View Full Version : Yipeeeee ! Dismountable Units
amritochates
08-27-2008, 08:57
Yes! Yes! Yes! Dismountable Units ala MTW albeit better are back again.
Quote:
For example, cavalry units like Dragoons are actually mounted Calvary units with sabres, they're able to ride in and fight battles and then dismount load their rifles and start shooting, before mounting up again and moving. So they fight both melee and ranged combat
Ps. anyone actually seen this in screenshots yet ??
From the new reviews.
As a bonus my recommended specs for ETW:
OS
Operating System Windows XP or Windows Vista
Processor
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.2 GHz, or AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+
Memory
2 GB RAM
Graphics Card
NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS 640MB or ATI 2900XT 512MB
Sound Card
Sound Hardware DirectX 9.0c compliant card
Ps. these are the recommended specs for Crysis- IMHO anything that can run Crysis at maximum settings will also run ETW at max.:beam:
Rhyfelwyr
08-27-2008, 14:22
Yep this is one heck of a feature. Can't wait to try it in the demo! Please don't just be naval battles...
Flying Pig
08-27-2008, 19:13
errr... less pleased. Tactically, if I dismount cavalry and start a firefight, my horses are going to run away and I'll lose a great unit
errr... less pleased. Tactically, if I dismount cavalry and start a firefight, my horses are going to run away and I'll lose a great unit
I thought horses of the kind that were taken into battle were trained to bear all this stuff, crowds, yelling, gunshots and stuff?
How else does a group of horsmen charge into a formation firing at them otherwise?
Sheogorath
08-28-2008, 04:48
Typically horsemen DIDN'T charge into a large formation of men who were firing at them.
Cavalry in this era was NOT the beat-all-end-all it was in the MTW era. It was, actually, approaching obsolescence. A frontal charge against trained infantry was suicide. And even almost unprotected cannons could inflict serious damage of charging cavalry (Light Brigade, anybody?)
Cavalry's use by this point was generally limited to flanking and running down routers. REALLY heavy cavalry and lancers MIGHT risk a frontal charge against an enemy that was already wavering, but if the infantry stood their ground and fought back, they would almost certainly win. A pointy bit of metal on a stick is very effective against a target as big as a horse and cavalryman.
Although, given, troops would have to be well trained to hold against the sight of a hundred men in funny hats screaming and bearing down on them with swords and suchlike.
Hm cavalry were hardly the "the beat-all-end-all" in the time of MTW nor can it be considered to be anywhere near obsolescence in the time of ETW. Its main strength has always been its mobility that meant quick flank/counter attacks.
CBR
Sheogorath
08-28-2008, 05:09
The standard use of the bayonet was the beginning of the end for cavalry. I said 'approaching', though. After the Napoleonic Wars, cavalry just become more and more ineffective, with things like rifles and machine guns.
And, like I said, a frontal charge against men with bayonets would be nearly suicidal for any horseboy crazy enough to try.
Frontal charges versus pikes or dismounted men-at-arms were not the best thing to do either.
Machineguns are not part of the ETW era so not relevant. The Napoleonic era saw extensive use of massed cavalry.
CBR
Sheogorath
08-28-2008, 05:44
And the first world war saw massed use of human wave attacks against heavily entrenched machine guns.
Just because the military leaders of the time are using it doesn't mean its still an effective or efficient method of fighting.
I am quite aware that machine guns were not present in Napoleonic times. However, bayonets were. Cavalry were limited to a very specialized role. As was mentioned, flanking and chasing a fleeing enemy, or fighting other cavalry.
Dragoons might be the exception, but they were regarded as rather the low end of cavalry.
(Light Brigade, anybody?)
That put me thinking again, the Light Brigade was nigh annihilated, but if I'm right they did manage to destroy the artillery battery they had charged.
While this case was one of it's kind, this is something that happens all the time in Imperial Glory. And it's digusting to see your 12 pounders being killed by suicidal cavalrymen, specially considering how much the 12 pounders cost and how much did the cavalrymen cost.
I hope that that the canons in ETW are a bit more robust. Or else they are cheaper.........one can't have an infantry unit standing by the canons all the time, just to ward off some nutjob horsemen!!
Edit: infact what they should do is, not allow the cavalry to directly charge at an artillery unit at all..........or something of the sort........else we might be having Light Brigades every day in ETW.........
regarding the obsolecence of cavalry, I had the impression they were pretty central to (european)warfare until repeating rifles came, after all theres three primary qualities to a unit, mobility, durability and firepower, and while the cav might lack the last two, they certainly had the first in that particular era.
And the first world war saw massed use of human wave attacks against heavily entrenched machine guns. Just because the military leaders of the time are using it doesn't mean its still an effective or efficient method of fighting.
