The Original L'Aigle Thread, for the sake of history. Be ye warned.

[Helfy]

Stupidity doesn't deserve opinions...

I've parsed this sentence and can find no obvious meaning.

I think they both have their bonuses, musicians are a feature I love, for example.

According to Wolf, adding artillery, musicians and engineers would be trivial. It's a matter of if we want to or not; artillery and engineers could have their respective places, but having people play as musicians seems like a waste of a player.

Musicians had some pretty fancy uniforms, though...

It is mostly for the fluff.  Musicians are like flag bearers.  In most LBs in NW, the musicians pick up weapons and fight alongside the regiment. 

Engineers are fun for just goofing around.  In real LBs, all they ever seem to do is build defenses for arty emplacements. 

 

[McEwanMaster77]

It is mostly for the fluff.  Musicians are like flag bearers.  In most LBs in NW, the musicians pick up weapons and fight alongside the regiment. 

Engineers are fun for just goofing around.  In real LBs, all they ever seem to do is build defenses for arty emplacements. 

Not quite true. In my experience in the Marins, we use a sapper quite often during line battles, and a good sapper can quickly set up some very effective temporary defenses. Even though the speed of the setup may not be realistic, the defenses work, and that's all that matters to me.

EDIT: And I hate to bring this to attention again, but I truly dislike it when people compare the effectiveness of similar mods, or compare the prospective success of either. Just let the mods run their course; they are both the same concept, but in different categories. They will not interfere with each other as much as some like to think.

Live and let live, people.

 

[Bluehawk]

I haven't seen a musician or a flagbearer take out an entire line in one shot the way arty can. I wouldn't throw them all in one boat. 

 

[Landgraft]

I haven't seen a musician or a flagbearer take out an entire line in one shot the way arty can. I wouldn't throw them all in one boat. 

That sort of effect is confined to the bagpipes.

 

[Ivan the Awesome]

I haven't seen a musician or a flagbearer take out an entire line in one shot the way arty can. I wouldn't throw them all in one boat. 

That sort of effect is confined to the bagpipes.

Lol, beautiful. made me laugh.
The only reason I am considering buying NW is so I can play as an arty officer, but if they are in this, then why bother, eh?

 

[McEwanMaster77]

I haven't seen a musician or a flagbearer take out an entire line in one shot the way arty can. I wouldn't throw them all in one boat. 

That sort of effect is confined to the bagpipes.

Lol, beautiful. made me laugh.
The only reason I am considering buying NW is so I can play as an arty officer, but if they are in this, then why bother, eh?

You should bother because the feeling you get when you snipe multiple conscious players is so much more rewarding than blasting away at lines of idiotic bots. 

You'll get your artillery officer either way.

 

[Patchouli Knowledge]

Artillery just seems so out of scale for a game that supports 200 players at the most. Realistically you'd have a gun for every 300-1000 soldiers, depending highly on the battle. 5 or 6 guns in a 200 man battle equates to about 10,000 guns at a Borodino sized battle.

 

[EsoptrosOer]

Wait. . . There will actually be usable cannons in this mod?! 

 

[orangeknite1]

Hey, you planning to release and easter egg guns. For example maybe you could have the first flintlock revolver which was 1814 if my memory serves me correct.

 

[Ivan the Awesome]

Artillery just seems so out of scale for a game that supports 200 players at the most. Realistically you'd have a gun for every 300-1000 soldiers, depending highly on the battle. 5 or 6 guns in a 200 man battle equates to about 10,000 guns at a Borodino sized battle.

using the stats from that battle, there should be at least one cannon per 200 men. However, you can get way more than 200 men in singleplayer, you just need something I believe is called battlesizer. Besides which, artillery just seems like it would be so much fun, even if it is not 100% correct.

 

[McEwanMaster77]

Artillery just seems so out of scale for a game that supports 200 players at the most. Realistically you'd have a gun for every 300-1000 soldiers, depending highly on the battle. 5 or 6 guns in a 200 man battle equates to about 10,000 guns at a Borodino sized battle.

I agree with you completely. I just don't think the devs of NW had a choice. How could they not include something as enjoyable and rewarding as artillery for the sake of realistic proportions? The mod would have probably gone out the window by now if they hadn't. 

