|
atelier morgan posted:ultimate admiral age of sail has your desire covered Fantastic! Thank you!
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2023 00:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 07:11 |
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:The world has unbalanced arable land and migration though, isn't the point that Victoria is supposed to simulate how that shaped history? Well the places with the most population are also the largest producers of grain in the ranking on top right.  Fish is the secondary food source on the right at the bottom, but it's a small fraction in comparison.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2023 00:43
|
|
|
hey i participated in that game as an incredibly incompetent and aggressive french general who got basically his entire command wiped out bar a single 75mm artillery battery i was not good at that game but it was a lot of fun
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2023 01:32
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Really sad to think about how industrialisation made it impossible to force the merchants to strike their colors and sail them home with a prize crew Some tried in the opening days of both wars, surface raiders of all nations took prizes, but in the PTO specifically several Japanese crews tried to surrender to American fleet boats and were machine gunned and that was the end of that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2023 01:33
|
|
|
i remember trying to do an extremely ill-fated bayonet charge and losing more than half my men the authentic ww1 experience
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2023 01:35
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:i remember trying to do an extremely ill-fated bayonet charge and losing more than half my men Bayonet casualties in the American Civil War were about the same as in the World Wars, I think people may get fixated on the bayonet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2023 02:10
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:Bayonet casualties in the American Civil War were about the same as in the World Wars, I think people may get fixated on the bayonet. Couldn't you argue that this was because most people on the receiving end of a bayonet charge broke and ran though
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2023 02:19
|
|
|
Bayonets win ground. Don't underestimate the bayonet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2023 03:17
|
|
|
humans really don't want to be stabbed, as a general rule
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2023 03:52
|
|
|
The only thing I know about a bayonete is from whatever was in those Sharpe novels. Mainly that muskets were just couldn't hit anything most of the time, and if you are close enough to hit someone then you're probably close enough to stick them with a bayonet too, especially if they were too busy loading that ball and cartridge. Which is the only reason I even ended up playing Empire Total War. Which amounted to me getting together as much line infantry together as I could and shooting the other side until a single charge would break them and then you just let the cavalry clean up. Also just fight with an overwhelming number superiority so you don't have to think too hard about some brilliant tactics. Never did figure out how to use skirmishers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2023 03:59
|
|
|
Lostconfused posted:The only thing I know about a bayonete is from whatever was in those Sharpe novels. The accuracy was good enough actually, that's a common myth The real problem is the smoke. Shitloads and shitloads of smoke everywhere as soon as you fire the first volley. I have never seen a game that even acknowledges the smoke let alone it's effects on the course of a fight
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2023 04:07
|
|
|
Well lets just say the accuracy of the soldiers then, because there's other reasons why they missed, or just didn't shoot at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2023 04:10
|
|
|
I mean if your guys are so unmotivated that they won't shoot, good luck getting them to fix bayonets and charge
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2023 04:11
|
|
|
Iirc the other big problem was guns getting clogged with residue, so a single guy with a musket that he meticulously cleaned could be pretty accurate out past a hundred yards but a line of troops firing rapidly couldn't accurately hit a target smaller than another big line of troops
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2023 04:12
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:I mean if your guys are so unmotivated that they won't shoot, good luck getting them to fix bayonets and charge For those you'd use a column, guys behind pushing the ones in front forward, and also only the ones at the front would have a clear view of what's happening. Or at least again that's the myth I've read in pop culture.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2023 04:15
|
|
|
Iirc there's definite evidence that a fair number of troops failed to fire but it's unclear if it was a deliberate refusal or just confusion and panic
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2023 04:16
|
|
|
But despite these disadvantages, volley fire was still the decisive thing in infantry combat (like all good games and scenarios we will leave artillery ot of the picture  ). Even a pretty lovely gun (and they were way less lovely than you'd think) is better than stabbing people as far as effort:kill ratio goes
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2023 04:17
|
|
|
