Cavalry thread

[Caractacus]

Great stuff Mowgli. I wish they could put you on the team!

[rahamy]

Thanks for the answer!

A couple of comments:

Movement Threat Disorder is an optional rule that you can select as desired...

But the fail chance for movement threat disorder/rout has been halved according to the patch notes and ingame experience with patch 4.01? This makes the rule fail at preventing "infantry charges" against cavalry. Quoting from the Bayonets on the Rhine changelog for version 4.01:

Adjusted the Movement Threat Disorder optional rule to:
o the fail probability check is halved. So, units will disorder/rout less frequently.
o limbered artillery does not emit a threat zone.
o Cavalry units no longer receive an additional bonus for their calculation. [I assume that this refers to version 4.0: "Also, Cavalry is more resistant to movement threat disorder. The target hex threat value is halved."]

And even when the threat chance was more reliable, disordered units (such as cavalry after a charge) do not exert any threat...

A perfect case of "you can't please everyone"...there was a TON of howling when we introduced the MTD rule...just can't win for loosing with this one...

[PaulSan]

A perfect case of "you can't please everyone"...there was a TON of howling when we introduced the MTD rule...just can't win for loosing with this one...
Rich Hamilton
WDS Operations Manager

I feel for you on this one, Rich. Extremely detailed and valid points regarding cavalry have been raised. I think the only way to resolve these issues is to build a time machine that can hover invisibly over Napoleonic battlefields and monitor hundreds of cavalry charges. Then a team of one or two programmers must model what they have seen. Wouldn't that be a dream come true to be inside that invisible time machine watching Europe be conquered?

[TheGrayMouser]

A couple of comments:

Movement Threat Disorder is an optional rule that you can select as desired...

Also, there was a Looongggg standing bug uncovered in the engine with this round of updates that was causing too few casualties to be applied to a defender. I think you will see a difference in the 4.02 updates. I have set up test scenarios where cavalry was most definitely effective as per expectations.

Hi Rich, is this bug also in the other black powder series games?
I can’t imagine it was too big but even so squashed, it is not likely going to offset the massive 2-1 defender hard coded advantage in melee.

We really need these variables to be added to the Pdt files so it can be changed officially or at least modded in the black powder titles to something realistic. Every other title series by WDS has this functionality yet needs this the least ( Ww2 Battles, ww2 Campaigns Ww1 Campaigns and Squad Battles) And when I say those titles need it the least,what I mean is that in modern wars where cover and concealment are paramount, defenders should get a 2-1 bonus, at the least!

The biggest combat bonus a player can get exclusive of chateau terrain and the cavalry bonus is the flank melee modified, 40%.

Current combat: a 1000 men melee attacks a 1000 men in the flank. The attacker ( with 1400 man combat power) suffers a mean of 100 men as casualties. The defender suffers a mean of 84. As you can see , as the attacker you will lose this combat more often than not.

This imho is the # 1 reason cavalry(and melee in general) are terrible in the black powder games.

Think of all the changes in these games over the years, stacking, charge bonus, the Mds rules(modified many times) What was it for ? Balance , get rid of Death Star stacks?

I just don’t believe there is a way to balance melee combat in a systematic way with the hard coded 2-1 defender advantage nor is there any historical justification for it.

Anyway sorry for the rant,I love these games but this mechanic almost made me quit playing until I discovered the weather line entry where you can increase the attacker modifier .. it’s not perfect and I could never back into the #’s perfectly( perhaps that bug?) and it would be so nice to have the attacker defender combat casualty spread in the pdt. I just got a taste of playing these games vs a human, but I feel odd asking people to play with modified files, so back to hot seat /AI.

[PaulSan]

As a casual observer and someone who doesn't play many Napoleonic battles, but is planning to do so, what is "the massive 2-1 defender hard coded advantage in melee"? I'm trying to wrap my head around this discussion, but I play mostly Panzer Campaigns, Panzer Battles & American Civil War. Can you briefly clarify this for me? My understanding of actual history is cavalry would decimate infantry that wasn't in square. Once in square, cavalry had a really hard time breaking squares. Is my understanding correct and does the game model this? Is this issue way more complicated than my simplistic look at it? My approach in playing my games of choice is try to disrupt the defender with rifles and artillery. Once accomplished, melee these demoralized units. Melees with units that are not disrupted is typically a bloody mess.

