The Grognards

[Rocoteh]

Originally posted by Rocoteh
"This thread is going too fast by half, I think it's one of the fastest thread I've seen in C&C." mrtn


Do not worrie.

It will slow down!


Rocoteh

Although I am an old-timer I did not intend to
be cynic. I just remember August/September at
ACW. We had 7 persons posting every day. Then
suddenly Procifica disappeared (silent for 3 weeks, then
a week ago there was a post he said he would come back).
Now I have had a one-man talk show for 3 days.
Today I declared at ACW I will be silence if the others
are silent since I do not like one-man talk shows.

Now you wonder: Why does this old-timer Rocoteh
grumble about that?

I grumble since things can change fast, very fast.


Rocoteh

 

[LouLong]

@ mrtn : about Serbia, it did not really exist back then. Between Germany and the Ottomans there is only the Austrian Empire as a real, independant country.
About the orthodox church for Russia, definitely yes !

@Rocoteh, thanks for the figures. Then we know for sure we CANNOT use regiments for units
Edit : and you are welcome to grumble since you are a grognard. Just don't bring bad luck !
About ACW I think there must be a time in a scenario's life when it must be "finished" so that players start replacing the creators, first by playing and maybe sometimes by posting. Would that be the case ?

 

[Rocoteh]

"@Rocoteh, thanks for the figures. Then we know for sure we CANNOT use regiments for units
Edit : and you are welcome to grumble since you are a grognard. Just don't bring bad luck !
About ACW I think there must be a time in a scenario's life when it must be "finished" so that players start replacing the creators, first by playing and maybe sometimes by posting. Would that be the case ? "LouLong

You make to fast conclusions. After that I removed the
load flag from immobile units waiting-time ,PTW-version
was reduced to 20 seconds.

"Just don`t bring bad luck !" LouLong

What exactly do you mean!!!!!

Rocoteh

 

[Rocoteh]

LouLong,

"Just don`t bring bad luck !" LouLong

I repeat: What exactly do you mean?

If its a " joke" I do not buy it.

If its not a joke its very serious!

Concerning ACW you have got it all wrong.


Rocoteh

 

[Thorgrimm]

Rocotech, if i am wrong please correct me. All my o.b. research for the militaries suggest that the largest "permanent" organization was the regiment with varying numbers of battalions under its control. Larger formations were only formed when at war. In fact most of the French army in Italy in 1795 was organized as Demi-Brigades. If you do not use regiments as your base unit of manuver you lose the color and flavor that was the Napoleonic era. Examples are Siemonovski Grenadier Regiment, all Russian Regiments were named after the location of recruitment, most Austrian regiments were named ALL of the Confederation of the Rhine members were named. I could go on for days but the point i am making is that except for corps and divisional attachments most people know the era by the regiments. Who does not get a more vivid impression of the "Old Guard" in square formation protecting the retreat of the army after Waterloo? Or would you rather say remnants of the guard corps conducted a delaying action?

 

[Thorgrimm]

Another quick barrage of facts.

The Russian Empire as of 1795 has the following REGIMENTS:
Guard infantry 3
Grenadier infantry 15
Line infantry 63
Jaeger infantry 23
Cuirassiers cavalry 10
Dragoons cavalry 36
Uhlans cavalry 12 and various different amounts of cossacks

The United Kingdom as of 1795 has the following REGIMENTS:
Guard infantry 3
Light infantry 3
line infantry 96
Horse Guards cavalry 2
Life Guards cavalry 2
Dragoon Guards cavalry 7
Dragoons cavalry 36 4 which are classified as light cavalry
Kings German Legion
line infantry 4 battalions
Light infantry 2 battalions
Dragoons cavalry 1
hussars cavalry 1
As you can see there are not that many units even with a world spanning empire and one of the largest armies on the continent. So not using regiments and only using brigades and divisions you are reducing the number of units down to a handful.

 

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by Thorgrimm
Rocotech, if i am wrong please correct me. All my o.b. research for the militaries suggest that the largest "permanent" organization was the regiment with varying numbers of battalions under its control. Larger formations were only formed when at war. In fact most of the French army in Italy in 1795 was organized as Demi-Brigades. If you do not use regiments as your base unit of manuver you lose the color and flavor that was the Napoleonic era. Examples are Siemonovski Grenadier Regiment, all Russian Regiments were named after the location of recruitment, most Austrian regiments were named ALL of the Confederation of the Rhine members were named. I could go on for days but the point i am making is that except for corps and divisional attachments most people know the era by the regiments. Who does not get a more vivid impression of the "Old Guard" in square formation protecting the retreat of the army after Waterloo? Or would you rather say remnants of the guard corps conducted a delaying action?

