Proportionate Firepower

Has anyone got any views on what might be the "proper" proportion of field artillery to, say, infantry in a basic European-style field army? Either historic and/or game-effective? Any views on the value of mortars, battalion guns, horse-artillery and "gallopers"??

I can't speak generally to this, but I asked a similar question of Richard a while ago because I was raising a lot of troops, and he basically said:

The proportions should be approximately:
1 field artillary unit to 2 infantry battalions to 4 horse squadrons.

Note: this is for a typical european army. I can well imagine different setups for different situations.

I think most of the horse-artillery options are less about the battlefield than about strategic movement rate of your army. If you've moving with normal field pieces you're pretty slow.

Mortars, I thought, were more about sieging cities or fortresses, particularly when you don't care how badly you maul them (since mortars aren't very precise and just rain death on an area over walls).

I've always been a bit undecided on battalion guns. I think the fact they can limit a battalion's manoverability has put me off them at least in my larger armies. I have tended to use them in smaller nations, Scotland is an example-no field artillery at the start of the game and with a limited recruit base, it's a relatively cheap (and recruitless) way of getting some artillery into the army.

I do wonder about fortress cannon though, are they too numerous in game? 100 guns always seems like a lot, even for a fortress.

If you look at the historic forces in this period for example:

Austrians at Zenta : 51 Bns, 112 Sqns & 60 Guns ( equal to 8 Agema field Batteries or 5 Field & 5 Siege Guns.......or no Batteries and 30 Bns equiped with Batalion Guns)

French-Spanish at Almanza: 72 Bns, 77 Sqns & 40 Guns

Russians at Poltava : 58 Bns, 70 Sqns & 100 Guns

Allies at Ramillies : 74 Bns, 123 Sqns & 120 Guns

You can see that most Armies in Glori include much more artillery than the actual historic forces of the period esp when you consider that the figures above include all the Armies guns from Siege Guns to small regimental guns.  In fact most armies in Glori have more guns than 7 years war (the high point of guns per 1000 men) and Napoleonic forces.  

Its also interesting to note how Bns & Sqns could vary in size since the Russian Army at Poltava was 80,000 strong while the Franco-Spanish at Almanza was 30,000 strong.  Czar Peter being rather short of Officers he actually trusted tended to have very large formations while the French tended to dish out loads of commissions to keep their Nobles sweet resulting in more but smaller units.  Indeed by the 7 years war the French Army had so many Officiers that 50% of the Military Budget was going to pay Generals & Officiers and the Army was fielding less men than the Prussians but at greater cost.

In game Richard tends to limit siege guns to sieges and only Field Artillery gets deployed on the battlefield (Yes I know its different in India) with Siege stuff left back in camp.  Same applies to surplus field guns after they have covered the frontage of the standard 2 line deployment.

If you feel this is a waste nothing stops you ordering the deployment of Siege Guns but note they fire very slowly and are sods to move.

Likewise you do not have to deploy Infantry in two lines covered by field guns you can always foot in one line & deploy double number of guns to the front.  Then deploy cavalry normally Dragoons/Hussars but sometimes the elite guards as the 2nd reserve line.

This is a good deployment for people who favour firepower over Infantry shock action and who are willing to gamble since its great if you can change into the back of the broken foe with cavalry but not so great trying to stop solid Infantry who have broken your front line.

Its also a handy way to hide Venetian, Austrian & Russian Dragoons from nasty types with wings & lances who keep picking on them.

Interesting idea for recruit constrained nations.

I think I'd limit the guns to 50% of units though, so they could form the battle front, and the flanks could be without them and more mobile.

Jason wrote:I've always been a bit undecided on battalion guns.  I think the fact they can limit a battalion's manoverability has put me off them at least in my larger armies.  I have tended to use them in smaller nations, Scotland is an example-no field artillery at the start of the game and with a limited recruit base, it's a relatively cheap (and recruitless) way of getting some artillery into the army.

I do wonder about fortress cannon though, are they too numerous in game?  100 guns always seems like a lot, even for a fortress.

Ref how many guns should a fortress have.......In reality it all comes down to How big is your Fortress?  100 Guns even if they include small punt guns and the like is a lot for a Castle in Scotland but not that many for places like Paris or Constantinople.

Also you do not have to give a place the full 100 FC.....many places on the coast had defences and say 25 FC deployed as a coastal defence battery guarding the port against naval attack but sod all on the landward side.

As for Battalion guns the question is are you foot trained like the French, Swedes, Ottomans, Bavarians etc to give them a volley or two and then break them with cold steel?  In which case battalion guns are a dead weight and a waste.

