PDA

View Full Version : Creative Assembly Screenies



Furious Mental
05-10-2008, 06:12
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=164359

Jeah!

Game looks nice, although I certainly I hope it isn't being designed on the basis that every battle should be fought like that. I mean, troops in column exchanging musket fire?

Raz
05-10-2008, 06:53
I mean, troops in column exchanging musket fire?
What's wrong with that? :grin: In any case, if they are in-game screenshots and not promotional-heavily-edited-in-photoshop screenies, then that really is candy to my eyes.

Edit: On closer inspection... I'm a little worried, why is it that there's cavalry waltzing out into the midst of the firefight? Also, agreed that the units look a bit odd in their formation... They look like they've come straight out of a roman training ground the way they are deployed... :confused:

Martok
05-10-2008, 06:54
Here's a more direct link, by the way:

GamesRadar (http://www.gamesradar.com/pc/empire-total-war/screenshots/g-20070822164625990074)

Csargo
05-10-2008, 06:56
In any case, if they are in-game screenshots and not promotional-heavily-edited-in-photoshop screenies, then that really is candy to my eyes. :smug2:

Were you expecting something else? :laugh4:

rajpoot
05-10-2008, 07:29
Well, they look nice, I specially like the smoke and shadows. Anyhow, a sign that ETW is still breathing, and CA hasn't switched over to make Tellthegamersnothing Total War.

Edit :
1. The battlefield in the zoomed out screen does not look any more expansive than the ones in M2TW ~:(
2. Like Raz has mentioned, the formations seem as rigid and unnatural as in RTW.

Furious Mental
05-10-2008, 07:29
Coumns were basically for rapid movement across the battlefield and charging. The 4-2 man line maximised firepower. This was central to infantry tactics throughout the period and if the game doesn't reflect this land battles will just be plain ridiculous.

Matt_Lane
05-10-2008, 10:56
CA have already said we will get column, line and square formations. The troops in the screen shots aren't in any of these, they are just grouped together but apart from this I'm well happy. I like the look at the lighting and shading (My graphics card isn't though). The smoke looks good and I was pleased to see Horse Artillery included. Unit size looks to be about the same as M2TW although I had hoped we might see sergeants as well as officers.

PBI
05-10-2008, 11:13
Bit surprised that the soldiers all seem to have different uniforms. This made sense in M2TW, when I believe each man was responsible for providing his own equipment but surely by the 18th century uniforms were, well, uniform.

Furious Mental
05-10-2008, 11:21
The ratio of width to length in those pictures is that of a 'closed column'/'colonne serre'. Despite what the word 'column' would suggest, a column could be wider than it was long. By definition a 'line' is 1 to 3 ranks deep, or 4 staggered ranks- the whole purpose of it is to enable all ranks to fire simultaneously. There were probably still some armies that were still using matchlocks and compensating for the slow rate of fire by using deep formations and countermarching, but by the time the game began Gustav Adolphus's linear tactics were well established all over Europe. In any case I see no evidence of countermarching in those screenshots.

But apparently 'lines' and columns' are not distinct formations after all and it is up to you drag and drop them. So I strongly suspect that 'column' will offer none of its historical benefits in terms of momentum and shock on attack, morale, mobility, manoueverability, or speed of conversion into square, most likely making it completely worthless.

Raz
05-10-2008, 12:10
Have you not noticed that these days - Graphics > Gameplay...
(Joking, joking... ~:joker:)

CBR
05-10-2008, 12:23
Coumns were basically for rapid movement across the battlefield and charging. The 4-2 man line maximised firepower. This was central to infantry tactics throughout the period and if the game doesn't reflect this land battles will just be plain ridiculous.
CA has so far never managed to make realistic troop movement and deployment in earlier titles so why should it be different in ETW.

Im sure there is a column special formation with uber bayonet/melee bonus but column for movement and maneuvering...lets just say I will be pleasantly surprised if that happens.


CBR

Furious Mental
05-10-2008, 13:06
They have already said that there isn't. Apparently a 'column' is just a line that you don't bother to drag out very far. No different to the way it is now then.

Wandarah
05-10-2008, 13:54
They look mighty fine if you ask me.

But you didnt.

Perhaps you should think about doing so, though. It's not easy being alone, here in the dark, talking to myself and making friends out of used tissues and cucumber rinds.

Veho Nex
05-10-2008, 16:41
Time for another upgrade....

Rhyfelwyr
05-10-2008, 17:46
Wandarah, what do you think of those screenshots?

They look nice graphically. Although that first screenshot isn't exactly how I imagined a ETW-era battle. Are they trying to form a Roman Manipular?

Also didn't the troops in the front row lie down. Then second row kneeling, third row standing? Plus the formations seem strangely deep.

CBR
05-10-2008, 17:49
Also didn't the troops in the front row lie down. Then second row kneeling, third row standing? Plus the formations seem strangely deep.
Early part of this era the front rank was kneeling (at least according to drill) but later on it wasnt used.


CBR

Furious Mental
05-10-2008, 18:26
A kneeling soldier presented a smaller target, but it was found that once soldiers were kneeling they didn't want to move. You could also have two ranks kneeling and two ranks standing, but staggered. Staggered ranks were awkward however, especially with backpacks. A deeper line also meant more casualties from cannon balls.

Templar Knight
05-10-2008, 19:10
They look nice for Alpha, although the formations should be tighter :2thumbsup:

Mailman653
05-10-2008, 20:04
They look stiff to me, but it is a work in progress after all. Very nice to see finally.

Belgolas
05-10-2008, 20:32
Guys stop complaining. This is only an alpha version and a CA representative said that there are men the kneel and there are officers in later versions. Plus this is probably a multilayer battle where everything is controlled by humans so that means if you want to have a line formation you can. Just because there isn't a line formation in those screens doesn't mean you can't drag to make your own.

Remember this is alpha.

Merdan
05-10-2008, 23:18
Jack Lusted means that the first lines can be kneel, i hope the realism is better then in the other tw-titels. These first shots give me the answer. I buy the game!:yes:

Anonymous II
05-11-2008, 00:32
Bit surprised that the soldiers all seem to have different uniforms. This made sense in M2TW, when I believe each man was responsible for providing his own equipment but surely by the 18th century uniforms were, well, uniform.

I agree on this one.

Zenicetus
05-11-2008, 01:11
Battle damage looks nice on the sail combat views, but.... ugh, they're still showing ships sailing directly into the wind:

http://static.gamesradar.com/images/mb//GamesRadar/us/Games/E/Empire%20Total%20War/Bulk%20Viewers/2008-05-09/PCG188.feat_empire.grab3--screenshot.jpg

Either that, or the U.S. ship is in irons, which would be suicidal tactics at that range. It's also in the middle of a battle with most of its sails furled?? :inquisitive:

The blocks of soldiers in land combat look weird to me, too. Very RTW/M2TW-like, and not at all what I expected.

Divinus Arma
05-11-2008, 01:57
I noticed some grape shot damage to the hull on one of the ships. If that was materially created as a result of in-game dynamics rather than simply a painted appearance on a typical ship, than hoo-ray!

The formations do seem awfully deep. They look like Rome units with Guns.

And why would the ENTIRE unit, eight rows back, be "at the ready", in a position ready to strike? It reminds me of the Rome charge when the entire unit would raise its weapon above its head and robot-army run to battles. I hoped they would have "revolutionized" past that.


Otherwise, I am happy to see some land battles. Looking pretty good all-in-all. This will be interesting.

Furious Mental
05-11-2008, 05:05
Actually the only time armies looked like card board cut outs was on the parade ground. On campaign it was make do or mend. On top of that, a lot of men eschewed uniform changes and used whatever suited them.

People are saying 'oh it's alpha don't be so harsh'. Well the game is supposedly going to be released in less than six months.

Wandarah
05-11-2008, 10:39
Wandarah, what do you think of those screenshots?

They look nice graphically. Although that first screenshot isn't exactly how I imagined a ETW-era battle. Are they trying to form a Roman Manipular?

