Francisco Palomo wrote:
Auto Defensive fire was set at 50% precisely because a defender would fire multiple times in a single turn. On average an infantry unit will fire twice, hence 2x50%=100%. Meanwhile, artillery, with its longer range, will frequently fire many more times.
That def fire is triggered 50% of the time is a dream at best.
Looking at how checks for Moral Test are done it's clear that twice as many casualties do not mean twice as high chance to trigger a Moral Test.
Milkmaid calculation:
A 750 bat. takes 25 casualties, that results in a chance of 25% to trigger a Moral Test.
A 750 bat. takes 50 casualties, that results in a chance of 40% to trigger a Moral Test.
That means if really half the time def fire is triggered you get a higher chance(50% vs 40%) to disorder, but that is just not the case.
Maybe someone is bored enough to make a test with a considerable force to have a statistically relevant number of tests to prove where the trigger is really set, at least closely. Or we finally get a note from one of the programmers on this topic. Anyhow I say it is at best 1/3 or less, if it's at 50% I go to Elba.
A final note to this, someone at the Blitz mentioned that the probability was supposed to be raised with the new patch series. As this is missing in the change log, maybe purposely, Waterloo could indeed show more triggering of Auto def fire.
Francisco Palomo wrote:
That said, one of the inherent flaws of the Tiller Napoleonic game engine is the emphasis on firepower and sheer numbers. Contemporary treatises uniformly emphasized that only shock action (e.g., “melee”) could lead to a successful assault. If an extended firefight developed, the attack was doomed to failure and could only be salvaged by the commitment of fresh troops that would be willing to close with the enemy. Most casualties in Napoleonic battles were caused by artillery, followed by casualties inflicted on troops that had broken and were running away. Given the limited range and accuracy of musket fire, casualties from infantry fire were seldom decisive.
My understanding is that musket fire was decisive at least in the aspect of stopping a charge. Isn't this what we usually read about the British and their musketry? They perfected the concept of firing at the right moment to cause maximum effect on the enemy to stop the enemy.
And Jena Auerstedt might also be a look worth, at Jena the Prussian line advanced but didn't melee. The firefight including artillery & especially French skirmishers ended with the Prussian battalions breaking one after another. But this is also a special case with the Prussians having a crap musket that was already designated to be replaced, no wonder they lost the firefight.
Francisco Palomo wrote:
Essentially, the engagements were decided by morale, Ie., an extended game of “chicken.” If the defenders did not panic, held their fire until the attackers were at point blank range (30 yards) and then stood their ground and/or counter-charged, the front ranks of the attacker would disorder and the attack would generally fail. By the same token, if the attackers advanced in good order and did not flinch when the defenders loosed their defensive fire, the defenders would crack and run away. That’s how a battalion of the Middle Guard routed an entire division of Prussians at Plancenoit. If the updates incorporate some type of morale check for attacking units that would be a significant improvement of the game engine,
Yes game of chicken describes it very well. Does not really belong here but TOAW has the function of RBC(Retreat before Combat), as that is an operational engine it is only likely to happen if a much stronger unit wants to attack a much weaker unit, if RBC is trigger the defender retreat and the attacker moves to the hex without combat.
But a concept of a Moral Tests before combat would be interesting as combat would really only happen if both succeeded.
Anyhow that the attackers can now disorder alone by advancing into the enemies "threat bubble" is a good improvement.