Or are you foot trained to shoot and rely on Firepower?  If this is the Scots option go for the battalion guns!  You may need that extra grapeshot when the Highlanders charge out of the mist!

Deacon wrote:Interesting idea for recruit constrained nations.

I think I'd limit the guns to 50% of units though, so they could form the battle front, and the flanks could be without them and more mobile.

I was only talking about the Infantry centre of the Army rather than the Cavalry Flanks but if we assume Scots Govt Army starts out with with x10 foot, x20 horse & X5 Guns who normally deploy in x2 ranks of 5 foot with guns to their front flanked by Cavalry.

They could use their spare 2000 recuits to raise x10 dragoons and x5 Guns and deploy a double width centre of x10 Guns, x10 foot and x10 dragoons in 2nd line with Cavalry on flanks........as an alternative to x2 foot, x1 artillery and x3 horse and keeping same formation.

I can think of plenty of possible problems but in theory the 18 Jacobite Tribal foot in the hostiles centre are now outflanked rather than outflanking you and each clan unit has to advance through a storm of grape shot.

But remember Russians loved to have lots of arty and even Napoleon was very fond of his massed arty

Kingmaker wrote:But remember Russians loved to have lots of arty and even Napoleon  was very fond of his massed arty

The original thread asked about historic and game effective proportions of artillery.

What I was saying was that if you deploy a battery of guns in front of each foot battalion (with a 2nd battalion or Horse behind it in reserve) which is a fairly standard deployment for many players this is a sort of grand battery and both in numbers of guns and ratio of guns to foot much greater than even in the later 7 Years War & Napoleonic Wars and vastly higher than our historic period.

The key to Napoleon's Grand Battery system was to mass guns almost wheel to wheel and blast a hole in the opposition formation which could then be used by his attacking cavalry or infantry. Not sure in Glory how you would obtain this degree of concentration against one unit.......cross fire? Field Guns in covered way with fortress cannon shooting over head?

Rather the common game style of guns across the whole infantry front is more like the allies in 1813-1814 aiming to negate Napoleonic manovers and French Infantry skills by sheer number of guns.

My feeling is that this in game development of huge numbers of guns (are they too cheap? in cash & recruits?) works to advantage of defensive and poor infantry like Ottomans and Russians and against the skilled attacking infantry of this period like Swedes, Prussians and English which were historically dominant in our period.

But it should be said that Artillery while key for sieges and many field battles need clear roads and time to deploy plus clear fields of fire. If your are hit on the road or in camp gunners are a bit of a liability.

siege mortars, I used these from a city being sieged fired over the walls onto the enemy siege lines destroyed theirs....... reverse technology, asked Richard first said yes it will work

Sheesh, I'd have never imagined you'd have needed so many guns.

But then I'd probably never dream of fighting a European war conventionally, would lose honour for fighting guerrilla war tactics and lose any war that I was involved in.

Though I suppose you could look at the number of artillery pieces that an entire army had on campaign, then compare it to that nation's navy and see that the number of [army] guns was no way near to the number that only one Ship of the Line carried.

Bear in mind that as Richard has stated before, that troops and fleets are inflated in TGOK.

Historically most royal treasuries were so strapped you could hardly field anything. Unsurprisingly, this isn't all that much fun to play, so Richard opened it up a bit, since a fleet battle of 50 SoL has the same effect in the end as one a quarter that size.

As far as I can say, the age of Marlborough suggest for the period a proportion of 25% cavalry and 75% of infantry in Western Europe. In terms of units you can find the in game balance similar to the one expressed by Richard (4h,2inf,1art).
I think we should consider that fielding a huge artillery army could provide issues in terms of mobility, being also difficult to provide the massive amount of gunpowder needed.

I seem to recall a quote from Frederick the Great, something to be with him lamenting the increasing number of guns his armies want. The quote went something like the way things are going soon we will have 500 troops escorting 2,000 cannon. Does seem as 18th C went on, the number of guns rose.

Stuart Bailey wrote:

Jason wrote:I've always been a bit undecided on battalion guns.  I think the fact they can limit a battalion's manoverability has put me off them at least in my larger armies.  I have tended to use them in smaller nations, Scotland is an example-no field artillery at the start of the game and with a limited recruit base, it's a relatively cheap (and recruitless) way of getting some artillery into the army.

I do wonder about fortress cannon though, are they too numerous in game?  100 guns always seems like a lot, even for a fortress.

Ref how many guns should a fortress have.......In reality it all comes down to How big is your Fortress?  100 Guns even if they include small punt guns and the like is a lot for a Castle in Scotland but not that many for places like Paris or Constantinople.