Also didn't the troops in the front row lie down. Then second row kneeling, third row standing? Plus the formations seem strangely deep.

i think they look totally sweet.

the formations can be adjusted as they've always been able to in the past.

once again, i would like to reiterate - they look totally sweet.

Furious Mental
05-11-2008, 11:31
That is my gripe with it. Apparently rather than getting a specific column formation which actually offers any advantage we just get to drag out a deeper line, which is totally pointless.

PBI
05-11-2008, 11:53
Maybe they just haven't gotten around to doing the formation commands yet?

Although, in all TW games so far there has been a tradeoff between increasing the width of a unit to maximise its firepower, and increasing its depth to make it more robust. I don't see why this can't be the same in Empire, the differences are more just stark but the tradeoff is the same.

Furious Mental
05-11-2008, 12:47
Well a developer said in TWC: 'Just they way they're deployed. Square is ingame, and line and column are just a matter of unit depth and width'

The way I interpret that comment is that there is no specific column or line formation. Frankly I find that quite disappointing because I very much doubt that they will have programmed a deeper formation to have many of the advantages of a dense column, to whit:
- It is very reassuring to be in a big group;
- It moves and manouevres much faster;
- It gets much more momentum behind it when charging;
- It is scary to have it charge at you;

Belgolas
05-11-2008, 19:58
Actually the only time armies looked like card board cut outs was on the parade ground. On campaign it was make do or mend. On top of that, a lot of men eschewed uniform changes and used whatever suited them.

People are saying 'oh it's alpha don't be so harsh'. Well the game is supposedly going to be released in less than six months.
well we don't know the exact date of these photos. What if they released these photos to the public but they are 6 months old.

Csargo
05-12-2008, 01:34
The columns seem a little deep, but that may be how they wanted it. Other than that they look nice and I'm glad we've finally got some land battle screenies.

Ulstan
05-12-2008, 03:36
I mean, troops in column exchanging musket fire?

They did this right up to the American Civil War, then discovered that Napoleon era tactics with rifled muskets meant mass carnage.

Certainly for the time period the game covers massed infantry is entirely appropriate.

The british were really the only power that favored the long thin lines of troops - other nations would go for more heavily massed formations. See the endless debates over the british line vs french column formations during the napoleonic wars.

Zenicetus
05-12-2008, 04:39
i think they look totally sweet.

the formations can be adjusted as they've always been able to in the past.


Uh, yeah... but you can't adjust the enemy AI's formations. It will be a silly game if AI armies don't form up in at least some semblance of the way they actually fought at the time.

A deeper issue is that one of the major problems with the RTW/M2TW game engine, is the way an army tends to fight not as a cohesive whole, but as "every unit for itself," with no relation to the unit on each side or nearby. If there's anything I was looking forward to in this game (assuming the copy protection isn't too Draconian to be worth buying it), it's better cohesion and cooperation of units in the battle line. I'm not seeing it in that one screenie where they're all broken into separate deep-rank blocks, but maybe it's still too early to judge. Or maybe that was a dispersed battle line in the process of re-forming, or something. I'm trying to keep an open mind.

Alexander the Pretty Good
05-12-2008, 04:46
While it looks pretty, I want a demo! Guilty before proven innocent! Grah rah grumble

Csargo
05-12-2008, 04:51
While it looks pretty, I want a demo! Guilty before proven innocent! Grah rah grumble

The game isn't scheduled for release until November. A demo will probably come out a couple of months before the release.

CBR
05-12-2008, 04:58
They did this right up to the American Civil War, then discovered that Napoleon era tactics with rifled muskets meant mass carnage.

Certainly for the time period the game covers massed infantry is entirely appropriate.

The british were really the only power that favored the long thin lines of troops - other nations would go for more heavily massed formations. See the endless debates over the british line vs french column formations during the napoleonic wars.
Uhm no. A battalion in column were not meant for exchanging fire. It was not used like that in Age of Reason, Napoleonic Wars nor American Civil War.

The Brits used lines and columns pretty much like everyone else did at the time of the Napoleonic Wars. The main difference was a more extensive use of 2 rank than 3 rank line.

For more general info:
http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/infantry_tactics_4.htm

And about line versus column
http://www.napoleon-series.org/military/organization/maida/c_maida.html


CBR

Furious Mental
05-12-2008, 06:29
Yes. Up until the mid 17th century musketeers and arquebusiers typically fought in deep columns because it offered better defense both through depth and proximity to pikemen, and combined with rotating fire allowed them to keep up a steady barrage. However by the time Empire begins this mode of firing had been given up completely for the 4-2 rank line, which maximised battlefield coverage and the firepower of handier, faster reloading flintlocks; the ability to fire in units from platoon all the way up to battalion meant that they could choose constant fire or a massive devastating volley.

PBI
05-12-2008, 10:47
Well a developer said in TWC: 'Just they way they're deployed. Square is ingame, and line and column are just a matter of unit depth and width'

The way I interpret that comment is that there is no specific column or line formation. Frankly I find that quite disappointing because I very much doubt that they will have programmed a deeper formation to have many of the advantages of a dense column, to whit:
- It is very reassuring to be in a big group;
- It moves and manouevres much faster;
- It gets much more momentum behind it when charging;
- It is scary to have it charge at you;

I don't see why they wouldn't do this, it seems to me it would be easy enough to program a unit to have all these advantages (+morale, +charge bonus etc) when the formation is more than a certain number of men deep.

I'd be very surprised if a deep formation conferred no special advantages, it has in previous titles.

Intrepid Sidekick
05-12-2008, 11:03
I'm amazed that people think that they can tell what units are going to be capable of from a still shot. This is a relatively old shot of the game.

FYI There are intrinsic combat benefits to having units in different formation widths and depths. Those benefits alter according to the training of your units. As in our previous games we have different combat adjustments according to unit density and depths etc

An basic example of an intrinsic gameplay benefit is: A thin line provides greater fire power than a column. But a column is more useful for attacking a line unit in melee etc. There are a number of other gameplay effects but I'm not going to go in to those here.

Africanvs
05-12-2008, 12:05
I wonder what kind of beast will be needed to run this.

Slyspy
05-12-2008, 13:26
Battle damage looks nice on the sail combat views, but.... ugh, they're still showing ships sailing directly into the wind:

http://static.gamesradar.com/images/mb//GamesRadar/us/Games/E/Empire%20Total%20War/Bulk%20Viewers/2008-05-09/PCG188.feat_empire.grab3--screenshot.jpg

Either that, or the U.S. ship is in irons, which would be suicidal tactics at that range. It's also in the middle of a battle with most of its sails furled?? :inquisitive:

The blocks of soldiers in land combat look weird to me, too. Very RTW/M2TW-like, and not at all what I expected.

Generally speaking a ship in a fight of that nature would be under minimum sail in order to free up crewmen and in order to minimize the risk of fire. Going into irons, while extremely risky, could and did happen. Usually, of course, by accident.

Furious Mental
05-12-2008, 14:51
"I'm amazed that people think that they can tell what units are going to be capable of from a still shot. This is a relatively old shot of the game."

Actually I was going by what one of your fellow staff said.

Intrepid Sidekick
05-12-2008, 17:09
And they are getting a jolly good telling off for being very wrong. :)

Wasnt having a go at you furious. Sorry if you felt that way. :embarassed:

Whoever it was (from our side) isnt aware of some inbuilt stuff obviously. No big thing. This project is so huge that nobody can know it all. There is more than a visual difference between lines and columns.

Furious Mental
05-12-2008, 17:29
No worries. I don't mean to say we've been misled- I'm just saying I'm going by what little we know. If I'm wrong and there's more to it, good.

Zenicetus
05-12-2008, 17:55
Generally speaking a ship in a fight of that nature would be under minimum sail in order to free up crewmen and in order to minimize the risk of fire.

I disagree. I take your point about minimizing damage for sails that aren't actually needed, but the sails are the ship's "engine," and you'd want enough way on to maneuver under the prevailing sea and wind conditions. It might make sense to fight mostly reefed like that in a gale, but notice how the other ship has full sail on. That's what doesn't make sense.


Going into irons, while extremely risky, could and did happen. Usually, of course, by accident.

