better and will be adopting that.)
---------------------------------------------

whats clear though, is we have an active happy community with new members joining and giving some great input (as well as beating me.........regularly.......... and all this is many many years after the release of MTW/VI and a full two years since NTW started.



good luck & have fun all

LTD

[[GG]Lord von Döbeln]

I for one would be happy to play games with fewer rifles and more lights. If the cost of rifles could be increased rather dramatically I think this would make the 3-4 rifle unit-armies very scarce in the future. Otherwise I am for host-rules to limit their presence on the field.

GG vD

[[GG]ThinRedLine]

Hello Gentlemen,

I have been impressed by this thread and the direction that it has taken and I have now been moved to put in my two cents, as it were.

First, let me say that I am totally in favor of games better representing the historical realities of the early 19th century and its particular martial realities. I will support any and all hosts who suggest these rules in MP.

As a reminder to all of us, please try to remember that this game has gone through many phases of production and play. At one time there was an almost blood-lust for winning above all else. As long as it was done in a gentlemanly manner, it was ok. When I first started this incredible mod, I ran right into the teeth of a competition for best NTW General etc. The emphasis have changed since then and I applaud this movement and the sentiment that it reflects. Thank you all!

Second, I wanted to comment specifically on the sentiments that Falconsix shared with us above. Many of you may not know this, but I am an old Table-top Wargamer from way back.

I have been playing wargames and particularly Napoleonic wargames since I was about 9. I cut my teeth on H.G. Wells' 'Little Wars' and I quickly began trying anything and everything Napoleonic. I have played 'Empire' through its many emalgamations, I have played Napoleon's Battles, le Petit Emperor, Piquet, Volley and Musket and many more to be sure.

My first NTW experiences brought me such joy and I hardly ever won in the early days. I was totally awed by the ability to pretty accurately depict a Napoleonic battlefield. This Mod and its authors were and are a real blessing for the likes of someone like me. When I finally figured out how to put my own music pack into the game I was again awed. When I first marched 3 columns of Highlanders up the right flank to the pipes wailing 'Scotland The Brave', well, it brought tears to my eyes. I love this game.

I remember, as a child, being in awe of films like 'Waterloo', 'Austerlitz', 'The Duelists' and yes even 'War and Peace'. I dreamt of leading my regiment into the breach, turning the tide and winning the day. As an adult, I have enjoyed the Sharpe's series for all of its inaccuracies romantically portrayed. I am one of those that believes that a good re-make of Waterloo is way over-due. And, yes, I believe that the best portrayel of Napoleon was by Sir Ian Holm in 'Time Bandits' (that should give you an idea of where my loyalties truly lie...LOL).

All of this is to say that I am a real fan of this period and of this excellent Mod so excellently delivered. I again welcome all of you enthusiasts to these forums and deeply appreciate the commitment of the Lordz and of the Gentlemen that I have had the extreme pleasure in playing all these months.

Please believe me when I say that I am very grateful for all of these wonderful contributions.

Gentlemen, I Salute you!

[glow=red,2,300]For Glory And Eagles![/glow]

[glow=red,2,300]Honour, Glory, Brotherhood![/glow]

S!

Grenadier Guardsman, ThinRedLine