This mod is going to be a killer to other mods. 
MP Musket Era The Peninsular War - Napoleonic Warband mod - scene editors needed
- Thread starter Dain Ironfoot
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
- Status
95Rifles
Sergeant at Arms
It would be good if M&B allowed you to go deeper into the mechanics. You could then try to engineer a cover tactic anyways.
Are there any other menial tasks, LODs or some such??
--What books are you getting this from, would love to read up on the subject so I could discuss it with you. I read Rifles by Mark Urban but I'm sure there must be others.
Are there any other menial tasks, LODs or some such??
--What books are you getting this from, would love to read up on the subject so I could discuss it with you. I read Rifles by Mark Urban but I'm sure there must be others.
Herby
Squire
95Rifles said:
Go to the library, and if you still can't find them, ask a librarian... there are too many to list. But I'm sure these lovely people will reccomend some.
EDIT: If this post comes across as flippant, condescending or derogatory, to anyone, it really was not intended. I'm just trying to be helpful.
malthaussen
Recruit
95th Rifles asks... "What books are you getting this from, would love to read up on the subject so I could discuss it with you. I read Rifles by Mark Urban but I'm sure there must be others."
... I ought to be speechless, but I never am.
Mr 95th: go back one page.
Since I'm here, I'll float another thought for your delectation. One of the books I've been reading recently has a quote from a Brit of his commander shouting "Aim low, boys, and spoil their hope of future generations!" In re the marksmanship issue, which was once so dear to the British Army before automatic weapons came in and made aiming redundant, I think of the French naval tendency to shoot for the masts, while the British navy famously tried to hull their opponents. I read somewhere-or-other, in re modern war, that those soldiers who bother to fire their weapons in a firefight (not many) tend to aim high. I once had a conversation with a WWII vet, who hastened to assure me (unsolicited) that, with the 80th Infantry Division from Normandy to V-E Day, he never tried to shoot anyone. "I shot out a lot of windows," was his quote.
Incredible as it may seem to us gamers, there is some reason to believe that most soldiers don't try to kill the other guys if they can avoid it. Only when closely supervised by an NCO or officer will they expose themselves, however briefly, to take a crack at the guys trying to kill them. At first, this may seem irrelevant to our period, because in linear formation all soldiers are closely supervised by NCOs and officers, and presumably have to shoot. However, they can aim where they please -- a slight inclination of the muzzle will make the round miss high, without being noticed by the supervising official.
Maybe the British were so successful because they were more bloodthirsty.
-- Mal
... I ought to be speechless, but I never am.
Mr 95th: go back one page.
Since I'm here, I'll float another thought for your delectation. One of the books I've been reading recently has a quote from a Brit of his commander shouting "Aim low, boys, and spoil their hope of future generations!" In re the marksmanship issue, which was once so dear to the British Army before automatic weapons came in and made aiming redundant, I think of the French naval tendency to shoot for the masts, while the British navy famously tried to hull their opponents. I read somewhere-or-other, in re modern war, that those soldiers who bother to fire their weapons in a firefight (not many) tend to aim high. I once had a conversation with a WWII vet, who hastened to assure me (unsolicited) that, with the 80th Infantry Division from Normandy to V-E Day, he never tried to shoot anyone. "I shot out a lot of windows," was his quote.
Incredible as it may seem to us gamers, there is some reason to believe that most soldiers don't try to kill the other guys if they can avoid it. Only when closely supervised by an NCO or officer will they expose themselves, however briefly, to take a crack at the guys trying to kill them. At first, this may seem irrelevant to our period, because in linear formation all soldiers are closely supervised by NCOs and officers, and presumably have to shoot. However, they can aim where they please -- a slight inclination of the muzzle will make the round miss high, without being noticed by the supervising official.
Maybe the British were so successful because they were more bloodthirsty.
-- Mal
Dain Ironfoot
Count
That's brilliant. When we come to doing sounds and taunts for soldiers, that is certainly going to be there
I'm off to the Scillies for a while. See you somewhen!
Herby
Squire
I thought that the 'aim low' was because Muskets had dreadful sights, and troops tended to fire higher than they meant to... so a shot at the thighs/groins would more than likely hit them in the stomach..
There was an account at Assaye (don't know how reliable), that one of the not-very-well-trained Indian infantry regiments had a close-range volley at a Highland regiment, and they nearly all fired high, and then the Highlanders showed them how to fire a proper volley, calmly reloaded, then silently advanced. In face of these robotic killing machines, the Indians fled.