Arrrhhhh, not on MY fleet! Or I'll have the captain in a different sort of "irons." :ballchain: More to the point, I hope we won't be fighting AI captains that don't know how to tack in combat, and that there's a semi-realistic wind/sea model that actually requires it.

Jack Lusted
05-12-2008, 17:55
No worries. I don't mean to say we've been misled- I'm just saying I'm going by what little we know. If I'm wrong and there's more to it, good.

More a case of me not being very clear in my posts :oops: .

IS has elaborated on it a bit for now, but I'm sure we'll clear everything up later.

YellowMelon
05-13-2008, 00:48
Very impressive graphics...but im worried that this will impact lag on MP. I mean people can't even handle M2TW, what will happen with these pant-shrinking visuals!

Please, Jack, don't make me a sad melon!

Or I'll leak citric acid in everyone's eyes and they will share my sorrow!

BeeSting
05-13-2008, 01:22
It is a TOTAL revision of history to think that melee combat played much role in that era... most of the wounds were from musket fires and not bayonets. Generals of that time much preferred to exchange fires till one side broke and ran. Doesn't CA have any historians keeping their fantasy games "somewhat" in line with history?

Alexander the Pretty Good
05-13-2008, 01:25
I just hope the AI has been informed of the instrinsic benefits of varying depths of infantry.

Jedi Bruno
05-13-2008, 01:39
If those screens are old, I can't wait for the new ones!
I'm gonna love this game!

BeeSting
05-13-2008, 04:32
I'm amazed that people think that they can tell what units are going to be capable of from a still shot. This is a relatively old shot of the game.

FYI There are intrinsic combat benefits to having units in different formation widths and depths. Those benefits alter according to the training of your units. As in our previous games we have different combat adjustments according to unit density and depths etc

An basic example of an intrinsic gameplay benefit is: A thin line provides greater fire power than a column. But a column is more useful for attacking a line unit in melee etc. There are a number of other gameplay effects but I'm not going to go in to those here.

18th century european war was about firepower and blasting away the opponent, and best to achieve that per regiment was linear formation, a long line of two to four ranks deep. 90 percent of wounds at this time were from musket shots. your alluding to the benefit of depth of formation suggests to me that CA is still implementing RTW and MTW melee combat mechanics.... my suggestion: make things simple and limit formations to 2-4 lines deep for a unit/regiment, which i'm sure the AI will have much easier time applying.

If one desires added benefit of deeper ranks it should be of stacking said line units and not stretching a single unit to 4 plus ranks deep, for units behind it boost morale and confidence as having a back up, not unlike the mechanics applied by Sid Meier's civil war games.

Furious Mental
05-13-2008, 05:28
Actually that would not make much sense because movement and manouevres were frequently done in a column, and in the latter part of the century the attack column came into use. Also it would ignore the fact that everywhere else in the world plenty of people were still fighting with medieval weapons. Also it would totally constrain modding scenarios based on earlier periods. We should have the discretion to make deep columns (without having to commit a quarter of our infantry to one) or thin lines, provided they each offer worthwhile advantages.

But I think we'd all like to see some screenshots showing some lines and the effect of a volley too!

Csargo
05-13-2008, 06:00
Happy Birthday BeeSting!!! :cake:

BeeSting
05-13-2008, 08:06
Wow! Thank you, Ichigo.... can't believe i'm 35 already and have been playing Total War games for almost 8 years.

BeeSting
05-13-2008, 08:20
Actually that would not make much sense because movement and manouevres were frequently done in a column, and in the latter part of the century the attack column came into use. Also it would ignore the fact that everywhere else in the world plenty of people were still fighting with medieval weapons. Also it would totally constrain modding scenarios based on earlier periods. We should have the discretion to make deep columns (without having to commit a quarter of our infantry to one) or thin lines, provided they each offer worthwhile advantages.

But I think we'd all like to see some screenshots showing some lines and the effect of a volley too!

Good point. but movement and maneuvers are hardly represented in tw games because from the start of a battle, you have already set your units in line of battle.

And about deep columns, i'm mainly concerned with the AI not taking advantage of the revolution in fire power of 2-4 rank lines. I believe it's all in the modifiable scripting for battle formation so i didn't mean for it to be hard coded.

i think we are having a constructive discussion here so let's keep it going.

Intrepid Sidekick
05-13-2008, 10:59
The AI will be aware of the need for different formations and their benefits.
We aren't joking when we say we have an AI programmer working purely on land battle AI tactics. AI unit behaviour coding is, virtualy, a never ending task.

As I said its way to much to go in to here. Sadly I have work to do now :whip:

Raz
05-13-2008, 11:14
Oh, in some ways... I'd rather you just type how good this game will be, rather than you work on it... even if the result of that would be no game at all. ~:joker:

Rick
05-13-2008, 14:32
The columns seem a little deep, but that may be how they wanted it. Other than that they look nice and I'm glad we've finally got some land battle screenies.

Assuming that this game represents a historical period beginning with 1700 (the Marlboroughian era) and that each figure represents one to five men (dare to dream), historically between 1700 and 1750(ish) the French were still using a five rank line.

Of course, I am in the dark as to what the designers intentions are with respect to scale and formation innovations that will be programmed into the game to occur over time span of the game.

To that end, it be great if the designers, from time to time, could present us with a a more detailed developement diary and explain the nuances of the game as it gets closer to the actual release date.

Ulstan
05-13-2008, 17:15
Uhm no. A battalion in column were not meant for exchanging fire. It was not used like that in Age of Reason, Napoleonic Wars nor American Civil War.

The Brits used lines and columns pretty much like everyone else did at the time of the Napoleonic Wars. The main difference was a more extensive use of 2 rank than 3 rank line.

The formations pictured in the screenshots are not columns at all, but lines. Their depth is entirely appropriate for the period (early 1700's) depending on what the formation was trying to accomplish. Only the british, as I said, specialized in the very thin very long line to maximize fire power. Other nations went with much more massed formations which would be closer to squares in shape. And they did indeed exchange musketry fire while in these formations.

Of course, musketry fire was not very effective and was not the primary means of winning battle. Typically forces didn't advance solely for the purpose of exchanging fire at all, but rather to charge or repel the enemy and sieze a key piece of ground.

The napoleonic wars were not fought as a series of long thing lines of troops engaging in extended musketry duels, and it would be historically inaccurate to portray it as such.

Ulstan
05-13-2008, 17:22
It is a TOTAL revision of history to think that melee combat played much role in that era... most of the wounds were from musket fires and not bayonets. Generals of that time much preferred to exchange fires till one side broke and ran. Doesn't CA have any historians keeping their fantasy games "somewhat" in line with history?

I think that is mostly backwards. Lengthy fire fights are a product of the ACW, and not of the Napoleonic Wars (or any time period before). The primary form of attack up through the Napoleonic Wars was a charge to melee, often using a massed column of infantry (unless you were British). The French were best known for their extremely attack columns but after the the thrashing they received at French hands, even the Austrians adopted a similar formation when they revamped their army in 1809.

Extended firing back and forth was role of skirmishers, and they weren't all that lethal at it. Reading accounts of the battles in the NW, time after time after time the forces are described as advancing, firing a volley, then charging. Sometimes even the defenders wait until the attackers are in range, fire a volley, then launch their own counter charge.

The fact that often their enemies would break and run doesn't mean that bayonet charges were useless, it means they were even MORE feared than musketry fire, and thus likely correspondingly more dangerous. If a soldier is willing to stand and endure musketry fire, but gets the hell out of dodge when a bayonet charge comes his way, the only conclusion you can come to is that the bayonet was a more lethal killing weapon than the musket ball - which for that time period, was true. Muskets were terribly inaccurate, which is why most of the attacks didn't rely on musket fire to get the defenders to move, but rather closed for hand to hand fighting.

Csargo
05-13-2008, 17:50
Assuming that this game represents a historical period beginning with 1700 (the Marlboroughian era) and that each figure represents one to five men (dare to dream), historically between 1700 and 1750(ish) the French were still using a five rank line.