Besides, the targets the artillery are shooting at are much smaller and much more maneuverable than they ever were in real history, so it balances out, more or less.

And it would truly be epic if artillery could be added into the singleplayer campaign, though I personally can't see how it could be effectively done.
Best of luck on it if you do!

 

[Patchouli Knowledge]

Some people seem to have misunderstood. I'm talking about multiplayer --- there is not and probably never will be functioning artillery in singleplayer, unless some one comes up with a decent way to include it, which seems rather unlikely.

using the stats from that battle, there should be at least one cannon per 200 men. However, you can get way more than 200 men in singleplayer, you just need something I believe is called battlesizer. Besides which, artillery just seems like it would be so much fun, even if it is not 100% correct.

I have 345,000 men and 1,200 guns at Borodino, and that was a very artillery-heavy battle. Wagram had the more men than Borodino and only 800 guns, for example.

Hey, you planning to release and easter egg guns. For example maybe you could have the first flintlock revolver which was 1814 if my memory serves me correct.

The earliest revolvers I know are actually from around 1650. The problem is that they needed to be primed after every shot, and I don't know of a way to represent that in M&B.

 

[orangeknite1]

Well here is quote from Wikipedia, I may be wrong.

The first true revolver—a flintlock—was made by Elisha Collier in 1814.

 

[kpetschulat]

Well here is quote from Wikipedia, I may be wrong.

The first true revolver—a flintlock—was made by Elisha Collier in 1814.

Wikipedia is BAD

 

[Bluehawk]

Then fix it.

 

[Ivan the Awesome]

I disagree. Wikipedia is a fantastic source, especially for getting a basic understanding of a subject. Though it is not entirely credible, at least it has sources. And I feel it is far more credible than 90 percent of websites on history, many of which seem to have been thrown together by some guy with dubious credentials. Besides which, who is to say whether Wikipedia is correct, or that book you have? What if MY book says different? The fact is that history will never be known for sure, and there will always be uncertainty in our interpretations of history. I recognize Wikipedia as a fairly reliable source. Unfortunately none of my teachers do so, and I am, in a cruel twist of fate, forced to abstain from using it.

 

[Patchouli Knowledge]

Well here is quote from Wikipedia, I may be wrong.

The first true revolver—a flintlock—was made by Elisha Collier in 1814.

Even that article has a picture of a late 16th century revolver, which is no different from Elisha Collier's model, in the sense that it needed to be primed for every shot. No idea why it says his was the first when the rest of the article disagrees.

I'd change it but it's not a subject I know enough about to be comfortable with editing the article. I'll stick to fixing the Coote Manningham article, thank you very much.

* * * * * *​

I haven't been working too much on the coding lately, as I've been trying to finish up the art, but I will soon be jumping headlong into coding. If anyone has any gameplay ideas (SP or MP) they think are worth sharing, let me know. Obviously, I have quite a few plans, but there still some areas I'm not sure how to handle and I could use some more ideas.

 

[kpetschulat]

I disagree. Wikipedia is a fantastic source, especially for getting a basic understanding of a subject. Though it is not entirely credible, at least it has sources. And I feel it is far more credible than 90 percent of websites on history, many of which seem to have been thrown together by some guy with dubious credentials. Besides which, who is to say whether Wikipedia is correct, or that book you have? What if MY book says different? The fact is that history will never be known for sure, and there will always be uncertainty in our interpretations of history. I recognize Wikipedia as a fairly reliable source. Unfortunately none of my teachers do so, and I am, in a cruel twist of fate, forced to abstain from using it.

Teachers do not like Wikipedia because any poor schmuck can dozey on in and change whatever they want. Wikipedia is a good source 50% of the time. You actually CAN find better info on any other site. But, as you said, it's good for a basic understanding of something, which I agree about. I try to stay away from Wikipedia as much as possible and try to get info from more credible sources.

 

[Frappiller]

i cant wait for this mod to come out so i can ditch my regimental duties and still have fun linebattles 

 

[Evelyn]

Perhaps a prosperity check on the villages and towns and if they're below a certain pre-set per-nation threshold, a large rebel army spawns near the faction in question?