Europe Series: Napoleonic Wars

Paasky

Good News Everyone!
Joined
Nov 19, 2003
Messages
2,062
Location
Vantaa, Finland
Sadler%2C_Battle_of_Waterloo.jpg

The Napoleonic Wars were a series of wars fought during Napoleon Bonaparte's rule over France. They were partly an extension of conflicts sparked by the French Revolution, and continued during the regime of the First French Empire. These wars revolutionized European army and artillery, as well as military systems, and were of a scale never before seen, mainly due to the application of modern mass conscription. French power rose quickly, conquering most of Europe; the fall was also rapid, beginning with the disastrous invasion of Russia, and Napoleon's empire ultimately suffered complete military defeat, resulting in the restoration of the Bourbon monarchy in France.
Links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_wars
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolutionary_Wars
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/ward_1912/europe_central_1803.jpg
http://www.100megsfree4.com/napwars/nap13.gif

Note: no installation instructions, so if you can't extract it, too bad :p
http://koti.mbnet.fi/pjvuorio/NapEuro.rar

I'm planning on doing a Napoleonic Europe scenario next, much like the one in [c3c] except that it will have a larger tech tree, more units, and generally more realism. So I'm creating this thread where anyone who would like to participate can give links/talk about techs, units, tactics, buildings, politics, resources, everything.

The first place to go would of course be the units, buildings & civics. In the [c3c] version I remember all civs having only a few different units, with the French, English, Russians & Prussians having some special unit which was better than the rest. I'd like to change that so that each civ has a good amount of units to choose from, and also that the tech-tree would make better units. The start times are also to be discussed, but I am thinking of using the same time as in the [c3c] scenario (1803-1815).

Some stuff that will be:
Hard to get, but very strong troops for Prussia.
Cheap but poorly strengthed troops Russia.
The British of course have lots of good, but cheap ships.
Cavalry should get a bonus depending on how many times a unit has been attacked that turn. As I understand it, cavalry was used against cannons & to chop down wavering or routing troops, correct? If they were to get a, maybe +20% strength, bonus for every time a unit has been attacked previosly that turn, this would make cavalry work more realistically, right? So even if you have an unit that has withstood attacks from your infantry/cannons, and still have a good amount of strength left (maybe all infantry can get a +100% vs cavalry?), the unit would be so tired and have so many existing casualities, they would be easy to chop down by cavalry.
Also, as the tactics of the time were to march towards the enemy, all units should have a fairly high rerteat % (about 60%?).


Preliminary civlist:
- French Empire (1)
- British Empire (2)
- Kingdom of Spain (3)
- Kingdom of Portugal (4)
- Ottoman Empire (5)
- Russian Empire (6)
- Kingdom of Sweden (7)
- Kingdom of Denmark (8)
- Austrian Empire (9)
- Kingdom of Sardinia (10)
- Kingdom of Naples (11)
- Papal States (12)
- Prussia (13)
- Holland (14)
- Saxony (15)
- Bavaria (16)
- German States (17)
- Hannover-Mecklenburg (18)
After I checked the maps again, I noticed that the Italian Republic didn't exist, or was under French rule. So if Helvetii can't be made into a minor civ (which I believe don't count into the max number of civs), it will take the Italian Republics place.

Others:
Helvetii Republic as one Barbarian city which is surrounded by mountains.
Ligurian Republic (part of Napal States)
Kingdom of Etruria (part of Napal States)

Let the talks commence :)
 
- Sweden (Kingdom of?) (7)
- Denmark (Kingdom of?) (8)
- Austria (Kingdom of?) (9)

Both Sweden and Denmark were Kingdoms at this time (Although Denmark was usually refered to as "Denmark-Norway" as Norway was still a Danish province at this time).

As for Austria, you could probably either call them "The Habsburgs Dominions" or just "The Austrian Empire," although the term "Austrian Empire" wasn't adopted until 1804.
 
I guess if you want to do a napoleonic scenario, it would have to be 'French Empire', for napoleon having himself styled emperor of france. French Republic would rather fit a scenario of the 'Revoutionary Wars', say 1792 - 1798. Although France remained a republic until december 1804, napoleon was completely in charge of it, just like a monarch.

