Organization, regiment names, or OOB Ideas?

[unmerged(364820)]

For me - one of the immersive elements of Paradox's games, whether it's EU3 or HOI3, is the ability to name my units historically. I know - someone on this forum told me once this was "hard fun" since it can take quite a bit of time.

At this time, the British Army organized its infantry units into regiments. The Oxford History of the British Army (Chandler 2003), which I picked up at the library this morning, notes that at the time of the Third Coalition, the British Army listed over 100 regiments - but says nothing of the brigade system on which MOTE is based. Moreover, I can find no reference to the brigade names used in MOTE.

I know I'm being a complete geek here, and none of this is meant a criticism of the game (consider how much I must like the game if I'm willing to spend this much time renaming units ...). I'm curious if anyone else renames their units to historic regimental names, or uses any historic organizational system or OOB.

 

[joefromchicago]

At this time, the British Army organized its infantry units into regiments. The Oxford History of the British Army (Chandler 2003), which I picked up at the library this morning, notes that at the time of the Third Coalition, the British Army listed over 100 regiments - but says nothing of the brigade system on which MOTE is based.

That's because the regiment was the only high-level permanent organization in most European armies at that time. Brigades were ad hoc units organized for campaigns, typically composed of two or more regiments (I'm not even sure if brigades were used by all countries during the Napoleonic period). And a brigade wouldn't have a name -- it would be known by the name of its commanding general.

 

[unmerged(364820)]

That's because the regiment was the only high-level permanent organization in most European armies at that time. Brigades were ad hoc units organized for campaigns, typically composed of two or more regiments (I'm not even sure if brigades were used by all countries during the Napoleonic period). And a brigade wouldn't have a name -- it would be known by the name of its commanding general.

That makes sense. I've spent the day reading on this and, particularly in Britain, the regiment was the largest unit organization (what you said) and were often thrown into brigades without formal, permanent plans (again, what you said).

However, these brigades often had no "names" like they do in MotE. The 6th Brigade could be mixture of cavalry regiments in one battle and line regiments of foot in another.

Brigades were a battle or campaign structure, and were subject to change and fluid reorganization. It was only by WWI that brigades became the primary organizational unit.

So still thinking on the best way to handle this ... maybe my English Parliament could pass the Army Act of 1805, in which the size of all land regiments is increased to match the brigade sizes in MotE ...

 

[Thanik]

About naming units. It is hard work to rename 200 brigades, couple of corps, change properly leaders ,and this kind of stuff. Especially when you create new units, armies and moving all units to front.
And to finish game you don't need many hours, so it is tiring thing to do this every time.


About brigades system -> similar to Victoria, EU, and HOI system -> it is impossible satisfy all kind of OOB. And I think current require less micro, and CPU + AI is not overloaded.
Similar to HOI mod (sorry don't remember which one) which introduce batallion system, so 8-15 units per division instead of 3-5 brigades.
Ofc if you want, you can like it.


You can imagine even GB goverment introduce new system to support morale of troops -> instead of fighting alone, each batalion have twin



Edit: If you want, you can create mod which introduce batalion system for GB, but you can screw overall system -> battle tactics, experience gain, morale in battle, and the most annoying thing -> loss of units in battle, due to 0 strentgh)
If you want some help, just tell us...

 

[unmerged(364820)]

Thanks for the comment.

I recognize that it's hard to satisfy all kinds of OOBs. And I'm not suggesting that the game is flawed as a result, although the lack of depth of command structure in MotE is slightly dissatisfying. But then, I truly enjoyed HOI3 and its complexity - and I recognize not everyone does. HOI3 is one of my favorite games of all time and I don't regret the money I spent for it. If I had not liked the game, I probably would never have bought another PI title. As you can see, I've bought several - and enjoyed them all.

That said, I don't think my suggestion is particularly unfair. Regiments drove armies in this era. Men were recruited into regiments. Each regiment had it's own identity, often it's own uniform, and earned it's own honors. Brigades didn't get honors - brigades were merely a way of organizing a number of regiments for the purpose of fighting a battle or campaign.

I would, personally, love it if my brigades were regiments. I would also love it if I then could load these regiments into brigades (with the same functionality as exists in HOI3). I would love a deeper and more complex command structure. I could them build orders of battle very similar to those used during the Napoleonic wars.