Also you do not have to give a place the full 100 FC.....many places on the coast had defences and say 25 FC deployed as a coastal defence battery guarding the port against naval attack but sod all on the landward side.

As for Battalion guns the question is are you foot trained like the French, Swedes, Ottomans, Bavarians etc to give them a volley or two and then break them with cold steel?  In which case battalion guns are a dead weight and a waste.

Or are you foot trained to shoot and rely on Firepower?  If this is the Scots option go for the battalion guns!  You may need that extra grapeshot when the Highlanders charge out of the mist!

All good points. I do plan to have the smaller fortifications with fewer cannon (stone forts etc) though from the position of a nation like Scotland, the issue does remain having to raise 100 cannon in one batch. Quite a drain on my recruit base and then involves a lot of moving them around to get the small batches across the country (of course, could raise 100 and then disband what I didn't want at a location but resources make that not a practical solution). Perhaps if it was possible to raise batches of 20 or 25 instead?

On the infantry, the Scots regular units of the time were very English (even to wearing red coats) so battalion guns make sense

In the rulebook "Glory and Argument", it says that you can raise understrength units (like a battalion with 1300 men instead of 1500). They cost the full cost, and have a permanent SL to compensate, but can be raised to full strength later with the addition of more recruits and time at an army camp.

I suspect that if this is true, then you can probably raise less than 100 fortress cannon, but it may cost the full amount of cash even if it costs fewer recruits.

I wonder if it is possible to raise a company of infantry, cavalry troop, or Gun section, as they are all sub-units of the main unit, I suspect that the reason it isn't possible is the admin nightmare it would cause for Richard.

Artillery can destroy/ suppress an target, but at some point an area of ground needs to be taken & held, which is a boots on the ground job, don't forget artillery is also in this period a line of sight weapon, which makes placement important, terrain & friendly troops can limit fields of fire, we have visions of guns wheel to wheel stretching off into the distance, in reality, enough flat clear ground to deploy a battery is hard to come by, I realise this isn't really reflected in the game. There was the debate on the frontage taken up by a battery as opposed to an infantry battalion & the fire power effect, when you consider rates of fire & damage done which is the more effective.

Artillery was also historically expensive & took a long time to replace losses & train good gunners, it slows the army down.

There's also that point Shaka Zulu made to one of the White chaps he met.

Gunpowder weapons take time to fire, the Zulus could move and duck when the few shots were fired (Shaka probably wasn't thinking beyond tens of muskets being fired). Also, gunpowder weapons cannot be used in the rain and so become just like a stick to beat someone with, at least with a spear you can stab as many times as you can, whatever the weather.

Shaka did, supposedly, propose to show King George that the British Army would be better off with spears, instead of gunpowder weapons.

I follow Shaka's belief, too. Guns are smelly, noisy and costly things.

J Flower wrote:I wonder if it is possible to raise a company of infantry, cavalry troop, or Gun section, as they are all sub-units of the main unit, I suspect that the reason it isn't possible is the admin nightmare it would cause for Richard.

You can raise an infantry company, technically they are Grenadiers or Light Infantry (so not 'normal' Line infantry) but it can be done. Did it in G6, was replicating the Highland companies that historically garrisoned that part of Scotland. Ok, it is relatively expensive but helps you garrison a larger number of places than otherwise would be possible with battalions (very useful with a small recruit base). I think it could also be a useful way of garrison small colonies...if you have a colony of, say, 600 civilians do you really want to base a whole battalion there? Never tried it but did wonder if a company could have 'battalion guns', to give a token artillery presence.

On fortress cannon, I have one position that has a 0.5 fortress cannon unit that I pay only half costs on (so not the same thing as Deacon mentions-which is something I did when raising Mameluke cavalry in Hanover in G2). No idea if it is a case where half the cannon and their crews were lost after being raised, or whether they were raised at half strength.

Jason wrote:I seem to recall a quote from Frederick the Great, something to be with him lamenting the increasing number of guns his armies want.  The quote went something like the way things are going soon we will have 500 troops escorting 2,000 cannon.  Does seem as 18th C went on, the number of guns rose.

During the Louis XIV period average armies had 1 to 2 Guns per 1000 men but the end of the seven years war this had gone up to around 7 guns per 1000 men.  So I think it can be said that many players follow the historical route but quicker and to a greater degree.

Frederick the Great was not a big fan of Artillery but by the end of the war even his famous Prussian Infantry was so knocked around that it needed to be bolstered by Battalion guns and masses of artillery.