That is true and if the Napoleonic Wars indeed showed mainly bad results from the way cavalry was used, the comparison to WW1 would be fair. But history tells us otherwise:
http://www.napoleon-series.org/military/organization/c_eylau.html
I am quite aware that machine guns were not present in Napoleonic times. However, bayonets were. Cavalry were limited to a very specialized role. As was mentioned, flanking and chasing a fleeing enemy, or fighting other cavalry.
Dragoons might be the exception, but they were regarded as rather the low end of cavalry.
Cavalry has always been mainly fighting other cavalry. A classic army deployment was to have infantry in center and cavalry on the wings. Hannibal used it and did not face muskets nor bayonets. Same thing can be said of 17th century battles in say the Thirty Years War. Of course cavalry could be used in the center as a reserve and Marlborough had that as his main strategy in his battles: attacks on the wings to make the enemy weaken his center and then send in a large cavalry force supported by infantry to win the day.
Dragons started out as mounted infantry but by the time of the Napoleonic Wars it was considered a part of the heavy cavalry force.
That put me thinking again, the Light Brigade was nigh annihilated, but if I'm right they did manage to destroy the artillery battery they had charged.
While this case was one of it's kind, this is something that happens all the time in Imperial Glory. And it's digusting to see your 12 pounders being killed by suicidal cavalrymen, specially considering how much the 12 pounders cost and how much did the cavalrymen cost.
I hope that that the canons in ETW are a bit more robust. Or else they are cheaper.........one can't have an infantry unit standing by the canons all the time, just to ward off some nutjob horsemen!!
Edit: infact what they should do is, not allow the cavalry to directly charge at an artillery unit at all..........or something of the sort........else we might be having Light Brigades every day in ETW.........
Well that is quite historical actually. Artillery needed either infantry or cavalry support as its main enemy was cavalry. It might try to loosen up its formation and even split up to attack the flanks of artillery.
The Light Brigade attacked the wrong target so no wonder they ended up taking heavy losses.
CBR
Belgolas
08-28-2008, 14:06
Well calvalry were effective in WW1 so I can imagine they were effective in ETW. No you don't charge head on into infantry with bayonets but most of the time the infantry didn't have bayonets on all the time. So a head on charge to infantry with no bayonets is a good idea. Calvalry were even used in WW2.
Sheogorath
08-28-2008, 20:45
That is true and if the Napoleonic Wars indeed showed mainly bad results from the way cavalry was used, the comparison to WW1 would be fair. But history tells us otherwise:
http://www.napoleon-series.org/military/organization/c_eylau.html
Cavalry has always been mainly fighting other cavalry. A classic army deployment was to have infantry in center and cavalry on the wings. Hannibal used it and did not face muskets nor bayonets. Same thing can be said of 17th century battles in say the Thirty Years War. Of course cavalry could be used in the center as a reserve and Marlborough had that as his main strategy in his battles: attacks on the wings to make the enemy weaken his center and then send in a large cavalry force supported by infantry to win the day.
Dragons started out as mounted infantry but by the time of the Napoleonic Wars it was considered a part of the heavy cavalry force.
Well that is quite historical actually. Artillery needed either infantry or cavalry support as its main enemy was cavalry. It might try to loosen up its formation and even split up to attack the flanks of artillery.
The Light Brigade attacked the wrong target so no wonder they ended up taking heavy losses.
CBR
Considering the timescale involved (assuming you count chariots), WWI and the Napoleonic Wars are right next to each other. Cavalry had been in use for about three thousand years.
And while there were successes with cavalry, there were also miserable failures. Yes, this is true with pretty much everything in war, but in this case, most of those failures resulted from the use of cavalry outside their niche. Frontal charges against infantry. Or cannons.
And, I believe, cavalries main purpose was to fight infantry. Cavalry was the 'air force', it could win you a battle, but attempting to storm a city/fortification with it was probably a bad idea.
And they were still mounted infantry. While they could function as heavy cavalry, they typically had inferior horses (in most cases), and weren't regarded as being part of the 'true' cavalry force (again, in most cases).
Canister shot would do even worse things to cavalry than it would to infantry. Bigger targets meant more hits. A frontal charge against an artillery battery was a terribly stupid idea for ANY force. Infantry OR cavalry. Cavalry might close the distance more quickly, but artillery crews themselves were hardly harmless.
Either way, even an 'unprotected' artillery battery could inflict serious harm upon pretty much any attacker.
The target doesn't matter. The light brigades attack showed the effects artillery fire could have on cavalry. The French used their cavalry in the correct way and snuck around to take out one of the Russian batteries while it was concentrated on the British.