Lostconfused posted:For those you'd use a column, guys behind pushing the ones in front forward, and also only the ones at the front would have a clear view of what's happening. Hess' civil war infantry tactics gets into this, column attack predicated on the mass of troops pushing through the enemy line was an overrated idea that basically never worked irl, spreading out in echelons and using massed volleys was the way to go
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2023 04:19
|
|
|
Don't think anyone said volley fire wasn't important, but you'd still need to finish it off with a charge or the two sides would be standing and shooting at each other the whole day.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2023 04:20
|
|
|
Yeah definitely, but by that point they generally just ran awayatelier morgan posted:humans really don't want to be stabbed, as a general rule
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2023 04:22
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Hess' civil war infantry tactics gets into this, column attack predicated on the mass of troops pushing through the enemy line was an overrated idea that basically never worked irl, spreading out in echelons and using massed volleys was the way to go That civil war is like more than half a century after the time period of muskets and columns. If it's the US civil war.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2023 04:22
|
|
|
Lostconfused posted:That civil war is like more than half a century after the time period of muskets and columns. Lol wtf no?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2023 04:23
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Lol wtf no? Ok which civil war are we talking about then?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2023 04:24
|
|
|
The American one... Where everyone was still using black powder muzzle loaders
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2023 04:25
|
|
|
it was about 69 years (NICE!) between the start of the War of the First Coalition and the American Civil War
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2023 04:26
|
|
|
The entire officer staff in the civil war was trained at west point and read jomini. They loved their big columns/lines something fierce.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2023 04:27
|
|
|
Literally the first page of the book I referred to Literally the first result on Google when you search for 'civil war rifle' quote:Most Civil War infantrymen, both Federal and Confederate, carried .58 or .577 caliber rifle-muskets. The rifle-musket was first manufactured in the United States in 1855 and quickly replaced earlier smoothbore guns.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2023 04:29
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Literally the first page of the book I referred to Here's the full quote quote:Most Civil War infantrymen, both Federal and Confederate, carried .58 or .577 caliber rifle-muskets. The rifle-musket was first manufactured in the United States in 1855 and quickly replaced earlier smoothbore guns. The rifling—spiral grooves etched inside the gun’s barrel—greatly increased the accuracy of the weapons by spinning and stabilizing the bullet as it sped towards the target. A trained marksman could hit targets as far as 800 yards away, and even an average shot could expect to strike the mark at 250 yards. Smoothbore muskets, some of which were still used during the Civil War, were generally unreliable at any range more than 75 yards. A percussion cap rifle is already far beyond anything that was used by regular line infantry during Napoleon's time. At least rifles were reserved for specialist like the green jacket rifles, and percussion caps were like a thing that only an officer could afford.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2023 04:37
|
|
|
Neither of you are wrong.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2023 04:37
|
|
|
Lostconfused posted:Here's the full quote Yes, but in practice none of these advantages were ever taken advantage of by line infantry irl. Skirmishers yes, definitely, and that was a big development in the civil war, but regular infantry engaged at the same kind of ranges as old school muskets and thus the tactics weren't really much different. Shooting at ~50m all at once was still vastly more effective than taking individual shots at the theoretically longer range the rifles made possible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2023 04:41
|
|
|
Old linear formations, new rifled muskets/minor ball, still black powder, trains, more use of skirmishers. Also trenches. I think just how much that all changed warfare is still an academic debate? Ff would know better. You both right though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2023 04:42
|
|
|
lol one of the top steam reviews for Second Front is an overt Nazi named 'rommelDAK' talking about killing commies
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2023 05:43