The process of regimentation actually began to solidify central monarchies' hold over a military no longer dominated by the weaponry and training of the nobility. "Regiments" with their traditions, ties to locales and thereby national and/or monarchial loyalty became the dominant unit organization -- until the French Revolution. Again, this period is not my strongest (that would be Medieval-Renaissance Europe) but did not the Levy-en-masse (sp?) by definition essentially due away with the strictly regimental (in the "traditional" sense I described above) basis of Le Grande Armee?

Best,

Oz

 

[Thorgrimm]

No it did not. when the french would call up a class they would form battalions and then group them into regiments. and would only be assigned to higher levels of organization later. By the way the abandoning of the regimental system by most armies did not happen until after the second world war when by need the Germans designed the Kampfgruppe system or battlegroup in english. Which abandoned the normal regimental system in favor of forming combat units for the mission at hand.

 

[Rocoteh]

Thorgrimm,

Thank you for your comments and historical
documentation. With regard to the basic unit that
should be used I have an open mind.

Should the regiment work I think that is okay.
A problem for me is that I have the majority of
information in divisions.

If you have a regimental documentation for the
whole period the scenario/scenarios should cover,
that is of great importance.

The situation now is that I with 90% will leave
this project. I am waiting for LouLong to explain
what he means with "Just don`t bring bad luck".

I grew up in a time and in a culture where the word
respect meant much. If someone insulted you, there was
no way you could cooperate with such a person.
If I choose to leave the project this time it will be for good.


Rocoteh

 

[Thorgrimm]

To continue the barrage.

This order of battle is from the Armee Du Nord De Espagne on 25 June 1812. Then we will break it down into game terms and you will see what i mean.

1st Division General Abbe:
1st Brigade 1rgt of Legere, 2 rgts of Ligne
2nd Brigade 2 rgts of Ligne

2nd division General Vandermasson:
NO BRIGADES
2 rgts Legere 4rgts Ligne 1 Hussar cav

3rd Division General Palombini:
1st Brigade 2 rgts Ligne
2nd Brigade 2 rgts Ligne

4th Division General Dumoustier:
1st Brigade 1 rgt Legere 2 rgts Ligne

Cavalry Division General Laferriere:
NO BRIGADES
3 rgts Dragoons 1 rgt Hussars 1 rgt Lancers 1 rgt Cuirassiers

Now if you use either Brigades or Divisions as your base unit level lets see what the numbers tells us.
At brigade level you have 5 infantry units and 1 cavalry unit.Not
much.
at divisional level its even worse, 4 infantry and 1 cavalry unit.
At either level you also lose your color and flavor. No Legere, no
Ligne, no Hussars, no Lancers, no Dragoons, no cuirassiers. Only at regimental level do you regain what was lost. By the way at regimental level you only have about 25 units. Not very much for The Army of North Spain. As i have pointed out if you make the scale regarding units any bigger than regimental you will lose a lot . By the way as you can see even the French organization above regiment was hap hazard.

 

[Thorgrimm]

Rocotech i agree with you 100% about respect. I may be an American but i was raised by a German immigrant to America,my father. Also if you know anything about the United States Marine Corps then you know me. I spent 8 years in the Marines.

By the way if you read Latin then my afterthoughts will make sense to you. If not it means Saepius Exertus Often Tested, Semper Fidelis Always Faithful, Frater Infinitas Brothers Forever.

And yes as you can see in my last few posts in can get down to the regimental level of any country in the world. All i need is a start date. I would have put down the exact regimental designations in my last post but i tried to keep it brief. if you do decide to leave this post please leave me a way to contact you.

 

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by Rocoteh

The situation now is that I with 90% will leave
this project. I am waiting for LouLong to explain

If I choose to leave the project this time it will be for good.


Rocoteh

*sigh* yet once again risking to speak for someone else (it's the diplomat in me, I suppose ) -- IIRC what this exchange is about, I THINK LouLong was playing on the double-entendre of "grognard": of course you are a "Napoleonic"/wargaming grognard, a comrade, etc., yet "grumbling" per se has sometimes been believed to be unlucky by virtue of being disruptive. I am certain that his emphasis was on the first, and the secondary meaning and thereby the pun merely something which literally got lost in the translation (IIRC English is neither of your native tongues?) and a cute pun became a poorly translated and readily misunderstood joke.

BTW if I had made such an attempt, unsuccessfully, in French I'm certain I'd be aghast and not quite know what to say (hint: LouLong, my friend, this is your cue to jump in )

Peace To All,

Oz

 

[Rocoteh]

Thorgrimm,

After reading your posts I think regiment as the basic
unit will work. Its also of great importance that you seems
to have broader documentation on regiments than I have
on divisions. I also think Steph have lot of information on
regiments. Yes if I choose to leave this project I will send
a way to contact.