There was an account at Assaye (don't know how reliable), that one of the not-very-well-trained Indian infantry regiments had a close-range volley at a Highland regiment, and they nearly all fired high, and then the Highlanders showed them how to fire a proper volley, calmly reloaded, then silently advanced. In face of these robotic killing machines, the Indians fled.
Dain Ironfoot
Count
Herby said:
Aiming high was a tendency of green troops with no knowledge of marksmanship, especially on slopes. A lot of the stuff people say about muskets being inaccurate is due to individual marksmanship. There was an account of the light division firing upon artillery crews and the musket armed light infantry being just as effective as those with rifles.
Muskets weren't as inaccurate as sometimes portrayed in popular culture, but a range of 50-100 yards was the most effective, after which the percentage of casualties inflicted would drop considerably. Thomas Plunket is purported to have shot a French Brigadier General, and a Bugle-Major attempting to come to the General's aid, at a staggering range of 800 yards. This feat, whether completely true or not, is a testament to the accuracy of rifles, as shooting not one, but two individuals at range was incredibly difficult during this period of time.
Ben Hussey
Sergeant Knight
malthaussen said:
There's an old chestnut that appears in discussion from time to time, whether or not it's true I couldn't say. It goes that British troops during the American revolution saw their rifle bearing oppenents as morally reprehensible, by actively aiming at an enemy they were guilty of murder, while British troops and American regulars by firing a sightless musket were merely committing the receiver to the judgement of god. An interesting if impeccably flawed logic if true.
Regarding the British dominance over the French as you were discussing earlier, I think you may have overlooked the impetus the British army has on marksmanship and rate of fire, Bernard Cornwell often trots out that Britain was the only nation that fired live rounds in training (God bless Sir John Moore), and looking at timetables for drilling shooting drill is not insubstantial, despite not having read a French equivalent it seems no amount of practice with blanks could compensate for this disadvantage.
Similarly, during the Crimean war Russian and French onlookers commented on the accuracy of the new minie and enfield rifles, and the marksmanship of the soldiers behind them (the America attache to Raglans staff commented that a British infantryman was as skilled and well equipped as an American marksman).
During the first world war, infantrymen the British Expeditionary Force (which incidentally is probably the finest army ever fielded by any power from ancient Rome to modern America, and the most ruthlessly squandered) were expected to be able to perform the "mad minute", 30 accurate rounds at 200 yards in a minute (yes that means reloading the magazine twice, working the bolt 28 times and pulling the trigger 30 times within a mere sixty seconds), at the battle of Mons attacking Germans were convinced British troops were supported by machine guns the rate of fire was so intense.
Even as early as the Falklands war, British troops enjoyed an (estimated) accuracy rate of 7% with small arms, to the Argentines 2%.
All in all it's hard to avoid the inevitable conclusion, that leads one to doubt sources and ones own knowledge.
Elenmmare
Eh, I have a heard time believing that the French wouldn't be eager to take a crack at British lads...
They probably would have a good crack at it, but i doubt they would win
Prnkstr
Regular
I got thinking here the other day...
As in most mods with muskets and bayonets I've seen most have a separate rifle with bayonet on the back, while firing the real musket, using the bayonet as a polearm. Now would it be possible to make that bayonet version invisible while on back? The feature is already implemented with long spears and lances so it might be doable. Would look a lot better...
Another thing that might be trickier but still very visually pleasing if there was a way to change the way the musket hangs on the back. Instead of going cross over the back, would there be any way to change it to hang vertically with the firing end up, like worn in "real-life"?
Just a few ideas
As in most mods with muskets and bayonets I've seen most have a separate rifle with bayonet on the back, while firing the real musket, using the bayonet as a polearm. Now would it be possible to make that bayonet version invisible while on back? The feature is already implemented with long spears and lances so it might be doable. Would look a lot better...
Another thing that might be trickier but still very visually pleasing if there was a way to change the way the musket hangs on the back. Instead of going cross over the back, would there be any way to change it to hang vertically with the firing end up, like worn in "real-life"?
Just a few ideas
Selothi
Baron
Well, the invisible-when-holstered/sheathed is EXTREMELY easy: it just comes down to whether you tick a box in the Item Editor or not. As for the vertical thing, I'm not sure whether it's doable or not. Do the sheathed/holstered versions of weapons have a different model, or are they the same. If they're different, you could make the model to be at an angle so that when sheathed/holstered, it stays vertical on the back. If not, tough really ...
- Status
Similar threads