Thanks.

[rahamy]

As a casual observer and someone who doesn't play many Napoleonic battles, but is planning to do so, what is "the massive 2-1 defender hard coded advantage in melee"?

There is no Hard coded 2:1 advantage towards the defender.

We looked at the code today and verified this.

I *think* he is talking about the 20-100 random range for the attacker compared to the 40-160 random range for the defender. This can be a 5:3 advantage for the defender. But still, random number ranges and no "guarantee".

With that said, we'll dive more deeply into those calculations and modeling for a future update... but the next round has been finalized and is due to be released in the very near term - so we're not doing any more right now.

[TheGrayMouser]

As a casual observer and someone who doesn't play many Napoleonic battles, but is planning to do so, what is "the massive 2-1 defender hard coded advantage in melee"?

There is no Hard coded 2:1 advantage towards the defender.

We looked at the code today and verified this.

I *think* he is talking about the 20-100 random range for the attacker compared to the 40-160 random range for the defender. This can be a 5:3 advantage for the defender. But still, random number ranges and no "guarantee".

With that said, we'll dive more deeply into those calculations and modeling for a future update... but the next round has been finalized and is due to be released in the very near term - so we're not doing any more right now.

It’s not far off from 2—1 Rich , ( unless both roll low, then it’s exact) but yes I suppose it was a slight exaggeration from a pure mathematical stance. Regardless , it’s still a massive “modifier” , no? I’m glad maybe it can be looked into, cheers!
( I hope I didn’t offend anyone, this has been in the game since Battleground Waterloo , so I blame Talonsoft haha)

[LarkinVB]

I played lots of battles both Napoleonic and ACW (which has the same 5:3 ratio).
The attackers melee disadvantage never made me lose any. I had to adept my strategy and just can't rely to go head on into a melee if both stacks have a comparable strength.
I agree that 5:3 is a bit steep and can be toned down but I'm against 1:1 and would give the defender a noticeable advantage.

[TheGrayMouser]

I played lots of battles both Napoleonic and ACW (which has the same 5:3 ratio).
The attackers melee disadvantage never made me lose any. I had to adept my strategy and just can't rely to go head on into a melee if both stacks have a comparable strength.
I agree that 5:3 is a bit steep and can be toned down but I'm against 1:1 and would give the defender a noticeable advantage.

I feel that a a squadron of Formed cavalry of say 150 men should be able to defeat one of 150 irregular Cossacks more often than not , which is not possible with a defender advantage( it’s not even possible with 1-1 odds but thats a different issue!!)

Can you illustrate why a Cavalry unit “defending” would get any advantage at all? ( since this is a cavalry thread I won’t talk about infantry v infantry ) “Defending and “attacking” to some degree are game conventions needed in a turn based environment. If the descriptions were “passive player” and “active player” would it change the perception of the abstraction?

The notion that you have adapted your gameplay to the mechanic makes sense. I am assuming you try to get maximum
Stacking, toss a leader in , try to flank etc, to get overwhelming odds.

I personally just don’t see it being realistic., as there is no economy of force. You shouldn’t have to use a regiment of cavalry to clear a hex of one enemy squadron. One superior type squadron should suffice for reasonably good odds: say it’s a cuirassier vs a landwer squadron, but if that enemy unit is roughly equivalent that perhaps you send in two squadrons to do the job. The ? Is , what are the rest of the enemy regiment doing in their linear deployment while you, in plain view, amass a mega stack to trash one of their units? Well, nothing because the game is turned based! I just can’t see it being done in real life situation.

To be clear changing the combat odds could not be done in isolation, stacking limits and especially the charge modifier would need to be adjusted.

[thespaie@yahoo.com]

"and especially the charge modifier would need to be adjusted." - TheGrayMouser

I have wondered about this. The cavalry charge modifier is intended to represent the whole velocity*mass = something or other. ( ), right? However, cavalry stacks at 1/3 of what infantry does to take into account horse size, etc, etc. In most of the WDS/JTS Napoleonic game titles the cavalry charge modifier is set to 3. Doesn't the math make that an even up ratio? 1/3 * 3 = 1. So where is the added bonus of the "charge"? Just curious.