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:The accuracy was good enough actually, that's a common myth Muskets also had a flatter velocity than Rifle Muskets. Earl J. Hess' The Rifle Musket: Reality and Myth breaks it all down more than I will go to here, as does Destructive and Formidable Hess wrote the definitive books on: linear tactics, the musket/rifle and artillery in the civil war, so I'll just defer to those, seriously please read them they are very good. For the Seven Years War, read the books by Christopher Duffy. tl;dr most of pop culture is wrong but it's hard to explain small arms theory, morale, tactics and the psychological effect of bayonets to people so they persist Cuttlefush posted:Old linear formations, new rifled muskets/minor ball, still black powder, trains, more use of skirmishers. Also trenches. I think just how much that all changed warfare is still an academic debate? Ff would know better. You both right though. Yes. There's Hess on one side (most civil war combat was at a hundred metres or less) and then on the other Paddy Griffith, who thinks there were more changes. To give one specific example (I only have the hard copy of Hess' definitive book on rifles): in engagements where the Union used the Henry Repeating Rifle, and every spectator though the Confederates had been absolutely blown away by this incredible new weapon, casualties were the same as using muzzle loading rifle muskets. Why? He theorizes that a unit will take a certain number of casualties and break off an attack regardless, while the defender has no idea what or if they are actually hitting, and so assumes that if there was all that smoke and noise and the attack broke off, they must have killed heaps of people. Ballistically the Springfield .58 calibre musket was superior to the .44 Henry, a rimfire cartridge, in every way that mattered, dramatically so. However, and this aligns with what people who study combat in WW2 and Vietnam said as well, most soldiers are not good shots, most people don't hit anything and so don't maximize the theoretical effectiveness of their weapon. The rifle generally and repeater specifically only made a crucial difference in the hands of naturally skilled shooters. Employed as skirmishers and sharpshooters, their introduction to new types of firearms made for large changes on the battlefield. It's an interesting theory and ties into why the M-16 could be said to be superior to the M-14: All soldiers had to lug around the extra weight, only a handful could make use of the range, power and accuracy. It made more sense to put a lighter weapon in their hands than expect marksmanship from them. In the Civil War, most soldiers did not use their rifles any better than muskets, and so were best used in line. Those that could were taken out of the line, and then often given better weapons. Linear Warfare is particularly interesting to me, brought out in Duffy's work, because it was not a "simple" matter of standing in lines across from each other and not hitting anything but required all sorts of command and control, drill, directing formations on a battlefield when they could not quickly more or reorient, complex firing by platoon or rank. They were incredibly effective, the only effective way to make use of the flintlock musket (fire) and control terrain (manoeuvre). Hess says American myth making about Minute Men and Kentucky Rifles, in the Revolutionary War and after gave Americans specifically a skewed idea of this, when line infantry won every (iirc) engagement of the French and Indian War and Revolutionary War (and Civil War) ee: If you don’t feel inclined to find obscure books, John Tiller did crazy amounts of research, present in the Designer Notes for Early American Wars, Seven Years War and Napoleonic titles. They’re available as pdfs on the wargame design studio site . eee: In Hess’ book on ACW tactics he makes an observation I had never thought of - even crossing a fence or going down into a sunken road could throw a line into confusion and risk losing a battle, so the close order drill, marching to music, colours flying all served practical purposes even at that late date. Frosted Flake has issued a correction as of 06:12 on Feb 10, 2023 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2023 05:51
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:Listening to Hell on Earth got me to go in on the P500 of that strategic level 30 years War game GMT is working on which game? also, there is an obvious disdain for communism from every major hoi4 streamer. Like there are also jokes fascism being evil, but the format just kind of encourages imperialist conquest.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2023 07:38
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:There's Hess on one side (most civil war combat was at a hundred metres or less) and then on the other Paddy Griffith, who thinks there were more changes. I smell a great opportunity for a dialectical study
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2023 11:28
|
|
|
Serbia had a similar experience with more modern rifles about two decades after the US civil war. They were hella impressive, but amounted to much less than everyone expected them to. (Learned via the stupidest war in Serbian history wherein we invaded an allied Bulgaria whose army we partially geared and trained because Austrians egged our king on about survivors of the Timok Rebellion hiding there after a failed uprising in Serbia. A lot of Serbian soldiers genuinely believed they were going to help Bulgaria vs the Ottomans. God, King Milan was a fuckup.) After the war, there was a lot more emphasis on "artillery very important" and "infantry will be engaging at fairly close ranges", which continued into WW1. (In WW1, this contributed to Austrian propaganda about Serbs backfiring during the fighting because people tend to poo poo themselves and run if their trenches are being stormed by someone they genuinely believe to be mindless bloodthirsty animals with grenades) Trivia: Serbia ended up with a lot of Prussian influence on its military. The way this happened was unusual. Prussia (and Germany) was incredibly lovely to its minorities, and Sorbs in particular suffered pretty bad, and were often told to gently caress off to Serbia. (despite the similarity of names, we were about as distant as Slavic languages and cultures can possibly get, but this didn't end up mattering at all) Catch: Sorbs had a very high degree of participation in the Prussian military, and over time Germany effectively donated a shitload of Franko-Prussian war veterans, professionals with ties to European arms industries, and officiers trained in the Prussian way of war to Serbia. When Sorbs started arriving to Serbia, and the Serbian government stopped pinching itself to check if this is real, Serbia rolled out the red carpet and went full 'Welcome Slavic brothers! Our homes are your homes, our lands our your lands!' - One of the commanders of the Serbian military in WW1 was general Paulus Sturm (Pavle Jurišić), who was a Sorbian dude who was an old war buddy of German general Mackensen.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2023 12:12