Yes, I can make some of the changes myself. I discovered I could rather easily convert the current brigades into regiments by changing unit strength. Of course, as you suggest, that would require changing a number of other gameplay elements as well, which I am looking into. What I don't think I can change is the tactics system, which is driven by brigades (you need a brigade of guards to be able to utilize the "Up the Guards" tactic). At the present time, I see no way around that unless Paradox decides to redesign the unit interface - which I doubt they will do for a $19.00 title.

 

[Harbringerxv8]

Actually, I think the way it's set up in MOTE is fine for the period. In fact, in France, for most of this period (really up until 1813), brigades were often comprised of a single regiment of 4-5 battalions. This practice was somewhat less common in Austria and Russia, but not unheard of by any extent. And Prussian late-period (1813-15) regiments comprised of 3 battalions each as well, which were similar in size to other nations' brigades (Prussian brigades were closer to the divisions of other countries). So what you're describing (noting that Britain is the main exception to this rule, of course) as a regiment actually fills the same role as a brigade for all intents and purposes.

As for naming, a great example of this is the Austrian starting brigades, which are actually titled "13 Grenzer Regiment" or something similar. The British practice of composite brigades from various different regiments (as opposed to one or two) was fairly unique.* As for names like "6th Brigade," well, you have to call them something!

*I realize that there are exceptions to every rule, and I'm sure you can find examples of composite brigades from just about every country. I'm trying to speak to the general practice over the greatest amount of brigades to the greatest number of countries.

 

[joefromchicago]

However, these brigades often had no "names" like they do in MotE. The 6th Brigade could be mixture of cavalry regiments in one battle and line regiments of foot in another.

I think a distinction was always made between infantry and cavalry brigades. So the 6th Brigade would be an infantry formation, while the 6th Cavalry Brigade would be a cavalry formation.

GB seems to have been the exception in sequentially numbering its brigades throughout the army. In continental armies, the practice was simply to number brigades (if they were numbered) by division -- so that, if a division had two brigades, one would be numbered "1st" and the other would be numbered "2nd." GB may have been an exception because it never really adopted the divisional structure. The Prussians apparently adopted the British system of sequential numbering of brigades in time for the Waterloo campaign: Blücher's army had a very orderly system of numbering its corps and brigades sequentially (the I. Corps had the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th brigades, the II. Corps had the 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th brigades, and so on).

Another peculiarity about the British army is that its regiments were, for all practical purposes, the same size as battalions. Technically, a British regiment was composed of two battalions, but one was a "depot battalion," which was really just a paper formation used for recruiting and training. All other armies had multi-battalion regiments. Austrian regiments also used depot battalions, but those regiments consisted of 2-3 battalions in the field.

 

[unmerged(364820)]

GB seems to have been the exception in sequentially numbering its brigades throughout the army. In continental armies, the practice was simply to number brigades (if they were numbered) by division -- so that, if a division had two brigades, one would be numbered "1st" and the other would be numbered "2nd.". GB may have been an exception because it never really adopted the divisional structure.

This, I believe, is due to a number of factors, some dating back to the 15th century including the English manner of recruiting regiments and how they were paid (often the Colonel - usually a landed nobility - would raise the regiment and was responsible for payment). The result was a kind of geographic mismatch of regiments and names that the Royal Warrant of 1751 attempted to fix - by standardizing uniforms and enforcing regiment numbers. At this time, a number of regiments received "Royal" status as part of their official name. The 1st Regiment of Foot, for example, became the 1st Royal Regiment.

The Prussians apparently adopted the British system of sequential numbering of brigades in time for the Waterloo campaign: Blücher's army had a very orderly system of numbering its corps and brigades sequentially (the I. Corps had the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th brigades, the II. Corps had the 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th brigades, and so on).

Interesting - and that's how I would see the organization of the armies during this era. In this case, brigades would be larger than represented in MotE.

Another peculiarity about the British army is that its regiments were, for all practical purposes, the same size as battalions. Technically, a British regiment was composed of two battalions, but one was a "depot battalion," which was really just a paper formation used for recruiting and training. All other armies had multi-battalion regiments. Austrian regiments also used depot battalions, but those regiments consisted of 2-3 battalions in the field.

