Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
If we think of an artillery regiment as two pieces of artillery, numbers of pieces are more or less realistic for the time period. Even counting drivers for wagons and servants for deployment I hardly see how one artillery piece could require more then five people. We are not talking about large siege artillery but field artillery used in battles after all.
What is more, I am not convinced that the men in logistic are counted into the unit size. Both infantry and cavalry regiments needs commissariat, which definitely do not fight battles, whereas full 1000-man units do fight.
This makes manpower not an issue for artillery (wich means the only thing wich would stop you from having double ranged army is just money) and is also not realistic. Even admitting a unit is only one piece of artillery (wich definitivly is not) this means 10 people per piece in a time where it was common to use oxes to move it, and 10 could easily be the men's needed only for logistics.
Maybe 100 would be better ?