As for the italian republic, do you mean the 'cisalpine republic' that was created by napoleon? this changed to the kingdom of italy in 1805 with napoleon as its king and eugene de beauharnais as viceroy; it was composed largely of former austrian lombardy and the debris of the venetian republic.

i think your idea about cavalry is fantastic. one remark though: cavalry was also used as 'battle cavalry', meaning that it was used in frontal assaults agains infantery that was somehow off guard. could that for example be represented by some bonus given to cavalery attacking infantery units that have fought in the previous turn?

one last point: i shall be glad to help with anything i can. i'm terrible with computers, so i won't be of much use, but i'm a historian and can probably help with historic questions, and questions relating to the armies of the time.

anyways, great work that you're doing. :)
 
Check the .jpg image for the map where I took the civs, but it seems that the Italian Rep. could be French to begin with, so that I could get another civ instead of it.

Switzerland could be circled by mountains & be barbarian, that would give me the room for one German state, Hanover or Mecklenburg.

I don't know that much about the period, so if you have any good links, I'd like to read them ;)
 
I can give you some links with pretty good information:

This is partly in French, but gives quite comprehensive infos about the entire period:

http://www.histofig.com/history/empire/

one of the sublinks on this page i find especially interesting, since it portrays the armies of the period in quite an exhaustive manner:

http://www.histofig.com/history/empire/armees/index-en.html

And here's some further links:

http://www.napoleonguide.com/armyind.htm

http://www.wtj.com/wars/napoleonic/

http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/riley/787/Napoleon/


Very nice for military maps:

http://www.dean.usma.edu/HISTORY/web03/atlases/napoleon/napoleon%20war%20index.htm

And yes, you're right this is the italian republic that became the kingdom of italy in 1805 and acquired the venetia from defeated austria, plus some other territories.

I hope i can be of help with this.:)
 
Just another remark on sources:

If you like to read something exhaustive on the armies of the period that gives excellent account of their individual fighting qualities, then john elting's 'swords around a throne' is highly recommended.

but as i said, its rather 'long'.


cheerio for now... ;)
 
Friends,
I am not an expert in history nor am i a programmer. However, i have been playing wargames for almost 40 years. I have something to say about how this game could be very very good or just another huge project.
Huge project: lots and lots of uniques units, (which could imbalance and ruin the game) with lots and lots of new graphics/skins/animations(which add nothing to the strategy and i imagine its tons of work) with lots of new resourses, and whatever else you can think of.
OR
Very Good:Some new designed stuff but mostly just a few elegant rule changes which add the flavor, on a small, well designed map.

My proposal: We need only a few generic fighting units, its the mod's promotions/perks that make them unique. They can be tied to civ advances, and some civs would have advantage in some of these areas. But what I especially recommend are "Field Commanders" or "Generals". This would be the heart of the mod. You would NOT need to predesign each General as a unique unit... instead it would be the promotions that made them unique. I am not proposing some mild effects. Without a General the units move too slow and fight poorly by comparison. "How?" you may ask....
A general would give a bonus to his stack. More victory by units in his stack= more experience, which is cashed in for abilities depending on what civ advances the nation has. The flavor begins when you are faced with choices for promotion... do you want more forced march(movement) for your stack or will you need more attack bonus? or Healing? or pillaging? or Command(radius effect) or foraging?(this would mean some units in the stack are 'free' and dont cost anything to maintain.) Best of all... over time you can have several different bonuses from one leader, but you the player have to pick which ONE the General shall apply and be in effect in effect the next turn. This makes it so the player is identifying with the General. i think drawing the player into the game with field leadership choices is what would make a relatively simple mod into a great game. I suppose some of the better historical leaders would start the game with a few abilities at start.
Problem with my idea... the AI in other mods with this sort of thing uses the General less than efficiently. i think that would be the challenge; to whip the AI into shape. For players however the concepts are simple.. so they can spend less time figuring out what it means and can instead have fun with how it works.
This game concept is worth working through and in my opinion would make a monster mod on only a small map that doesnt need gazillions of unique units and graphics. If the designers of the mod agree, I would be happy to help however i can. I have wanted to help on a mod and this one might be it.
The historical balance, abilities and starting positions of units i could help with very easily.
 
Do i get that right: you are proposing something that resembles the rules in the napoleonic board game 'war and peace'?

I really like the idea, but unfortunately, i'm no programmer either.
 