Rocoteh

 

[mrtn]

Originally posted by LouLong
@ mrtn : about Serbia, it did not really exist back then. Between Germany and the Ottomans there is only the Austrian Empire as a real, independant country.
About the orthodox church for Russia, definitely yes !
...

I know Serbia wasn't independent then, that's why I said it would be hard to include them.
I seem to be adding to the confusion.

 

[Rocoteh]

ozymandias,

Maybe you are right. I will see what LouLong will answer.

Anyway you are Man of Honour and I will continue to
write in your thread.

LouLong seems to think ACW is dead. Its not!
1) Its on Ataris Bonus CD. 2) We were planning great
things for ACW when Procifica had to deal with problems
outside the CIVIII-world.

Rocoteh

 

[LouLong]

Originally posted by Rocoteh
ozymandias,

Maybe you are right. I will see what LouLong will answer.

Anyway you are Man of Honour and I will continue to
write in your thread.

LouLong seems to think ACW is dead. Its not!
1) Its on Ataris Bonus CD. 2) We were planning great
things for ACW when Procifica had to deal with problems
outside the CIVIII-world.

Rocoteh

Ooops !
Sorry for the "bad" joke then. Ozy was right about the ambiguous term of "grognard" as both Napeolonic emblematic unit and translation of "grumble". The fact that it was close to the remark about ACW did not mean a link in my mind. And I did not imply ACW was dead. It is just my opinion that a scenario must reach a quiet time with little changes at one time for players to be confident it is quite a "final" version. I definitely congratulate you on the fact it is in the bonus CD and I did not imply the scenario was dead at all but that it has reached a certain stillness which is normal after a while to allow players to actually play a stable version. IMHO at a moment modders should let the scenario be for players to take over. So not dead but complete with some more testing. Sorry if I made you feel bad about it. I am both strightforward and pun-liking : straightforward meaning there are no hidden critics in my remarks but pun-liking meaning sometimes people can understand what I write in a way that I did not intend (albeit legitimate probably). You said you have decided to bring new changes to the scenario which means there is still interest and ideas on the modders side so in that case it was not complete in your mind, I just thought (mistakenly obviously) it was.
Sorry for that agin, Rocoteh.

 

[Rocoteh]

Explanation accepted.


Rocoteh

 

[LouLong]

@ Thorgrimm and Rocoteh : I totally agree with you Thorgrimm (200%) about the regimental idea, both for the military organization and the colourful uniforms. Now I am a bit surprised because for a long while I was the only one in favor of this idea (and Steph at CDG when I tried launching it there).
One shortcoming it has in my mind is the number of units it implies on the map. Since it would be much higher than the figures in ACW (that is why I asked you (Rocoteh) about these figures I thought it would be impossible to do.
So if it seems possible for you now : I am both puzzled and happy. With the locations and names, like as you said Russians or Spanish regiments having their city location names it could be extremely precise (Russia would have some regiments outside of the scope of the mod/scenario I believe BTW).

Now I must say I am eagerly waiting for the Conquests improvements about armies. My idea (but remember you are both more on charge of that issue) was to use the Temple of Zeus ability to generate every X turns a division or a corps or a brigade that could be used by the AI (no need to build them) by filling them with regimental troops. Best would be if there is an unloading ability for theses "armies" so as to make them really flexible, which would fit Napoleonic technics very well. France could start with a higher capacity (to show the organization strength) but other countries would later reach the same level.

What do you say ?

 

[Rocoteh]

Again, since Thorgrimm seems to have a much broader
documentation (+ Steph doc.) than my dvisional doc.
regiments as basic unit should be the best idea.

With regard to divisions/corps it sounds reasonable that France should start with an edge.

I Corps Ziethen (Prussian) had 11 infantry regiments so
we must have a solution to such aspects, should +20 HP
remain the limit in Conquests.

Rocoteh

 

[Thorgrimm]

LouLoung, We are not talking a lot of units in this era.

for example the Bavarian army of 1805 consisted of the following units.
10 rgts line infantry
6 bns light infantry which can be condensed into 2 rgts. as the Bavarians organized their rgts on the triangular system.
2 rgts Dragoons
4 rgts Lt Horse
1 artillery rgt


most modern people do not realise that the armies of this period were not that massive.
The French army throughout the entire Napoleonic period never had more than around 130 line rgts which makes up most of the period armies. If your map is relatively large you are going to have a lot of open territory at the bde or div level. If you look at one of my last posts you can see that the ENTIRE RUSSIAN ARMY consists of 162 regts. that may sound like a lot but remember that the Russians also had units in the far east and against the Ottomans.