Of course, I am in the dark as to what the designers intentions are with respect to scale and formation innovations that will be programmed into the game to occur over time span of the game.

To that end, it be great if the designers, from time to time, could present us with a a more detailed developement diary and explain the nuances of the game as it gets closer to the actual release date.

You are probably right, I know only a small amount about the actual tactics of the time.

BeeSting
05-13-2008, 17:51
This is almost completely backwards. Lengthy fire fights are a product of the ACW, and not of the Napoleonic Wars (or any time period before). The primary form of attack up through the Napoleonic Wars was a charge to melee, using a massed column of infantry (unless you were British). You'd go up, fire a volley or two, and then charge.

If your hypothesis was true, you wouldn't have French Columns of infantry bayonet charging everyone throughout the Napoleonic wars, yet this is exactly what happened. Extended firing back and forth was role of skirmishers, and they weren't all that lethal at it.

The fact that often their enemies would break and run doesn't mean that bayonet charges were useless, it means they were even MORE feared than musketry fire, and thus likely correspondingly more dangerous. If a soldier is willing to stand and endure musketry fire, but gets the hell out of dodge when a bayonet charge comes his way, the only conclusion you can come to is that the bayonet was a more lethal killing weapon than the musket ball.

Where are you getting these ideas? Then how do you explain the consensus from military history books that majority, 80-90% of casualties, were from musket shots? Bayonet charges into enemy ranks were not common and they were done only when the other side was starting to show signs of breaking up. It was the rate of fire and discipline to maintain it under fire that won the day, not bayonets. The development of bayonets was to replace pikes, which was largely used as deterrence to cavalry charges.

Ulstan
05-13-2008, 18:04
Bayonet charges into enemy ranks were not common and they were done only when the other side was starting to show signs of breaking up.

This is simply not true. Read the accounts of the officers actually at the battles. Probably the most used phrase is "they fired a volley and then charged with the bayonet". Often times regiments will simply charge and not even bother to fire a volley.

Even if this was true, it would merely confirm my statement that the musketry fire was aimed at disrupting the opponent and the bayonet charge was used to force the issue and finish them off/drive them from the field.

If musketry was 'better' than bayonet charges, you wouldn't bayonet charge when your opponent was starting to show signs of breaking, you'd keep doing your musketry thing as there'd be no point to switching to a less lethal and less effective form of combat.

Charges to melee by infantry were extremely common and arguably the *most common* form of attack to seize ground. The idea that they were never used is rather implausible, especially considering that dozens of such charges might be launched back and forth to secure key areas like villages.

There *were* extended firefights (read, lasting about 10 minutes in the extreme cases) but these were far from the norm and usually occurred when the attackers had already lost a bit of their nerve and decided to engage the enemy in a shootout rather than pressing their bayonet charge. Theses cases usually resulted in a repulse for the attacker.

BeeSting
05-13-2008, 18:17
This is simply not true. Read the accounts of the officers actually at the battles. Probably the most used phrase is "they fired a volley and then charged with the bayonet". Often times regiments will simply charge and not even bother to fire a volley.

Even if this was true, it would merely confirm my statement that the musketry fire was aimed at disrupting the opponent and the bayonet charge was used to force the issue and finish them off/drive them from the field.

If musketry was 'better' than bayonet charges, you wouldn't bayonet charge when your opponent was starting to show signs of breaking, you'd keep doing your musketry thing as there'd be no point to switching to a less lethal and less effective form of combat.

Charges to melee by infantry were extremely common and arguably the *most common* form of attack to seize ground. The idea that they were never used is rather implausible, especially considering that dozens of such charges might be launched back and forth to secure key areas like villages.

As for the casualties issue, I doubt very much the reliability of those figures, given the well known inaccuracy of the musket. Are they ignoring artillery entirely? At any rate, if soldiers didn't die to bayonet charges as much because they fled as soon as such a charge came their way, that simply reinforces my point.

I don't want to argue numbers and facts since they speak for themselves. If you don't mind my suggestion, I think you should do some more reading and here's a good start:

Warfare in the Eighteenth Century by Jeremy Black

Ulstan
05-13-2008, 18:19
And regarding the casualties issue...The idea that 90% of all casualties in the napoleonic wars were caused by muskets is pretty absurd, given the inaccuracy of the weapons and how much damage was inflicted on formations by artillery while they were formed up and by cavalry after they dispersed.

Most of the casualty breakdowns are arrived at by totaling up the breakdowns of wound types in hospitals - all that tells us is which type of fighting is most likely to cause wounds, as dead men aren't admitted to the hospital.

Muskets probably had a very high proportion of wounds/deaths due to the inaccurate nature of musket fire.

Bayonets and swords, when used, probably had a very high proportion of deaths/wounds because you're not throwing your bayonet at a block of troops 90 yards away and hoping it hits someone, you're stabbing some guy in his torso to kill him. Either he evades the blow, or it lands and he dies.

Ulstan
05-13-2008, 18:22
I don't want to argue numbers and facts since they speak for themselves. If you don't mind my suggestion, I think you should do some more reading and here's a good start:

Warfare in the Eighteenth Century by Jeremy Black

I have done a great deal of reading. As, apparently, have you. It matters *what* one reads, however.

I tend to think the accounts of the officers that actually fought have a higher precedence over others opinions.

Here, for example, is Marshal Ney:


...
It would be better, therefore, after the two first ranks have fired, to charge boldly with the bayonet, and by an act of vigour force the enemy to retreat. The German soldier, formed by the severest discipline, is cooler than any other. Under such circumstances he would, in the end, obtain the advantage in this kind of firing, if it lasted long... These observatons are of a nature to urge colonels... to prepare and drill their men to attacks by main strength... a French commander ought never to hesitate in marching against the enemy with the bayonet, if the ground is at all adapted to a charge in line with one or more battalions at a time."

This isn't some armchair general writing years after the fact, that is one of Napoleons Marshals.

Are you still going to claim that charges simply almost never happened? Infantry launching a charge against other infantry was extremely common. In fact it was pretty much the default method of attack. To say that melee combat has no place in a game covering the NW is thus not very historically accurate. It may be that the enemy often didn't stick around to receive such an assault, but that simply emphasizes how much it was dreaded.

And it wasn't only used against after a long fire fight. A few examples ready to hand with the aid of google

"The French regiment formed close column with the grenadiers in front and closed the battalions ... They then advanced up the hill in the most beautiful order without firing a shot ... when about 30 paces distant our men (British) began to waver, being still firing ... The ensigns advanced 2 paces in front and planted the colors on the edge of the hill and officers steped out to encourage the men to meet them. They (British) stopped with an apparent determination to stand firm, the enemy (French) continued to advance at a steady pace and when quite close the Fusiliers gave way: - the French followed down the hill on our side."

-English Officer

""The French regiment came up the hill with a brisk and regular step, and their drums beating pas de charge: our men fired wildly and at random among them; the French never returned a shot, but continued their steady advance. The English fired again but still without return ... and when the French were close upon them, they wavered and gave way."

-John Burgoyne

"'Major-General Tsibulski, on horseback in full uniform, told me he couldn't keep his men under control. Over and over again they after exchanging a few shots with the Frenchmen in the cemetery tried to throw them out of it at bayonet point."

-Russian Officer in 1812

"Though hotly engaged at the time, I determined to watch their movements. The 88th Foot [Irish] next deployed into line, advancing all the time towards their opponents, who seemed to wait very coolly for them. When they had approached to within 300 or 400 yards, the French poured in a volley or I should say a running fire from right to left. As soon as the British regiment had recovered the first shock, and closed their files on the gap it had made, they commenced advancing at double time until within 50 yards nearer to the enemy, when they halted and in turn gave a running fire from their whole line, and without a moment's pause cheered and charged up the hill against them."

-Officer during the peninsula campaigns

BeeSting
05-13-2008, 18:49
I’m hesitant to argue verbatim and that charges never happened and deny the example from a general’s writing above. Simple fact is that concentration and rate of fire was the mainstay for causing disorganization and route then costly bayonet charges. It seems that this particular general was encouraging his subordinates to do what they were accustomed to do, which was exchanging of fire and hesitation of bayonet charges. Again, the numbers of casualty speak for themselves. And Napoleonic wars are speaking from a different era; yes, french army under his leadership have used more aggressive, unconventional tactics.