Matt_Lane
08-28-2008, 23:02
There should be a distinction here. Heavy cavalry with there large mounts and heavy blades are meant to crush enemy infantry and cavalry through weight and speed. Attacking infantry in defensive formation or in a prepared position is highly unlikely to succeed as the French found our in Waterloo. Instead an element of surprise is required, attacking from the flanks or using the terrain to mask their approach.
Light cavalry would be used as scouts, for foraging, chasing down routing troops or as a screen to mask an army's movement. Sending them in against infantry or heavy cavalry would be unwise.
I think having dragoons dismount in the game provides depth but they should not represent a serious infantry element as their carbines would not have the range of muskets and they were none more for their dash and daring rather than their solidity under fire.
The target doesn't matter. The light brigades attack showed the effects artillery fire could have on cavalry. The French used their cavalry in the correct way and snuck around to take out one of the Russian batteries while it was concentrated on the British.
The (wrong) target meant everything for the Light Brigade as this illustration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Charge_Timeline.jpg) shows: half the shot fired came from enfilade fire and no room to spread out and/or outflank.
CBR
I think having dragoons dismount in the game provides depth but they should not represent a serious infantry element as their carbines would not have the range of muskets and they were none more for their dash and daring rather than their solidity under fire.
I think it is a nice addition to Total War but I do wonder about how important they will be on the battlefield. Unless the battlefield size has been considerably increased then what is the point in having them.
But a force of pure cavalry will of course have more speed on the strategic map and dragoons acting as infantry in case of a fight. So maybe more for use as deep raiders than in the regular armies.
CBR
lancelot
08-29-2008, 01:32
That put me thinking again, the Light Brigade was nigh annihilated,....
Sorry to butt in, given that I dont frequent the forums much anymore but- that is a fallacy perpetuated in part by the poems of Tennyson and the delay in accurate news getting back to the UK.
Men KIA were quite heavy but the unit was far from annihilated. I believe that the leader of the charge actually asked his superior, 'can we go again?' when he returned from the first charge...if my memory is not playing tricks on me.
Total losses seems to be around 40%. Nearly 20% of that were POW. Even more horses were killed but that was quite normal for cavalry units, as the horse represented a larger target.
CBR
Actually the Light Brigade is the best example of the efficciency of cavalry charge vs artillery positions. As CBR said due to bad wording of the command and possible deliberate missreading of it (by Nolan) they attacked the wrong target. They had to ride down a valley both sides occupied by russian troops. As a consequence they got fired on from 3 sides all the way! Yet they DID ride home the charge, they captured the artillery, they chased away the cassacks guarding the artillery (units 2 or 3 times the sizes of their own!!!), and returned back losing only 1/5th of their number! The only reason why it turned into a debacle because they got almost no support at all (only the french Chasseurs supported them by attacking the russian troops on one side of the valley) and thus they were forced to retreat. Had they got support from the Heavy Brigade (which already saw action that day and its leader was less eager to fight) it would have been possible to hold on to the captured artillery and the charge would have been counted as one of the finest cavalry charges ever, which I think it was.
O'ETAIPOS
09-10-2008, 11:30
If you want to find out what cavalry can do check Somossierra pass charge (30 XI 1808) where one regiment of polish cavalry (actually it was one squad of 210 men, only in the end reinforcements of 240 reached) opened a way to Madrid for Napoleon.
There cav charged 4 spanish gun batteries (3*2 guns and 1*10 guns) with 3000 men defending. Only way was narrow road going slightly uphill. fist charge broke through first 3 batteries, and was reiforced during the fighting on the 4th. Losses were very high (about 1/2 of the first wave were dead or wounded), but they succeded in action that Napoleon infantry was unable to succeed.
As you see cav can charge gun batteries and win, even in situation that seem to be completely impossible for cavalry.
16 V 1811 at Albuhera regiment of cavalry crushed english inf brigade (English even lost standarts) by flank attack on their line, changing what could have been heavy french defeat into a draw.
pevergreen
09-10-2008, 12:30
In the capture of Beersheba, the 4th Light Horse Brigade took 38 officers and 700 other ranks prisoner as well as four field guns. In the two regiments, only 31 men were killed (including two officers) and only 36 men wounded (including eight officers).
One Australian who was dazed after having his horse shot from under him, recovered to find his five attackers with their hands up, waiting to be taken prisoner.
That's what I call a nice cavalry charge. Too bad its outside the time period. (WWI)
I'm a little concerned that units like Dragoons could be overpowered in the game. Given they'll be able to not only dismount in the middle of battle, but remount as well, I have to wonder whether there will be any point to recruiting any cavalry other than them.
