Originally posted by strategy:
Strategy said:
Greven - I do not have an MBA for the history of the 1500-1700, so I'll readily admit I'm no historical expert, but plain common sense and logic tells me that:
1) IF A good gunner had long training and was more or less always belonging to a professional corps THEN he is much less likely to desert than an ordinary footsoldier.
I think 5,000 years of human history in war will back me on this one.
Greven said:
I would say no. The training and professionality of the artillerists of the time period you are referring to are not of the modern kind. That is some kind of Marine Corps Recon or the Napoleonic Old Guard. It has nothing to do with morale (well at least not that much). What I am implying, and I concede I wasn't to clear here was that the artillery 'communion' of the period was a kind of 'expert guild' not a elite combat unit. The developement of Vauban's among many things made siege a branch of warfare. Before Vauban the military communion viewed artillerists as civilians that did them service in times of war. So on the contrary I would say that 5000 years (minus the last 150 years) of history disconfirms your thesis. Even as I think it is fully correct from the 1840's and onwards.
Strategy said:
2) IF I get good food, better shelter, better protection (arms), etc. THEN I am less likely to fall sick than someone who gets bad food, bad shelter, etc.
I think at least 10,000 years of human history (and any number of professional medics) will back me on this conclusion as well.
Greven said:
As do I if you read what I say.
However I am implying that the artillerists wasn't treated better than the infantery.
Strategy said:
IMO - cannon attrition is all about the cannon. If it isn't, cannon ought to be much cheaper than they are in the game (unmanned cannon can always be remanned - even if I have to get professionals to do it - a destroyed cannon can very rarely be rebuilt).
Greven said:
IMO - artillery attrition has nothing to to with cannon, but the death, diseases and defection of the men handling them. Cannon doesn't rust in a very great rate, the bottleneck was the professionals handling them. So the problem in my opinon is that you loose the cannon, perhaps they should be 'frozen' for a period of time until they could replace the crews.
Strategy said:
Incidentally, I find it very strange that you consider the 'art of artillery' so difficult, when cannons where used by the hundreds in warships, and where there definitely not always manned by 'trained professionals' (mortality rates on a man-o- war tended to be very high - the ships managed to keep firing nonetheless).
Greven said:
Heheh what initially ignited my response was actually the situation among the Navies of the world during the period. The personnel of the ship stations was highly professionalised and it is not very controversial to say that this was a fact long before the armies started to professionalize their branches. You are right by saying that mortality rates were high. I am of the same opinion. The only factor that made army artillist attrition rates higher was desertion. You don't desert on a ship. But one must have in mind that the total number of naval artillerists was very slim in comparison to a the army artillerists. I would say that England for example had very few bottlenecks here as they had a small army, but look at France which actually needed a a large artillery for here siege warfare in the Netherlands was cronically short of gunners for here navy.
Secondly, that it was harder to raise artillery than to raise infantery or cavalry I don't find especially strange. Your view that my opinion above is strange I believe comes from the fallacy of not taking in the calculation that the naval artillery was a 'fly in the space' in comparison to the army artillery and that is why your example fails.
Third, naval attrition and army attrition are on two different level in the game and are really not comparable (in game terms). The army artillery loose cannons, while the navy loose ships. Personally, Strategy, I think that the greatest problem with attrition in the game is its abstractedness. Losses in the navy seems to be MERELY from accidents and bad weather in which you loose you ships with all hands. Here I would have preferred something more detailed. That noone in this discussion feels really content with the way army attrition is portraited I take for granted.
I would prefer a system where the game mechanism really regarded the replacement system and the re-establishment of stragglers I the units. An example of a more preferable system is the attrion system in TOAW I & II. However it is not as simple as the presented in EU.
Another route to take would be to give priority to which branch would take the actual attrition. One could say like: 60% of all attrition is taken from infantry and 30% is taken from cavalry and 10 is taken from artillery. IF one thinks that better portraits the actualities.
P.S. I do not in any way imply that my educational level has anything to do with the strength of my arguments. The vast amount of sources and 'facts' make it more or less impossible to be an 'expert' in more than one or a few fields. Secondly I in no way value the words of an historian more than the words of an 'amateur'. In my view we are ALL historians... If we are good or bad depends upon our analysis and judgements.
/Greven