Ulstan
05-13-2008, 19:06
Again, the numbers of casualty speak for themselves.

No, they really don't. Casualties admitted to hospitals are not representative of casualties as a whole. For one thing, dead people aren't admitted to the hospital.

Your reasoning is that muskets were the main form of death dealing in the NW because about 70% of hospital cases had musket wounds, and that therefore melee combat is not to be considered, as it caused fewer hospital cases.

If your reasoning is correct, we may as well get rid of artillery and cavalry from the game entirely, because they also caused fewer wounds than muskets in the admitted hospital cases.

Attempting to close to melee was an incredibly common tactic for attacking infantry in the NW. That the enemy so rarely let them do this doesn't mean that tactic wasn't important or that it didn't happen, any more than the fact cavalry couldn't usually break formed infantry meant that cavalry was a useless and non-important aspect of the NW.


And Napoleonic wars are speaking from a different era; yes, french army under his leadership have used more aggressive, unconventional tactics.

Not really. There's more or less a linear path of accuracy and deadliness of firearms. The better and better firearms get, the less and less effective melee charges become. Melee charges and cavalry pretty much ruled the day when muskets were still in their early stages. In the Napoleonic eras they were still very important but muskets could also cause a lot of damage. By the time of the ACW rifled barrels and percussion caps had made things like cavalry and bayonet charges virtually suicidal.

As an aside, this is why I think the ACW would be so incredibly dull for a TW game - you have essentially infantry in line and artillery and that's it. NW has our arms of combat, artillery, cavalry, formed infantry, and skirmishers, and all were incredibly important and potent in their own ways on the battlefield. Not only that, infantry would adopt many different formations for many different battlefield situations!

Intrepid Sidekick
05-13-2008, 19:20
OK coming to the end of my working day so some more time to address points.

The unit sizes presented in the picture represent very early 18th Century combat formations. And in 1 to 5 scale as suggested by Rick.

Whether a unit uses ranked fire tactics, column tactics, line tactics or not will, as said before, depend on training, faction and unit type.

Some good points on both sides about Column, Line and the usefulness of melee and bayonets. But please, both sides, calm down a little. :) Finding the "truth" is always a complex thing and usually involves a much broader picture than anyone suspects.

As Ulstan points out,
Columns were useful for assault manoeuvres.
Lines were useful for maximising firepower.

Bayonet casualties varied from battle to battle and were different all across the periods between 1700 up to the end of the Napoleonic wars. The Battle of Culloden for example included a very bloody melee where the bayonet proved its usefulness.

As an example of the value and importance of the bayonet and melee; one of Napoleon's chief infantry tactics was to encourage his infantry to advance in column on the enemy and where possible briefly engage the enemy closely with musket and then charge with bayonet. And as Alexander Suvorov said: "attack with cold steel - push hard with the bayonet" and "The bullet is a fool, the bayonet is a fine chap". Two great generals with an exemplary battle record who both saw the bayonet as an important weapon in battle.

It is also true that advances would stall and become attritional exchanges of gunfire. But that was often, traditionally, regarded as a bad thing, except by Prussia and Britain who saw the opportunities and advantages, created by good weapons training, for armies without numbers on their side. That advantage was to infilict casualties on an enemy with superior numbers, prior to engagement in melee. Despite this approach, even those nations saw the psychological value of the bayonet charge as a "morale breaker". In fact Britain still does to this day - The last succesfull bayonet charge being carried out in Iraq in 2004 by the Prince of Wales Regiment and the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders. Does that mean guns weren't or arent useful? No, of course not. Does it mean that meleee with bayonet is pointless? Again, no.

We at CA have decided to take a more balanced approach. We haven't ignored the value of either of these arms of warfare of the period. Each element has its value and it's place in Empire Total War.

BeeSting
05-13-2008, 19:22
Ulstan:

Your knowledge of warfare seems to be limited to Napoleonic Wars, which is in early 19th century. The main time frame of the game is in the 18th century. And these numbers aren't pulled out of my ass. Please read that book I mentioned and i will introduce you to more so you can grasp a bigger picture of what happened then.

BeeSting
05-13-2008, 19:36
We at CA have decided to take a more balanced approach. We haven't ignored the value of either of these arms of warfare of the period. Each element has its value and it's place in Empire Total War.

I think that's the most reasonable approach. ~:cheers:

BeeSting
05-13-2008, 21:50
I didn't think the 80-90% casualty factor applied to the American frontier war but it apparently did according to this book: The Great Frontier War: Britain, France, and the Imperial Struggle for… http://books.google.com/books?id=DeZL5xYueMUC&pg=PA126&lpg=PA126&dq=percentage+of+musket+wounds&source=web&ots=s2kD1YOSTN&sig=Ox3HVGq7sVN9qBzS4XK1ESzmwVI&hl=en#PPA126,M1

“In all, musket balls accounted for about 80% of deaths and wounds, and cannon shots and shells about 10 percent. Bayonets were rarely used and accounted for only 9 percent of casualties.”

Alexander the Pretty Good
05-13-2008, 21:56
Jeremy Black
He actually spoke at my university on the Iraq war. ^_^

/sorry for off-topic

Rick
05-14-2008, 02:05
Some really great battles to study regarding all this would be, first, the Battle of Poltava (only because so much has been written about it, including the Russians using a 5 rank formation for its battalions) and, second, the Battle of Waterloo. Featherstones book on Firepower (not sure of the exact title) is a good one. And it lends some credence to what I've seen written in this thread so far.

CBR
05-14-2008, 02:29
The formations pictured in the screenshots are not columns at all, but lines.
Didnt say they were.


Their depth is entirely appropriate for the period (early 1700's) depending on what the formation was trying to accomplish. Only the british, as I said, specialized in the very thin very long line to maximize fire power.
The info I have on ranks used by various armies in WSS:
British/Dutch: 3
Austrian/Bavarian: 4
Various German states: 3-4
French: 4-5 (still using fire by rank)


Other nations went with much more massed formations which would be closer to squares in shape.
Battalions/regiments stopped looking similar to squares many decades earlier.


Of course, musketry fire was not very effective and was not the primary means of winning battle. Typically forces didn't advance solely for the purpose of exchanging fire at all, but rather to charge or repel the enemy and sieze a key piece of ground.
And typically units engaged in firecombat and was stuck doing that as it was difficult to get the men forward after they started shooting. That doesnt mean there werent charges and even melee combat, but trying to go in against an undisrupted enemy generally meant a quick defeat. But a charge was an excellent way of routing a demoralised enemy that would otherwise have stayed put and kept on firing.


CBR

BananaBob
05-14-2008, 03:45
I'm interested in seeing some Jainessaries or other Ottoman troops.

Furious Mental
05-14-2008, 04:45
"
Muskets probably had a very high proportion of wounds/deaths due to the inaccurate nature of musket fire.

Bayonets and swords, when used, probably had a very high proportion of deaths/wounds because you're not throwing your bayonet at a block of troops 90 yards away and hoping it hits someone, you're stabbing some guy in his torso to kill him. Either he evades the blow, or it lands and he dies."

In fact that French surgeon Dominique Larrey studied the consequences of a 'bayonet fight' between the French and Russians (both of whom considered themselves masters of the weapon) and discovered that there were almost no casualties caused by it. Almost all of them had simply been shot with muskets at extremely close range in the melee. The extremely low proportion of casualties caused by bayonets generally also accords with the fact that actual melees were a rarety, especially in open field and especially between large bodies of troops. In the vast majority of cases, either the charging formation broke under musket fire or the other side ran away.

Aside from that, the fact is that it was only casualty rate, not the fatality rate, that mattered in terms of winning the battle. Arguably even to wound was in fact better than to kill because it because it gave soldiers who didn't want to be in the front line an excuse not to be there by carting people away from it- this was a well known phenomenon even if it doesn't feature heavily in patriotic accounts of glorious charges. And even if someone who had been hit by a musket ball lived (which was unlikely) they were not going to fight again.