I'm willing to recognize the peculiarities of the British Army.

I tried some experiments last night and changing unit size is an unsatisfying resolution, for now. I think I'll simply rename the units with their regiment names but without the "regiment" or "brigade" designation. It takes a bit of time - I spent about two hours last night researching and renaming the starting British units to period names. For me, it makes the game more immersive.

Again - and I want to be clear on this - I understand PI needed to develop a uniform system of units sizes and organization for gameplay purposes. Nothing in this thread was meant to suggest that Paradox did something terribly wrong or broke the game or whatever.

 

[Cynwulf]

I do not like brigades either for example at Wagram the french could have anywhere from 2 to 9 battalions in an infantry brigade. The Austrians at Wagram could have anywhere from 3 to 11 battalions in an infantry brigade. Brigades could also have a mix of troops in it for nations such as Saxony, Bavaria, Austria, Prussia1806. Ie infantry, landwhere, light and cavalry all in one brigade.

Brigades are a horrible mechanic. Regiments would be more useful especially since the army formation is center right and left.

We know what the theoretical strength of regiments were for most nations. We do not know what the theoretical strength of brigades are since it varied from brigade to brigade.

 

[prince_blucher]

I agree 100%, regiments would be a much more suitable basic unit. However, I guess this would add to stack (micro) management a lot. But this should be modifiable, right?

 

[grommile]

I agree 100%, regiments would be a much more suitable basic unit. However, I guess this would add to stack (micro) management a lot. But this should be modifiable, right?

*cough* Try not to quote spammers. It makes more work for the mods

 

[prince_blucher]

Actually, I meant to quote Cynwulfs "Brigades are a horrible mechanic. Regiments would be more useful especially since the army formation is center right and left."

My post should read:

"Originally Posted by Cynwulf View Post

Brigades are a horrible mechanic. Regiments would be more useful especially since the army formation is center right and left."

I agree 100%, regiments would be a much more suitable basic unit. However, I guess this would add to stack (micro) management a lot. But this should be modifiable, right?

My mistake grommile, so apologies to Mods.

 

[SAS]

Oh you kids.

A more detailed regiment OOB would be sweet though.

 

[punic soldier]

i have not bought the game, hoping that it will improve in several aspects, but play the demo and see the comments of people.
in my opinion the game need more historical units with historical regiment with its historical name and more variety of historical uniforms.
for example that the light infantry have different uniform that the line infantry,more infantry line,light and guard types in a army,for example in the france army the imperial guard must have the young guard and mid guard.
correct uniforms as grenadiers with historical uniforms.

with the cavalry same,different types of hussar,lancers in a same army.

different stats in every unit type.

i not know if this russian unit grenadier have in the game but is very famous.

i also believe that all the regiments should have a limit recruitment and specific regions of recruiting to give more immersion and realism to the game.
for me these are fundamental aspects in a historical game and more of the napoleonic epoch that the uniforms of the units were so colorful and varied.
and historical events that enrich,give immersion,historicity and realism to the campaign,i think we need more in the campaing.
this would make me decide to buy the game, for now will wait to see if a patch deployed on these aspects.

 

[unmerged(364820)]

in my opinion the game need more historical units with historical regiment with its historical name and more variety of historical uniforms.

...

Reading that reminded me of another game that features this era in history. Unfortunately, that game has it's problems, too.

As of this morning, I'm not expecting any huge changes in MotE that are not made by modders. Again, I'm not criticizing, what you're describing is simply not the game that Paradox chose to make. For one thing, army uniforms and regiment types (and roles) changed radically between 1750 and 1850. British uniforms in particular changed pretty radically making it hard for gaming company to represent all that change. That's a lot of depth to expect for a $20 game.

When I read the review posted on the forum this morning, I realized Paradox was pretty serious when it said it was making a 15-year, multiplayer game. That's the game they chose to make for this period. They were perfectly capable of making a wargame for this era with the scale and depth of HOI3 (which, ironically, has only a slightly longer time period but much, much more depth) but they didn't, because (I'm assuming) adding that degree of depth would hinder multiplayer which requires the game be running all the time. (I have to assume this from comments people who play multiplayer share - I don't play multiplayer).