Can not help but think many players in Glori are more like Marshal Saxe and Peter the Great in that they talk a good attacking game but dont really trust their foot and are happier to dig dig in behind field works and masses of artillery.

The later Napoleonic Wars had even more guns than the Seven Years War but due to the massive increase in Army Size due to the "Levee in Mass" etc the number of guns per 1,000 men was actually less.

Ref the effects of Geography on Artillery deployment mentioned earlier this was one reason why Artillery was used in quite small numbers and did not have a massive effect on the Napoleonic War in Spain.  But it was a King of the Battlefield on the flat open fields of Eastern/Central Europe like Borodino, Leipzig and Wagram.  Not sure how Artillery deployment problems can be represented in game but you can always try attacking at night and deploying on reverse slopes.

I can confirm Fortress Cannon can be raised in smaller units than 100FC at proportional cost in money and recruits.  So the Scots for example could just raise a stone fort and 25 fortress cannon to guard the Port of Leith.  Or they could fortify the whole place but still only have 25 FC in a coastal defence battery on the seaward side plus a couple of dragoon Squadrons.

Sod all use against a formal siege but cheaper in men and money and enough to stop unwanted naval visitors and close the gates in the face of Highland Rebels/Naval landing parties lacking Siege Guns & Engineers.

Finally on subject of fortress artillery you only need stardard size guns to defend land walls but some sad cases have been known to fit really big guns in harbour defences and the like. 42 pounder brass cannon for example or if you are really really sad and Ottoman.... batteries made up of x4 Drill bored 3,000 pounders on semi fixed positions firing stone shot at anyone so rude as to try to sail through the Dardannalles or down the Danube etc without paying the toll. These cost same as 100 FC & probably need to be fitted in citadel forming part of a fortress already fitted with 100 normal FC.

Can not vouch for how they work in game because no one went near the damn things but tests worked OK.  Clearly not something for a position concerned about cost or even effectiveness.......but perfect for the a Gun Mad Despot thinking about Naval issues.  Clearly only a matter of time before Czar Peter starts fitting them in G7!

In your opinion, given a ratio in horse, foot and art of 4;2;0.5 which would mean 1 cannon every 300 men circa, it would be convenient for in game tactics and attrition rules keep 5 or 6 smaller armies, about 10/15k men, and eventually try to reunite them early before a battle, or keep all the army in one bigger unit? Shouldn't this last option generate a higher attrition rate and SL?

Nexus06 wrote:In your opinion, given a ratio in horse, foot and art of 4;2;0.5 which would mean 1 cannon every 300 men circa, it would be convenient for in game tactics and attrition rules keep 5 or 6 smaller armies, about 10/15k men, and eventually try to reunite them early before a battle, or keep all the army in one bigger unit? Shouldn't this last option generate a higher attrition rate and SL?

Is one Army of 90,000 men or six armies of 15,000 better?

The latter option is basically an attempt to build your Army on the corp system which in theory allows greater flexibility in combat missions ie you get to do six orders rather then one inc the ability to "rest" some troops while others carry on so sickness levels can be managed better.

Plus if you do pick up a disease its only part of the army which suffers rather than the whole lot. Another advantage is that if you "live of the land" on hostile territory you do more damage to you foe's grain reserves and economic health. If reality but perhaps not in game small armies move quicker than large ones and can "live of the land" easier because you are more spread out and using more roads. In game I suspect your only gain a movement advantage if some of your corp/armies are made up only of quicker troop types ie Flying columns of Cavalry rather than a balanced force.

Against these advanatages I would say:

1) The corp system only works if your troops are willing to ignore orders and "march to the sound of the guns".........the game does not work like this and unless you are very exact in orders rather than acting like the French Army of Napoleon and hitting the foe in flank and rear while they are pinned down by other forces small corp/armies are more likely to act like their early Prussian and Austrian foes and blindly follow your orders to "siege" or "rest" while 5 miles away one of your other armies/corp's is getting mangled.

2) Most of game is played in area's were you have to use supply depots.....rules are designed to reflect practice in period and they make "Corp Systems" very expensive in grain/supply use. Basically 18 century European Regulars are not French Revolutionary Forces or the Great Khans hordes.....they expact to be feed, paid and clothed by the Government and not have to forge for themselves. If this contract is broken their standard reply is to desert.

Supply systems in this period are fairly basic so the more forces you have the more difficult it becomes for your "supply contractors" to find and supply them.

My view for what its worth is dont lump all your troops into one massive army and dont use lots of small balanced/corps but organize forces based on the mission you want them to do and the opponent you face. For a historic example look at the 1708 Siege of Lille:

Basically you have one Army with siege train and engineers under Eugene laying siege to Lille.