Exactly right, Archduke Otto. sometimes i am amazed that other people have played these game besides me.
But yes, the fighting units could all be exactly the same... except for promotions from experience, which really is what makes ordinary units elite irl. But even for elites, its the Leadership that makes it work. I do think that different types of units are not bad. But yes, the standard miltary unit in War and Peace is what i had in mind... they are all exactly the same, its the Leader that made it work.
Btw, i am not against the huge project format, or different units; I merely like to contrast the idea i have with the common tendency to delve into the minutia. I am hoping for the elegant instead of the intricate.
 
I've got these units, atleast unitclasses:

INFANTRY
Light Infantry
Line Infantry
Guard Infantry
Reserve Infantry
Irregulars
Pikemen

CAVALRY
Light Cavalry
Heavy Cavalry
Guard Cavalry
General
Hunters
Dragoons

ARTILLERY
3 Pound Arty
6 Pound Arty
9 Pound Arty
12 Pound Arty

SHIPS
Sloop
Corvette
Frigate
Battleship
Ship of the Line
Merchantman
Transport

The Cavalry, Artillery & Ships upgrade this way:
Lancer/Hussar/Cuirassier
Hussar/Cuirassier
Hussar/Cuirassier
Enable Promotions
Enable Promotions
Enable Promotions


Horse/Human Towed
Horse/Human Towed
Human Towed
Human Towed

Extra Guns/Armor/Speed
Extra Guns/Armor/Speed
Extra Guns/Armor/Speed
Extra Guns/Armor/Speed
Extra Guns/Armor/Speed
Extra Guns/Armor/Speed
Enable Promotions


Enable Promotions is for those which don't have a choice. How about infantry? What sort of choice would they have? I'm going to give every unit 4 extra XP, which will give them the choice straight from training. I think I could make the Guard Inf & Cav into upgrades too, requiring atleast 2 promotions before the unit could join the "Guard".
 
I uploaded the xls, its in http://koti.mbnet.fi/pjvuorio/NapEuro.xls

Also, I'm hoping to make it possible, with python, to make older units change into the Reserve (Old Guard) if they have a sufficent amount of Promotions. With luck, weather could also be added.
 
@Paasky: The list seems complete and balanced to me :) . Just something about the cavalry; from the regulations of the prussian army, classifications were as follows: hussars and dragoons were considered light cavalry, used for reconnaissance, raiding and concealing movements of the main body of the army. cuirassiers, jaegers (only formed in the early 1900s) and uhlans (lancers) were considered heavy cavalry, used for battle.

about o.o.howard's and my posts: in the boardgame 'war and peace', you need a leader (general) unit to activate infantry (and partially cavalry), meaning that infantry units have an intrinsic movement allowance of zero; only if you move a leader to the unit stack, it can take the infantery units with him, so to say. by this the gameplay omitts the horribly ahistoric tendency of players to spread their units out in frontlines all across the map as in wwi or wwii. armies move as what they are; armies.
furthermore, a leader has a strategic/tactical quality rangeing from 0 (worst) - 3 (genius). this quality manipulates the battle strength of the units in the stack.

although i like this concept, i imagine it would be difficult to implement in civ and also to have th ai use its leaders properly. i could imagine no worse than the ai hoarding its units in its cities, simply because it does not know how to use its leaders properly.

@O.O.Howard: You're absolutely right :) . I loved that game for its simplicity. it was simple, visually attractive and had a near-perfect gameplay. unfortunately, my friends prefer some monster games like world in flames, which did exactely go down the path from 'relatively' simple to terribly complicated. your point is illustrated by wif; they specialized the game ever further until it was probably the most visually attractive game there is; a lot of fun to set up and look at. but once you want to play, it's a horrible mess of criss-cross referencing rules. havoc.
I hope there are ways to implement something like the leader unit from 'war and peace'. that game was just simple and fantastic.
 
As you see, I am making a General unit, I'm still thinking on what to do with it. Perhaps add +20% for all units on the square and +10% for all on adjacent squares. It would get promoted depending on how well the units on that square do in combat, or by spending time in a city with a military academy?

That's exactlythe sort of info I need. Also, what are the differences between Fusiliers & Voltigeurs? I assume nothing except they're from different languages?
 