"The info I have on ranks used by various armies in WSS:
British/Dutch: 3
Austrian/Bavarian
Various German states: 3-4
French: 4-5 (still using fire by rank)"

Sounds right to me. The depth and the proportion of depth to width of the formations in the screenshots is not that of a line.

Csargo
05-14-2008, 05:09
I would think that a bayonet thrust at someone would be easily parried because of the size of the weapon. Could anyone give me some incite into this?

If this is true then I would think that a bayonet charge would be a last resort or used to end a battle quickly if one side had an overwhelming superiority in numbers.

CBR
05-14-2008, 05:48
There are statistics from Paris Invalides in 1762:

Small arms: 68,7%
Swords: 14.7
Artillery: 13,4
Bayonets: 2.4

This is of course those who survived. Cavalry combat was noted for its many wounded but not many killed. Cannonballs and grapeshot were quite devastating so not many survived being hit by that. It might even be somewhat difficult to see the difference between a wound from a light cannister ball and a musket ball.

IMO bayonets overall meant more killed than wounded as it happened in melee where it was difficult to get away. But even if bayonets didnt kill or wound that many, compared to other weapons, doesnt mean they werent important. There are lots of examples of units melting away before contact so the act of charging had a big impact alone.


CBR

Furious Mental
05-14-2008, 08:31
Yeah but it was far, far more common for the bayonet charge to drive the enemy away before contact was made, especially in large field battles.

BeeSting
05-14-2008, 19:00
If you want a hybrid war (melee/gun powder), then the best time period to represent that was in the 16th and 17th centuries.

inaccuracy of muskets were made up by exchanging fire at 50 yards (unless you are a skirmisher firing a rifle) and the effect fired from massive volleys were devastating, it was enough in most cases to break the enemy line without having to engage with bayonets. Consequently the value of an infantry unit was its discipline to not flee and maintain order after receiving such blows. The best example of this discipline in 18th century was the Prussian infantry.

Napoleon was rather unconventional, however. When his opponents were expecting to exchange and withstand or outlast enemy fire, his men threw them off by moving in, after cannonading and skirmishing with an overwhelming concentration of forces in shock bayonet attacks against enemy flanks. This was a new way of fighting which ended an era that bulk of ETW time frame represents, the 18th century warfare largely defined by Marlborough and Frederick II.

So the argument.... we are comparing two different time periods or two different stages of development of European warfare. Yes, bayonet charges became conventional part of warfare from Napoleonic to American Civil wars, but majority of death and wounds were still caused by small arms, muskets and rifles.

Ulstan
05-14-2008, 20:30
The extremely low proportion of casualties caused by bayonets generally also accords with the fact that actual melees were a rarety, especially in open field and especially between large bodies of troops. In the vast majority of cases, either the charging formation broke under musket fire or the other side ran away.

Yes, but, as I said, that doesn't mean that bayonet charges were not important, did not occur, or that melee combat shouldn't' figure in the game (as people like Beesting are advocating).

Charges to melee were extremely common and very important. They were pretty much the primary means of shifting people off terrain you wanted to capture in the NW. The fact that the enemy usually fled from them indicates that they were considered much more deadly than musket fire.


The depth and the proportion of depth to width of the formations in the screenshots is not that of a line.

It is a formation wider than it is deep. Therefore, a line rather than a column.


inaccuracy of muskets were made up by exchanging fire at 50 yards (unless you are a skirmisher firing a rifle) and the effect fired from massive volleys were devastating

British officers calculated that in some Peninsular battles it took them about 460 rounds fired to cause one French casualty. And these are British troops in the Napoleonic wars, unarguably the best at actual fire drill in the heat of battle. And their weapons would be even more accurate than ones used in the early 1700's.

There were *occasional* instances of point blank (like, 20 yards) surprise fire being devastating, but the shooting back and forth at most ranges was shockingly ineffective.

Melee should have a very prominent place in these games, as it was highly relied upon and very effective up through the very end of the time period being covered. Some of the most iconic and vicious struggles of the NW were protracted hand to hand melees inside villages and towns and redoubts. It is simply an inarguable historical fact that **both** charges to melee and musketry exchanges were very important facets of infantry warfare during that time period.


but majority of death and wounds were still caused by small arms

You don't know that. We have figures from hospitals that says most hospital patients admitted were there because of small arms fire. This says nothing about people killed out right, or those too badly wounded to go to make it to hospitals, or not wounded enough to go to hospitals.

Anyway, as I said, that doesn't really mean much. If a bayonet charge routes your enemy while a desultory musket exchange doesn't, the bayonet charge is better even if does cause fewer casualties, and it would be a gross historical injustice of the highest order not to include it in a military simulation of that time frame.

Jolt
05-14-2008, 20:40
An basic example of an intrinsic gameplay benefit is: A thin line provides greater fire power than a column. But a column is more useful for attacking a line unit in melee etc. There are a number of other gameplay effects but I'm not going to go in to those here.

Ah, much like the great wedge formation in RTW, except that it did nothing.

Sol Invictus
05-14-2008, 20:40
That's the key though, actual melee combat usually only took place in rough or built-up terrain. In the open field, one side would usually balk before contact was made. I just hope we don't see armies using assault columns in the early part of the game. They should be a tech gained late in the game based on a Military Academy Building. The French only started experimenting with assault columns during the Seven Years War and it was never official doctrine until the Revolutionary period.

BeeSting
05-14-2008, 22:01
Ulstan:

Your reference is always limited to Napoleonic wars. And you have no source referring numbers.

Why do you always mention battlefield hospitals? My figures are of "dead and wounded".

Yours is an empirical reasoning from your prior concept which again seems to be limited to Napoleonic war, nevertheless void of facts. I am not arguing with you about the importance of bayonet charges, it had its place in tactics, more applied by French army and those armies copying it during and post Napoleonic wars..... And you are--with all due respect--absolutely ignorant to claim that bayonets were just as lethal as fire arms. any army hospital surgeon will readily prove my point that knife/bayonet wounds are easier to treat than musket ball/shot wounds; and like it or not, it was the major cause of death and life-long cripples even for your favorite war period.

Please read around more.

Csargo
05-14-2008, 22:28
Napoleon was rather unconventional, however. When his opponents were expecting to exchange and withstand or outlast enemy fire, his men threw them off by moving in, after cannonading and skirmishing with an overwhelming concentration of forces in shock bayonet attacks against enemy flanks. This was a new way of fighting which ended an era that bulk of ETW time frame represents, the 18th century warfare largely defined by Marlborough and Frederick II.

I believe Frederick the Great did something similar. I remember reading about him trying to roll up their flank. Sometimes it worked with devastating effect and others it didn't work at all and caused a large amount of casualties.

BeeSting
05-14-2008, 22:32
[QUOTE=Sol Invictus] They should be a tech gained late in the game based on a Military Academy Building. QUOTE]


I think it should be left at a player’s discretion in terms of being able to stretch and condense lines, and adapting to the context of game mechanics. You cannot maneuver around with a mile long line acutely assaulting enemy positions.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of development of assault columns was more for dislodging enemy's "fixed positions". Columns were vulnerable to enemy cannons.

Sol Invictus
05-14-2008, 23:07
There were two schools of thought that debated during and after the Seven Years War in French military circles; the proponents of traditional linear fire combat and the reformers who advocated the benefits of closing with the enemy quickly and deciding the issue with the bayonet. Other nations also had their debates as well. Frederick at times preferred going in with the bayonet as well; though while in Line. The Assault Column was believed to provide momentum to the advance and create mass that could carry the day. The linear proponents prevailed until the Revolutionary era; when mass conscripts were thrown into combat without the requisite training to pull off the difficult maneuvers of linear combat. Assault Columns were certainly more useful when attacking in or through rough terrain or built-up areas than a Line but was not limited to those situations.