A 2nd Army under Marlborough with more Cavalry covering siege.

3rd force under Webb esorting supplies to Lille from Flanders.

If you try to lay siege to to Lille with one huge army your your Frog Foe is probably going to "blockade" your static forces, raid your unesorted supply waggons/barges and hope your siege bogs down due to supply problems. Its also a fair estimate that if you all your men are in one Army with siege orders for anything over a month they are going to pick up sickness levels which will give the French a chance to hit them hard.

You could try doing all of these missions with fixed corps but using 10,000 to 15,000 men plus artillery to bring up 15,000 of grain is not normally the best use of manpower.

Stuart Bailey wrote:

Nexus06 wrote:In your opinion, given a ratio in horse, foot and art of 4;2;0.5 which would mean 1 cannon every 300 men circa, it would be convenient for in game tactics and attrition rules keep 5 or 6 smaller armies, about 10/15k men, and eventually try to reunite them early before a battle, or keep all the army in one bigger unit? Shouldn't this last option generate a higher attrition rate and SL?

Is one Army of 90,000 men or six armies of 15,000 better?

The latter option is basically an attempt to build your Army on the corp system which in theory allows greater flexibility in combat missions ie you get to do six orders rather then one inc the ability to "rest" some troops while others carry on so sickness levels can be managed better.

Plus if you do pick up a disease its only part of the army which suffers rather than the whole lot. Another advantage is that if you "live of the land" on hostile territory you do more damage to you foe's grain reserves and economic health.  If reality but perhaps not in game small armies move quicker than large ones and can "live of the land" easier because you are more spread out and using more roads.  In game I suspect your only gain a movement advantage if some of your corp/armies are made up only of quicker troop types ie Flying columns of Cavalry rather than a balanced force.

Against these advanatages I would say:

1) The corp system only works if your troops are willing to ignore orders and "march to the sound of the guns".........the game does not work like this and unless you are very exact in orders rather than acting like the French Army of Napoleon and hitting the foe in flank and rear while they are pinned down by other forces small corp/armies are more likely to act like their early Prussian and Austrian foes and blindly follow your orders to "siege" or "rest" while 5 miles away one of your other armies/corp's is getting mangled.

2) Most of game is played in area's were you have to use supply depots.....rules are designed to reflect practice in period and they make "Corp Systems" very expensive in grain/supply use.  Basically 18 century European Regulars are not French Revolutionary Forces or the Great Khans hordes.....they expact to be feed, paid and clothed by the Government and not have to forge for themselves.  If this contract is broken their standard reply is to desert.

Supply systems in this period are fairly basic so the more forces you have the more difficult it becomes for your "supply contractors" to find and supply them.

My view for what its worth is dont lump all your troops into one massive army and dont use lots of small balanced/corps but organize forces based on the mission you want them to do and the opponent you face.  For a historic example look at the 1708 Siege of Lille:

Basically you have one Army with siege train and engineers under Eugene laying siege to Lille.

A 2nd Army under Marlborough with more Cavalry covering siege.

3rd force under Webb esorting supplies to Lille from Flanders.

If you try to lay siege to to Lille with one huge army your your Frog Foe is probably going to "blockade" your static forces, raid your unesorted supply waggons/barges and hope your siege bogs down due to supply problems.  Its also a fair estimate that if you all your men are in one Army with siege orders for anything over a month they are going to pick up sickness levels which will give the French a chance to hit them hard.

You could try doing all of these missions with fixed corps but using 10,000 to 15,000 men plus artillery to bring up 15,000 of grain is not normally  the best use of manpower.

Thank You!

Stuart Bailey wrote:I can confirm Fortress Cannon can be raised in smaller units than 100FC at proportional cost in money and recruits.  So the Scots for example could just raise a stone fort and 25 fortress cannon to guard the Port of Leith.  Or they could fortify the whole place but still only have 25 FC in a coastal defence battery on the seaward side plus a couple of dragoon Squadrons.

....

Finally on subject of fortress artillery you only need stardard size guns to defend land walls but some sad cases have been known to fit really big guns in harbour defences and the like.  42 pounder brass cannon for example or if you are really really sad and Ottoman.... batteries made up of x4 Drill bored 3,000 pounders on semi fixed positions firing stone shot at anyone so rude as to try to sail through the Dardannalles or down the Danube etc without paying the toll. These cost same as 100 FC & probably need to be fitted in citadel forming part of a fortress already fitted with 100 normal FC.

Thanks for that Stuart.

3,000 pounders...give me a dozen