Friends,
A word about the 'Generals'. There have been three or 4 mods that make Generals. Oddly enough, the one that gives me the most hope is Fall from Heaven, a fantasy mod(of all things) in which a mage has a 'spell' button that the player presses and 'abbra cadabbra'... all units in the stack gain one movement. If there were three possible buttons because the general was very talented, then the player could choose which one he wanted to use that turn. Also, it would be possible to get a double bonus ( such as forced march 2) which would give 2 extra moves.
I think the radius effect Paasky mentions is a good option. But it was hard in the old days for a leader to have much effect on units 100 miles away. exceptional organization was needed, so that would be a higher end promotion. i would like to see many options. I think a building/tech could be required to unlock these. A national wonder already built at start of game? It would be neat if somehow the starting ability was effected by amount of culture or to a civic but i havent thought that through.
Leader qualities!
**Within a century the tech and equipment would outweigh the leader qualities which were so evident in Napolean's day.**
To capture the flavor of the time we want to cause Napolean's presence to make all the difference. And be different in effect from wellington's, from blucher's, from archduke charles', etc. But worst of all is just a stack of infantry units plodding along by themselves. It almost doesnt matter how many different and colorful units you make for the stack. They need to be led.
May i say that the various units you have in the list are great. i am happy to see them. I would like to see the color and pagaentry of different units..yet i would like even more to see the fighting quality of the troops greatly effected by their General.
Imagine an invading army with several good generals with different abilities, one of which is alone with the cavalry wing. He decides to move the already fast cavalry stack an extra forced march +2 to cover a strategic resource while two leaders stay with the main stack, both of them adding a different bonus to the artillery or whatever.
Leader qualities! maybe its too hard to make, or maybe it isnt the vision of the designer Paasky... yet ;) With his permission i will go into more detail. It is unfair and impolite for me to push too much without his permission. I appreciate the open chance to discuss but i dont want to take unfair advantage.
 
The foremost problem with Generals is ofcourse the AI.

But yes, I AM going to have Generals, as you can see in the xls. They are a national unit though, and each civ has a max of 5 of them. I think they'll gain experience the same way as the barracks experience mod, where units slowly gain experience. They will also gain experience from battles, getting 1 xp for every 3 or 5 gained by the troops in the same stack. But what about their promotions, how will they work and what will they be? The important ones I see are:
March (Speed)
Arty Tactics (Better Arty)
Manouvering (Better Inf)
Cavalry Tactics (Cavalry)
Morale (Better Strenght, lower stamina loss)

All of these would have 2 or 3 extras. Every General would also have a... say +50% strength for all units just by existing. Napoleon of course has all to begin with ;) But if he dies, something terrible will happen to the French. Should I do the same for every civ? Have their kings as one General? And if they (or if all of their generals die), the nation falls into despair.


And for the stacks that don't have Generals: You could think of them as having a Captain, like in Rome: Total War ;)
 
Hi there,

Just a quick reply: i think you're right. fusiliers and voltigeurs are primarily the same. they are both light infantry. i know the french young guard consisted mainly of regiments of voltigeurs and tirailleurs (the term tirailleurs to me seems to be used here for fusiliers).

enlightening is again the use in the prussian army: normal infantry regiments were called 'regiments of musketiers', having a musket as arms. elite troops were designed 'fusiliers', armed with fusils (this was simply an improved gun that had better accuracy than the musket but was more expensive to produce, the idea was that fusiliers and voltigeurs were used in loose battle formations, as skirmishers, in with the accuracy of the individual shooter was more important, whereas musketiers were moved in half-batallion or even batallion masses and fired agains mass targets).

here an excerpt on light infantry:

The light infantry:
This is, theoretically, an elite troop of which the united battalions are able to perform the tasks which the light line companies accomplish. A battalion of light infantry is made up of a number of center companies which varies with different countries, sometimes together with one or two elite companies. The infantrymen of the center companies are named differently by different companies; one can cite chasseurs, tirailleurs, riflemen, etc. Many countries have though it good to add to their light infantry units one or two elite companies. The first is made up of carabiniers, which are the equivalent of grenadiers, and the second, if there is a second, of voltigeurs.

So you can see, light infantry is used the same way, as you said, no matter what name they give it: chasseurs, tirailleurs, riflemen, sharpshooters, jaeger, schuetzen, tirailleurs, voltigeurs, grenzer...

I'll come back to you later about the generals, but i like the ideas posted by o.o.howard and you. God, if i only knew how to do programming stuff...;)
 
Back
Top Bottom