One of the Devs mentioned that techs allowed certain abilities for units, so it seems that researching/investing in a military education building would be appropriate in order to allow certain maneuvers, formations, and abilities. I fear that if we players and the AI are allowed to create formations as desired as soon as the game starts, we will very often see the AI use Assault Colunms in the early 1700's. I think this will distort the feel of the battlefield by seeing and using formations and tactics before they were arrived at historicly. At a minimum, I hope that Assault Columns start out as less effective and become more beneficial later in the game as the tactics are developed. I hope Skirmishers are handled in a similar fastion.

BeeSting
05-14-2008, 23:37
It's always the AI..... but my hunch is that CA will nail it this time.

Mailman653
05-15-2008, 02:56
Ulstan:

Your knowledge of warfare seems to be limited to Napoleonic Wars, which is in early 19th century. The main time frame of the game is in the 18th century. And these numbers aren't pulled out of my ass. Please read that book I mentioned and i will introduce you to more so you can grasp a bigger picture of what happened then.

Plus going by one of those screen shots, that English flag is pre 1801 which means although the French Revolutionary wars were going on, Napoleon himself and everything that came with him would either not be included in the game or come at the very end. Although it's highly probable that it will get it's own expansion since that has been the trend recently :laugh4:

Furious Mental
05-15-2008, 06:05
"
It is a formation wider than it is deep. Therefore, a line rather than a column. "

No it isn't. By definition a line was thin enough for all ranks to bring their muskets to bear on the enemy. The formations depicted are not that thin. The proportion of depth to width is that of an assault column. It may conflict with the usage of the word 'column' in ordinary English, but the fact that is that an assault column was wider than it was deep. You can go to any resource on the subject and have this repeated to you ad nauseum.

O'ETAIPOS
05-15-2008, 10:29
As late as 1866 (Battle at Sadova) Austria army used almost exclusively bayonet charge as a mean of winning* battles. This was suplemented by artillery that was supposed to cause disruption. At that time Austrian had 2 balls per year for training. That tells something.

Now to casualties: melee fighting and shooting has completely different mechanic, and it is difficult to compare deaths/wounds.
It is obvious that majority of casualties were caused by shooting, as in melee losses almost never go above 10% of fighters. In fact it is usually much less, especially on the winner side. Even the loosers take no more than 20-30% losses, even in crushing defeat (with exception when they are surrounded). If both armies were able to keep fomation then losses in battle could be as small as 1-2% for both sides.

On the other hand shooting cause losses in all ranks, especially if units are in massed formation, when balls just have to hit somebody.

Not to mention that it is usually much easier to heal wounds from blades of various kinds than from bullets that commonly caused gangrene.

So, while losses from shooting may in fact be commonest it do not show that this way of fighting was dominant.

*Loosing, actually :grin:

pevergreen
05-15-2008, 10:53
Debating is all good, but remember: Attack the points, not the person.

No one has yet, but its come close.

(I have no knowledge of this time period, I am merely reading)

Digby Tatham Warter
05-15-2008, 12:54
As late as 1866 (Battle at Sadova) Austria army used almost exclusively bayonet charge as a mean of winning* battles. This was suplemented by artillery that was supposed to cause disruption. At that time Austrian had 2 balls per year for training. That tells something.
I'm reading some rather jolly book about the Franco/Prussian war, which includes the background of both armies.

It cites the Austrian use of artill as the main reason Prussia developed such a deadly artillary arm, ready for the war with France, because the Austrains in massing artill and keeping it near enough the front, were doing a great deal more than just disrupt. Some Prussian units suffered 50% loses in minutes under concentrated fire.

CBR
05-15-2008, 12:58
As late as 1866 (Battle at Sadova) Austria army used almost exclusively bayonet charge as a mean of winning* battles. This was suplemented by artillery that was supposed to cause disruption. At that time Austrian had 2 balls per year for training. That tells something.
Austrian economy was horrible so they could not afford proper training for their soldiers plus their badly trained soldiers made it easy for the French to charge home in the 1859 war. That just strengthened the Austrian belief that bayonet attacks in massed columns was the best approach.

Some officers changed their mind after the Second Schleswig War of 1864, but it was too late and too little to change anything as the combo of economics and simplicity of the bayonet charge was too alluring.

How economy and time could wash away the tactical lessons learned from earlier wars is incredible really.


CBR

BeeSting
05-15-2008, 18:37
You are right. I think I went a little too far. Apologies to Ulstan...


Debating is all good, but remember: Attack the points, not the person.

No one has yet, but its come close.

(I have no knowledge of this time period, I am merely reading)

Matt_Lane
05-15-2008, 19:49
Not to mention that it is usually much easier to heal wounds from blades of various kinds than from bullets that commonly caused gangrene.


I'm not sure about this. Bayonet drill generally calls for the blade to be driven into the opponents belly. The bayonets triangular profile leaves a gaping wound tract that doesn't close easily so the recipient would more as likely perish from blood loss on the field.

Musket strikes are generally random but with a higher proportion to the upper body. This meant that a smaller proportion are going to hit vital areas so the recipient has a greater chance at making it to a field hospital and thus effecting the causality statistics. If the ball hasn't shattered a bone or struck a vital organ then the main challenge for the surgeon is to remove the remains of the ball and clean the wound. Those that could afford it wore silk shirts so that the silk would contain the ball fragments, reducing the chance of infection.

Furious Mental
05-16-2008, 09:37
The triangular profile of the blade is simply to make it stronger. Any doctor can sew up a jagged wound. The actual evidence from contemporaries is that most wounds from bayonets were nasty because the victim was stuck with them not in the belly, but in the back, when they turned tail and ran away.

Pope Gregorius
05-16-2008, 15:53
No! cuz you know of course that wasnt that the whole point of napoleonic warfare at all....

Spankfurt
05-23-2008, 20:32
Now I can balete all the p0rn off my computer :)

aftzengeier
05-25-2008, 22:58
Some screens and a video I've never seen before - excuse me if they aren't new! :creep:

Link! (http://www.sega.de/games/?g=238%20&t=German)

Ticu
05-25-2008, 23:21
Dude, I love you for this! Thanks

Mailman653
05-26-2008, 01:37
Nice video, wonder if that means you can challenge and be challenged to duels by other generals/leaders.

pevergreen
05-26-2008, 12:44
Very interesting!

Seems as though they are using the same tech that LOTR used for Gollum to do the fighting, should look very good!

Divinus Arma
05-28-2008, 04:28
Some screens and a video I've never seen before - excuse me if they aren't new! :creep:

Link! (http://www.sega.de/games/?g=238%20&t=German)


Dude. You rock. Thank you!

Now THIS is the kind of new information I have been waiting for.

Way to go CA! God, I hope you get this AI right. I've been playing Rome and its mods since day one after playing MTW before that. You guys have a great opportunity to achieve something amazing here.

Csargo
05-28-2008, 07:37
I agree completely

Intrepid Sidekick
05-28-2008, 12:44
We are trying our very best. Duelling is between particular agent types on the campaign map. More will be revealed as time goes on.

As you can see though we are going the whole hog on combat animations for the battlefield too. The hand to hand fighting with swords and muskets etc and the different weapon loading animations rocks.:2thumbsup:

Templar Knight
05-28-2008, 23:03
It was mentioned sometime ago that the Jacobites would make an appearance if the situation was right and certain conditions were met. Are you able at this point to elaborate on this in terms of hand-to-hand fighting? Will the Jacobites from the highlands be portrayed historically as broadsword and targe armed? Will we see brutal hand-to-hand fighting between highlanders and British redcoats? If not will it be easily moddable? Cheers! :2thumbsup:

Furious Mental
05-29-2008, 04:06
Actually a minority of them used broadswords and fewer used the targe.

Templar Knight
05-29-2008, 13:06
Actually a minority of them used broadswords and fewer used the targe.

At the Battle of Killiecrankie 1689 there were still a large number of highlanders using the two-handed claymore. Into the 18th century most favoured the basket hilted broadsword and targe. Small numbers (by 1715 - Battle of Sheriffmuir and 1719 - Battle of Glenshiel) would carry the lochaber axe and muskets.

Furious Mental
05-29-2008, 15:24
Well things had obviously changed considerably by 1745 then.

anders
05-29-2008, 15:32
We are trying our very best. Duelling is between particular agent types on the campaign map. More will be revealed as time goes on.

