I would like to buy the game but

[Raphx]

when I watch the videos the shooting distance and the precision seem terribly bad
there are 60 soladit who shoot with rifles on a formation of 120 and only three dead with 60 shoot on a very large formation it seems really weird no

[thewelshwizard *T*R*Y*]

It depends who's shooting. The British have better weapons, better training and better discipline early war. Fight your first battle as the Continentals and you realise numbers matter. My last battle 6000 vs 4000 roughly.
Desperate situations demand hand to hand, 2:1, 3:1.
Custom battles as the British I can take a 1000, 1500 men less and win.

[LordAtrox]

Originally posted by Raphx:

when I watch the videos the shooting distance and the precision seem terribly bad
there are 60 soladit who shoot with rifles on a formation of 120 and only three dead with 60 shoot on a very large formation it seems really weird no

The combat system in the UG series is one of the most realistic in the RTS genre that I know of. American Revolution is no exception. If you look at the numbers of battles during this time, it is clear that losses, as a percentage of the total mass, were not that huge. Within 8 years (according to Wikipedia) just ~8000 British, ~2000 Germans and 1700 Loyalists died in battle. The Americans lost ~7,000 soldiers in combat. And that in 8 YEARS!

Battle of Cowpens: 135 dead in total

Bunker Hill. ~340 dead

Camden. 68 British soldiers dead and ~1000 Americans dead AND wounded.

It becomes clear that losses in this war (in battles) were low compared to the Napoleonic Wars or the American War of Independence, where high losses could also be achieved in UG: Civil War.

Losses in the Revolutionary War were mostly due to disease.

The Brown Bess musket used in this conflict also had only a short range (unlike the Springfield and Enfield rifles in the American Civil War): 100 yd (91 m) (point target), 300 yd (274 m) (area target).

Combined with the inadequate training of the continental troops and militias, the accuracy was further reduced.

The first battle in the game is the Battle of Concord. From what I've seen on YouTube, the troop sizes are consistent with the historical number of troops (~4000 Americans and ~1500 British).

While the historical battle has 393 total casualties (dead, wounded, missing), in the played battles of UG there are often up to 2000.

This means that more(!) troops die in the game than in reality. This means that too many troops actually die in one battle. So the opposite of what you observed is actually the case. It's not too few soldiers dying, but too many soldiers.

Of course, it is a video game, which is why in the end some compromises have to be made to reality. But from what I've seen so far, the work of the development studio is very good.

[Raphx]

but after 60 shot 1 per solider in line you only kill 3 soldiers which are well grouped in lines ?
That doesn't seem realistic to me.

[Raphx]

at the first exchange of fire

[thewelshwizard *T*R*Y*]

In my opinion the work on this game is nothing short of spectacular. Given that it's a small developer with community backing. The game is ripe for expansion. I just hope it gets the love and support it deserves.

[pandakraut]

Originally posted by Raphx:

when I watch the videos the shooting distance and the precision seem terribly bad
there are 60 soladit who shoot with rifles on a formation of 120 and only three dead with 60 shoot on a very large formation it seems really weird no

Unit and weapon quality, distance to target, target's cover, and unit facing are the primary factors in the damage dealt. A few kills per volley is generally what you see out of low veterancy militia with civilian muskets firing at their maximum effective ranges.

While more experienced and better equipped units can do better at this range, early on its often preferable to move your units to engage at closer ranges where their fire will be considerably more effective. Moving into a flanking position also has a large effect, especially in terms of morale damage dealt.

[G Willikers]

Originally posted by Raphx:

but after 60 shot 1 per solider in line you only kill 3 soldiers which are well grouped in lines ?
That doesn't seem realistic to me.

That’s extraordinarily accurate. Battles were generally determined by morale, not lost.

Stand a hundred yards from anything and try to shoot it with a ten pound, smooth bore musket nearly as tall as you are. Now add bullets coming back at you, cover your target and yourself in sulfurous smoke, have a hundred people yelling in your ears, also you’re wearing wool and carrying about 70 pounds of equipment.

How did ten thousand British route thirty thousand Americans at Long Island? They kept marching and maneuvering through that maelstrom while the colonials floundered in confusion. They understood how to retain command and control over the chaos while the colonial soldiers were just thrown in.

But yes, to the original question, a volley by 60 men carrying 18th century smoothbores would be lucky to hit 3 in an opposing formation at 100 yards.

[DasMoss]

As said above, later on you will get better rifles and veterancy plus some elite troop options. Veteran regular troops can occasionally kill 10+ in a single volley and quickly bring the brits to a rout.

[Raphx]

ok thanks for the precisions
but in the game the shooting ranges are very short at most we would say 50 meters no?
so it may be the shooting distance in games which is too short and which gives this impression of enormous imprecision

[sly1foxy]

Raphx, there was 'enourmous imprecision', even at shorter ranges, during this time period. The vast majority of soldiers were armed with smoothbore muskets, not rifles. There was a reason why the units formed into large lines, because their weapons were incredibly innacurate.

[G Willikers]

Originally posted by Raphx:

ok thanks for the precisions
but in the game the shooting ranges are very short at most we would say 50 meters no?
so it may be the shooting distance in games which is too short and which gives this impression of enormous imprecision

The standard tactic for a British advance was to advance to about 75 yards (about 70 meters), fire, and advance or bayonet charge depending on the target. In the open field or against fortifications that was devastatingly effective which is why the continental army made such impactful use of irregulars.

A massed volley wasn’t generally aimed especially once the battle was underway, it was load, level your gun, fire. At 50-100 yards a human is relatively small.

Think about this too. Most trained soldiers could fire 2-4 aimed shots in a minute, so a rate of 3-5 losses per volley translates conservatively to 6 fallen per minute, which in 10 minutes means you’ve lost over half of a hundred man company.

If anything these games are pretty aggressive with their casualty counts. Very few revolutionary war battles resulted in over a thousand combined losses.

[Raphx]

and you find that it is well transcribed in the game?

[Raphx]

It's really a shame that the game isn't in French.

[G Willikers]

Originally posted by Raphx:

and you find that it is well transcribed in the game?

I won’t be able to play until tonight but the rate you described if anything seems higher than historical numbers, although it makes sense for a first volley.