I do share some disappointment that the two wargames from my favorite time period in history - Creative Attitude's Empire Total War (and Napolean Total War) - and this one are what they are. I don't hate MotE, I don't hate Paradox for making it this way, and it's not like I'm suddenly deleting it. But I am disappointed. We can tell Paradox we're disappointed but for every one of us that is disappointed there's fifteen people who want to play multiplayer. That's a pretty hard ratio for business enterprise to ignore.

Two weeks ago, I spent almost $100 on Paradox Games (This one and all the Crusader King games and DLC). I don't regret it. I will continue to support the company because I love HOI3 and EU3 (even though I wish some of the battle depth of this game could be included in EU4).

One thing that Paradox has done for MotE is give us a very moddable game - so if we don't like it, we can make it what we want. There are a number of great mods out there - 1792, The Gods, and so on - that are doing just that. I recall - quite vividly - the disappointment when ETW was released and we realized there was going to be NO support for modding. Yeah, that sucked.

I would expect to see MotE change in the future, but by modding. I would expect to see Paradox continue to support MotE as a short-span, multiplayer game title.

 

[punic soldier]

Reading that reminded me of another game that features this era in history. Unfortunately, that game has it's problems, too.

As of this morning, I'm not expecting any huge changes in MotE that are not made by modders. Again, I'm not criticizing, what you're describing is simply not the game that Paradox chose to make. For one thing, army uniforms and regiment types (and roles) changed radically between 1750 and 1850. British uniforms in particular changed pretty radically making it hard for gaming company to represent all that change. That's a lot of depth to expect for a $20 game.

When I read the review posted on the forum this morning, I realized Paradox was pretty serious when it said it was making a 15-year, multiplayer game. That's the game they chose to make for this period. They were perfectly capable of making a wargame for this era with the scale and depth of HOI3 (which, ironically, has only a slightly longer time period but much, much more depth) but they didn't, because (I'm assuming) adding that degree of depth would hinder multiplayer which requires the game be running all the time. (I have to assume this from comments people who play multiplayer share - I don't play multiplayer).

I do share some disappointment that the two wargames from my favorite time period in history - Creative Attitude's Empire Total War (and Napolean Total War) - and this one are what they are. I don't hate MotE, I don't hate Paradox for making it this way, and it's not like I'm suddenly deleting it. But I am disappointed. We can tell Paradox we're disappointed but for every one of us that is disappointed there's fifteen people who want to play multiplayer. That's a pretty hard ratio for business enterprise to ignore.

Two weeks ago, I spent almost $100 on Paradox Games (This one and all the Crusader King games and DLC). I don't regret it. I will continue to support the company because I love HOI3 and EU3 (even though I wish some of the battle depth of this game could be included in EU4).

One thing that Paradox has done for MotE is give us a very moddable game - so if we don't like it, we can make it what we want. There are a number of great mods out there - 1792, The Gods, and so on - that are doing just that. I recall - quite vividly - the disappointment when ETW was released and we realized there was going to be NO support for modding. Yeah, that sucked.

I would expect to see MotE change in the future, but by modding. I would expect to see Paradox continue to support MotE as a short-span, multiplayer game title.

i thought at least paradox give variety of uniforms and historical units as the napoleon campaign AGEOD and the names of the historical regiments.
this stop me buying the game, it was disappointing to play the demo and check that all the regiments were generalists.
and the totalwar games,i come to play the total war and never ran out of liking with a horrible AI,arcade,not deep and immersion in the campaings.
over the years I have liked less the totalwar games.
i recently discovered AGEOD and paradox games and these game are excellents in historicity accurate,immersion,deep,strategy and realism,Crusader Kings II specifically is wonderful.
i've been a big disappointment with Marchs of the eagle above all with the theme of the variety of uniforms and historicity.
paradox hopefully improve this aspect of the game, for purists of the history like me and of this epoch.