I'm curious as to how this will be balanced. Will Dragoons be hideously expensive, perhaps, and/or have only very mediocre stats? Restricting them to being recruitable in only one city per faction, maybe. :inquisitive:
Robespierre
09-10-2008, 21:44
Sounds likely that Dragoons will be your Baroque answer to the paratrooper; able to ride ahead and seize key points, objectives, piques, buildings, etc. on a battlemap, with the aim of establishing a good position or disrupting the foe's deployment. few in numbers and light on firepower by comparison with conventional infantry, their effective use will be risky and may depend on the support of other arms: particularly packets of lancers held in nearby cover. light infantry could suffer great fatigue just to catch up on big battlemaps and faced with ranged artillery hard cover will be decisive.
Megas Methuselah
09-10-2008, 22:24
You could kill their horses....
I'm curious as to how this will be balanced. Will Dragoons be hideously expensive, perhaps, and/or have only very mediocre stats? Restricting them to being recruitable in only one city per faction, maybe. :inquisitive:
The easy thing would be lower stats which, especially for the early part of this era, would only be historical. Cuirassiers were generally supposed to be bigger men as well as on bigger horses than Dragoons.
CBR
Robespierre
09-10-2008, 23:44
Just trying to say that a unit that may get ahead fast is already balanced by opposing artillery and lack of friendly heavy support, i doubt it will need much dumbing down. used carelessly they will get blown to smithereens & shot away by the musketry. i think empires may differ greatly from what we have been used to, because the effect of having many ranged units, muskets and cannon, may be to support defensive play.
I´d like to point out that during the time period ETW covers there were horseboys crazy enough to frontal charge, Finnish Hakkapeliitta, but they were mainly used in 30 year war, and by Sweden.
Dragoons did not operate as mobile infantry for the entire period in question. By the Napoleonic Wars, IIRC, in most cases only the regimental designation remained, the actual units fighting as either light or heavy cavalry. Dragoons lacked the firepower, durability and flexibility of infantry while being more expensive. They also lacked the thrust of true cavalry and the speed of light cavalry. I've always viewed them as a poor man's cavalry, a bit of a relic from the days before armies became professional.
And yet they were the only kind of cavalry Britain feilded during ETW time period.
??I thought Britain used to have its own mounted Lifeguards and Hussars........no?:inquisitive:
Freedom Onanist
09-12-2008, 13:55
Actually the Light Brigade is the best example of the efficciency of cavalry charge vs artillery positions. As CBR said due to bad wording of the command and possible deliberate missreading of it (by Nolan) they attacked the wrong target. They had to ride down a valley both sides occupied by russian troops. As a consequence they got fired on from 3 sides all the way! Yet they DID ride home the charge, they captured the artillery, they chased away the cassacks guarding the artillery (units 2 or 3 times the sizes of their own!!!), and returned back losing only 1/5th of their number! The only reason why it turned into a debacle because they got almost no support at all (only the french Chasseurs supported them by attacking the russian troops on one side of the valley) and thus they were forced to retreat. Had they got support from the Heavy Brigade (which already saw action that day and its leader was less eager to fight) it would have been possible to hold on to the captured artillery and the charge would have been counted as one of the finest cavalry charges ever, which I think it was.I think this actually just underlines:
1 The Russian guns were very poorly served
2 The Cossacks reputation was (and still is) vastly overblown. Maybe because even then there was a large number of people ready to assign super human powers to "cool" sounding units - something that haunts every TW board going. Faced with regular cavalry rather than poor benighted moujiks they fled. The largely forgotten (but more successful) Charge of the Heavy fits in with this as well.
3 Support was not provided because, no sane Allied commander, even amongst those mentalist Victorians, could have predicted that anyone would be stupid enough to attempt it, even less succeed.
The whole point of the charge was the fact that it did succeed, even if in a very limited way. The shock being the success of cavalry in this situation.
It was one of the worst military engagements ever. The only outstanding thing about it was the fortitutde and endurance of the men so badly led. Cavalry should never have done what it did, and had it succeed in driving off the Russian infantry, which of course they didn't being cavalry, they would've had no way to hold on to the guns. Typical Victorian nincompoops.
??I thought Britain used to have its own mounted Lifeguards and Hussars........no?:inquisitive:
British Hussars don't exist until 1806. When the 7th, 10th, 15th and 18th light dragoon regiments were restyled into Hussars. And the household cavalry regiments (1st and 2nd lifeguards and the royal horse guards) wouldn't have been much differently equipped than the 7 dragoon guard and 6 dragoon regiments. Now days they wear metal breast plates but that's cause they defeated the French carabiners and curiassurs at Waterloo.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.