|
|
|
my dad posted:Trivia: Serbia ended up with a lot of Prussian influence on its military. The way this happened was unusual. Prussia (and Germany) was incredibly lovely to its minorities, and Sorbs in particular suffered pretty bad, and were often told to gently caress off to Serbia. (despite the similarity of names, we were about as distant as Slavic languages and cultures can possibly get, but this didn't end up mattering at all) Catch: Sorbs had a very high degree of participation in the Prussian military, and over time Germany effectively donated a shitload of Franko-Prussian war veterans, professionals with ties to European arms industries, and officiers trained in the Prussian way of war to Serbia. When Sorbs started arriving to Serbia, and the Serbian government stopped pinching itself to check if this is real, Serbia rolled out the red carpet and went full 'Welcome Slavic brothers! Our homes are your homes, our lands our your lands!' - One of the commanders of the Serbian military in WW1 was general Paulus Sturm (Pavle Jurišić), who was a Sorbian dude who was an old war buddy of German general Mackensen. that's pretty fascinating and also 'Paulus Sturm' is in the same category as 'Stalin' in terms of being like a teenager's forum username a century ahead of time
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2023 12:54
|
|
|
Lostconfused posted:The only thing I know about a bayonete is from whatever was in those Sharpe novels. both in empire and in fall of the samurai the ai had trubble even forming a line instead sort of bunching up at the center, never had to change my strategy from 'form a big line and envelop the enemy'
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2023 12:58
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:Some tried in the opening days of both wars, surface raiders of all nations took prizes, but in the PTO specifically several Japanese crews tried to surrender to American fleet boats and were machine gunned and that was the end of that. its still grimly funny to me that Dönitz basically got off scott free for waging unrestricted submarine warfare in the Nuremberg trials because the Americans did the same and worse against Japan. Honestly, from a legal perspective the Nuremberg tribunals are much less of a clear realization of justice on Earth than is often thought. In that sense I've always found the Tokyo Tribunal to be a much more interesting case, with three of the eleven justices dissenting because they realized what the Japanese were doing was not appreciably worse than what the Western powers were doing in their colonies. Of course, even implying that Nuremberg or Tokyo involved anything else than righteous justice or that international public law might really be a means of selectively vilifying those deemed enemies of
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2023 13:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 07:11 |
|
|
my dad posted:Trivia: Serbia ended up with a lot of Prussian influence on its military. The way this happened was unusual. Prussia (and Germany) was incredibly lovely to its minorities, and Sorbs in particular suffered pretty bad, and were often told to gently caress off to Serbia. (despite the similarity of names, we were about as distant as Slavic languages and cultures can possibly get, but this didn't end up mattering at all) Catch: Sorbs had a very high degree of participation in the Prussian military, and over time Germany effectively donated a shitload of Franko-Prussian war veterans, professionals with ties to European arms industries, and officiers trained in the Prussian way of war to Serbia. When Sorbs started arriving to Serbia, and the Serbian government stopped pinching itself to check if this is real, Serbia rolled out the red carpet and went full 'Welcome Slavic brothers! Our homes are your homes, our lands our your lands!' - One of the commanders of the Serbian military in WW1 was general Paulus Sturm (Pavle Jurišić), who was a Sorbian dude who was an old war buddy of German general Mackensen. very interesting, never heard of it but it makes a lot of sense. its such a shame vicky 3 has this weird wishy-washy moralistic view of discrimination, because actually modeling these kinds of phenomena could make for incredibly interesting gameplay. should you arm and train some oppressed minority so you can win your next war, with the risk of them defecting during some later conflict or will you just focus on your accepted culture at the risk of running out of manpower. i understand why Paradox didn't go for something like that - their devs are probably solidly social liberals averse to depicting this kinds of historical controversies while they also don't want to give their fascist fanbase precisely what they're asking for -, but its still something that could provide additional depth to a game that's sorely missing it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2023 13:17
|
|