 

[unmerged(364820)]

i thought at least paradox give variety of uniforms and historical units as the napoleon campaign AGEOD and the names of the historical regiments.
this stop me buying the game, it was disappointing to play the demo and check that all the regiments were generalists.
and the totalwar games,i come to play the total war and never ran out of liking with a horrible AI,arcade,not deep and immersion in the campaings.
over the years I have liked less the totalwar games.
i recently discovered AGEOD and paradox games and these game are excellents in historicity accurate,immersion,deep,strategy and realism,Crusader Kings II specifically is wonderful.
i've been a big disappointment with Marchs of the eagle above all with the theme of the variety of uniforms and historicity.
paradox hopefully improve this aspect of the game, for purists of the history like me and of this epoch.

I don't want you to feel like I mislead you. MotE is a good game to own, if for no other reason than the great work that is being done on mods like 1792 and The Gods. I'm doing an AAR on the Gods right now and I'm enjoying it very much. But to quote SAS: "Baby steps." They'll get there, just probably not tomorrow.

It's hard for me to be mad at the company that brought me HOI3. Likewise, it's not hard to understand why they made this game the way they did. Can you imagine trying to manage all the resources, units, tech, strategy, diplomacy in a multiplayer game? Can you imagine how long that game would go on? Remember: there's no pause button in multiplayer!

If you've played EU3, then MotE's battle engine is an improvement over the here's a cannon, here's a cavalry unit, here's a infantry unit paradigm that is that game. I disliked having almost all my units as the same type. I really like MotE's battle engine and the tactics. That alone is probably worth $20 to me.

At the end of the day, MotE is a multiplayer game. A lot of great games are moving away from single player.

 

[balooooooo]

This game was not sold as a multiplayer game. It was designed as it is and sold to encourage multiplayer. There is a huge difference. They did say that it was better in multiplayer but all war games are, every single sodding one, no matter how brilliant the ai, multiplayer is better. I am sure that its development was seriously hindered by the Paradox AGEOD split, perhaps even had a part to play in that split, but even so, Paradox never said it was a multiplayer game and kept hinting that it had more in common with HOI3 than EU3 etc. They never lied, but certainly were economical with the truth. I, as someone who has bought practically everything this studio has ever developed, including music, sprites, dlc's artwork, you name it, whether I wanted it or not, and I have older stuff than my icons show, will be very reluctant to shell out again until this is patched as sold. If it was ok to sell half working stuff for £15 on the internet and then justify it by saying what did you expect for £15 a fully working model, geeez that should cost twice as much, we would all be doing it. As for relying on the modders, I'm afraid their hands are pretty tied at the moment, unless Paradox moves an awful lot of stuff into the LUAs then they ain't going to be able to fix it either. Bugger been looking at this game with my engineers hat on again.

 

[unmerged(90249)]

Actually, I think the way it's set up in MOTE is fine for the period. In fact, in France, for most of this period (really up until 1813), brigades were often comprised of a single regiment of 4-5 battalions. This practice was somewhat less common in Austria and Russia, but not unheard of by any extent. And Prussian late-period (1813-15) regiments comprised of 3 battalions each as well, which were similar in size to other nations' brigades (Prussian brigades were closer to the divisions of other countries). So what you're describing (noting that Britain is the main exception to this rule, of course) as a regiment actually fills the same role as a brigade for all intents and purposes.

As for naming, a great example of this is the Austrian starting brigades, which are actually titled "13 Grenzer Regiment" or something similar. The British practice of composite brigades from various different regiments (as opposed to one or two) was fairly unique.* As for names like "6th Brigade," well, you have to call them something!

*I realize that there are exceptions to every rule, and I'm sure you can find examples of composite brigades from just about every country. I'm trying to speak to the general practice over the greatest amount of brigades to the greatest number of countries.

In France at the time, a Brigade was comprised of 2 Semi-Brigade (aka Regiment); a Colonel commanding a Regiment being a 'chef de brigade'. The naming change with Napoleon, but not the organisation (2 regiments per brigade, 2 brigade per division ...+ services).

 

[unmerged(90249)]

The best game I played on that period was 1813, got it with a review in France in 2001. Saddly I lost the CD since.

It was the best, but buggy as hell. I was never ever able to finish Grossberen battle for exemple.

But the campaign system was trully innovative at that time, the supply system was something new.

that to say MoTE is not that bad, even if is 15 years later. In my opinion, I woudl say I waited 15 years to get the successor of 1813, and I got the prequel for the same time!

The only thing that is missing, is the export of variable into the lua (to allow more modification by the users).