As you can see though we are going the whole hog on combat animations for the battlefield too. The hand to hand fighting with swords and muskets etc and the different weapon loading animations rocks.:2thumbsup:


all these animations are way cool, and it all looked greeeaat on the video, but please, please dont let the pursuit of good looks take a front seat to making it a good STRATEGY game, with good grand strategical, and tactical, AI that behaves if not brilliantly, at least reasonably sensible.

please.

Martok
05-29-2008, 18:29
all these animations are way cool, and it all looked greeeaat on the video, but please, please dont let the pursuit of good looks take a front seat to making it a good STRATEGY game, with good grand strategical, and tactical, AI that behaves if not brilliantly, at least reasonably sensible.

please.
Seconded. :yes:

Divinus Arma
05-29-2008, 20:47
Seconded. :yes:

Thirded. :beam:

Ulstan
05-29-2008, 20:59
"
It is a formation wider than it is deep. Therefore, a line rather than a column. "

No it isn't. By definition a line was thin enough for all ranks to bring their muskets to bear on the enemy. The formations depicted are not that thin. The proportion of depth to width is that of an assault column. It may conflict with the usage of the word 'column' in ordinary English, but the fact that is that an assault column was wider than it was deep. You can go to any resource on the subject and have this repeated to you ad nauseum.


Actually, the assault columns were deeper than they were wide. That's why they were called 'columns' in the first place, rather than lines or squares.

An individual company or battalion within the column was usually deployed wider than it was deep, but the companies or battalions (depending on the size of the column) were stacked up behind each other while the frontage of the column would usually be only a single or at most two columns or battalions. There are many diagrams from the times available detailing this.

As far as the muskets vs bayonets issue goes, I remain unconvinced lists of patients admitted to hospitals are representative of overall battlefield fatalities. But more importantly, even if the musket ball caused more deaths than the bayonet, that doesn't mean bayonet charges should be excluded from the game.

Charges to melee were a frequent and important tactic commonly used by infantry throughout the Napoleonic period. It doesn't matter if the enemy stood to receive them or not - such charges were launched and the player should be able to launch similar charges. The enemy often fleeing from such an attack merely speaks to its perceived efficacy.

I don't see any justification for suggesting, as some have, that melee deserves no part in the game. That is as absurd as suggesting that musketry have no part in the game. Both were vitally important and I am glad that CA will be including both, making for a richer and more historically accurate game. :2thumbsup:

Templar Knight
05-29-2008, 22:44
Well things had obviously changed considerably by 1745 then.

So tell me what they carried at Prestonpans, Clifton Moor, Falkirk and Culloden?

Furious Mental
05-30-2008, 05:04
"Actually, the assault columns were deeper than they were wide. That's why they were called 'columns' in the first place, rather than lines or squares."

No it doesn't. All that 'line' denotes is that the companies or battalions are adjacent to each other. Put one behind the other and it became a column, whether or not the formation was then wider than it was deep. As I said above, the words had a technical meaning which bore little relation to how the words 'line' and 'column' are used in ordinary English.

"
As far as the muskets vs bayonets issue goes, I remain unconvinced lists of patients admitted to hospitals are representative of overall battlefield fatalities. But more importantly, even if the musket ball caused more deaths than the bayonet, that doesn't mean bayonet charges should be excluded from the game."

In fact I wasn't referring to lists of patients, but inspections of the battlefield. But you don't need to look at statistics. An examination of contemporary accounts reveals that actual bayonet fights rather than charges which drive the enemy away were by far the exception, especially in open field and between large bodies of soldiers.

"
So tell me what they carried at Prestonpans, Clifton Moor, Falkirk and Culloden?"

Mostly muskets.

Templar Knight
05-30-2008, 13:26
''Mostly muskets''

Any sources?

From what I have seen only the front rank men carried muskets most of the men behind them carried bladed weapons. When the highland charge began the highlanders would run at the enemy, the front rank men would fire a volley and then the rest would charge with bladed weapons.

Most of the sources I have read state that the broadsword was still the main weapon by 1745/46, although there were large numbers of firearms than in previous risings.

Cumberland’s bayonet tactic, although remains open to question, was developed to strike the highlanders using their main weapon, the broadsword. When they raised their swords above their heads to strike, the redcoat would attack the highlander to his right, not the one in front, relying on his comrade to his left to cover him. Therefore hitting the highland on his unprotected right rather than attacking him head-on and getting the bayonet stuck in the targe.

Culloden, the highlander’s last charge - John Sadler
The 45 - Christopher Duffy
1745, A military History - Stuart Reid
Jacobite Rebellion, 1689-1746, Men at Arms
Fortress Scotland and the Jacobites, Historic Scotland - Doreen Grove, and C.J. Tabraham
The Jacobite Wars: Scotland and the Military Campaigns of 1715 and 1745 - John L. Roberts

Furious Mental
05-30-2008, 17:56
Well the primary evidence is:
- Regulations in Jacobite armies making clear that the obligations of leaders to maintain armies primarily meant supplying them with flintlocks;
- British records of arms seized or amnestied following Jacobite defeats; and
- Tallies of weapons recovered from dead Jacobites on the field of Culloden itself; 750 dead Jacobites were individually counted, and only 200 broad swords.

This generally accords with the fact that every victory delivered increased quantities of British weaponry, and of course thousands of guns were delivered to from France and Spain (whose advisers were certainly not teaching the recipients of those guns how to fight with broad swords).

Ulstan
05-30-2008, 19:38
No it doesn't. All that 'line' denotes is that the companies or battalions are adjacent to each other. Put one behind the other and it became a column, whether or not the formation was then wider than it was deep. As I said above, the words had a technical meaning which bore little relation to how the words 'line' and 'column' are used in ordinary English.

...

I really think we're arguing the same thing here. That's exactly what I said. When the battalions are arranged into a formation deeper than they are wide (which is what happens when you stack them), it's a column. When they are arranged side by side so that they are wider than they are deep, it's a line. Moreover, I am speaking exactly of that technical meaning you keep referring to. Military formations are the only usage of the terms line and column where width vs depth comes into play. In ordinary English, the height of a line or the width of a column are completely irrelevant. What I'm talking about IS their technical meaning.



In fact I wasn't referring to lists of patients

The only figures I have seen posted in this thread is from a list of patients in a hospital.


An examination of contemporary accounts reveals that actual bayonet fights rather than charges which drive the enemy away were by far the exception

I've already said this too, at least as far as open field fighting is concerned. I can only conclude you're trying to argue that there shouldn't be any bayonet charges in the game at all, which would be a gross travesty of historical accuracy.

Templar Knight
05-30-2008, 22:34
Well the primary evidence is:
- Regulations in Jacobite armies making clear that the obligations of leaders to maintain armies primarily meant supplying them with flintlocks;
- British records of arms seized or amnestied following Jacobite defeats; and
- Tallies of weapons recovered from dead Jacobites on the field of Culloden itself; 750 dead Jacobites were individually counted, and only 200 broad swords.

This generally accords with the fact that every victory delivered increased quantities of British weaponry, and of course thousands of guns were delivered to from France and Spain (whose advisers were certainly not teaching the recipients of those guns how to fight with broad swords).

Interesting numbers. Do you have any sources I could look up?

Furious Mental
05-31-2008, 06:16
"When the battalions are arranged into a formation deeper than they are wide (which is what happens when you stack them), it's a column. When they are arranged side by side so that they are wider than they are deep, it's a line. Moreover, I am speaking exactly of that technical meaning you keep referring to."

Well you are conflating putting companies or battalions behind each other with making the formation deeper than it is wide. It may in fact end up deeper than it is wide. But it will not necessarily be so.

"
The only figures I have seen posted in this thread is from a list of patients in a hospital. "

Napoleon's surgeon Charrey inspected hospitals. He also inspected the battlefields themselves, so there you go.

"I can only conclude you're trying to argue that there shouldn't be any bayonet charges in the game at all, which would be a gross travesty of historical accuracy."

Why would you conclude that? I said bayonet fights were uncommon. I didn't say anything about charges.