Typical land battle

[Swoosh So]

What can we expect from a typical land battle in this era?

Move guns into range shoot mop up with cavalry or?

[Mithradates]

From what i have heard there will be certain strategic point son the map such as buildings. I imagine that these places will be centres for shooting matches and also for some bloody hand to hand combat.

[Freedom Onanist]

There should be plenty of flanking manoeuvres, feinting with cavalry to put your infantry in a disadvantageous formation vulnerable to ranged fire. Terrain should be central. Concentrating force on weak points. Light infantry to harass line infantry and hit officers/NCOs. Cavalry to threaten light infantry. Artillery concentrations. etc...

[Boyar Son]

we can obviously know almost exactly how it is with MTW2, it has cannons and guns.

[Furious Mental]

Not really. MTW 2 has no bayonets. The vast majority of soldiers are armoured and shielded. It has no buildings to garrison in field battles. The countermarch functions like... well it doesn't function. The guns are also quite unlike real smoothbore guns- they are only marginally more lethal than crossbows, the projectiles move at only 20- 80m per second (which means they can fire at enemies they can't actually see), and they are way too accurate at their maximum range.

[geala]

You should really read some descriptions about 18th c. battles. They were a lot more tactical than anything you could find in the medieval times. (In fact till now we fought 17-19th c. battles with TWs medieval units.) It was not a standing fight with dumb units shooting at each other till nobody was left on the field. Terrain, formations, marches, skirmishing, time, deployment of artillery and careful or ruthess use of cavalry were very important.

I only fear that the most important factor on the 18th c. battlefield, moral, will not be so easy to simulate in a TW system. Hopefully they change a lot to create a system which is more or less at least a bit similar to what actually happened. Otherwise it could really be shooting, charging, bajonet fight (took place very seldomly), rout.

[Ozzman1O1]

i hope you can bombard forts and hide in trenches,to make it a more interactive and specific game:laugh4:

[Boyar Son]

Nope.

think about it, other than bayonets how are land battles between ETW and MTW2 (gunpowder) different?

c'mon u and I know we can be nepoleon already thx to MTW2

[Ozzman1O1]

come on,im pretty sure after years of many things ca didnt do that we wanted them to do they will probebly give us diffrent was to attack forts,send a diplomat threaten them,assault them,and BOMBARD them,like in the last of the mohecians movie.:surrender: :hmg:

[CountArach]

Nope.

think about it, other than bayonets how are land battles between ETW and MTW2 (gunpowder) different?

c'mon u and I know we can be nepoleon already thx to MTW2
Battles were a lot more linear and larger scale.

[R'as al Ghul]

I only fear that the most important factor on the 18th c. battlefield, moral, will not be so easy to simulate in a TW system. Hopefully they change a lot to create a system which is more or less at least a bit similar to what actually happened. Otherwise it could really be shooting, charging, bajonet fight (took place very seldomly), rout.

Actually morale has been an important factor in MTW1 and STW. It's adequately simulated in those titles and plays a huge role in battles. But unfortunately, like other features, it has been dumbed down or left out in the newer titles like RTW and MTW2.

R'as

[Noir]

But unfortunately, like other features, it has been dumbed down or left out in the newer titles like RTW and MTW2.


Morale appears present in the newer games - its just not tuned in with the gameplay; its either very high (m2) or very low (rtw) on average it seems to me.

In addition, it needs to be tuned in with other factors in the game (presence of enemy & friendly numbers as well as the rate at which a unit loses) and it seems certainly not. Modifications for RTW made morale very high to prevent the chain routs and re-introduce the flanking element it seems to me, but in the process they lost the importance of match ups.

All those need lots of playtesting and balancing that CA apparently does probably in a rush or as to emphasise specific elements of the gameplay (as the cavalry charge) rather than ending up with a balance between units and unit types.

STW in fact has a gameplay for its "late" stages that is very close to 18th century warfare; in SWs that uses STW unit types there is the opening shootout/skirmish in trying to envelop the flank before commit the melee troops and and then proceed with the "doubling" of the rest of the opponents that is very close to what was happening in the 18th century battles.

Even the cavary may be said to have similarities: HC:cuirasiars, YC:Hussars, NC:lancers - only cavalry archers don't have a direct equivalent since infantry could outshoot cavalry at that era consistently.

The major difference is probably that the melee troops and the shooter troops are different; in ETW they will need to have all a dual nature, i guess.

NTW had an interesting array of unit abilities: "line" troops were able to just resist ineffectively cavalry, and flank/light infantry were cavalry killers.

The problem with NTW, and my concern for ETW, is that the AI can't handle hybrids at all (shooters&melee) and similarly can't handle shooter heavy armies. Since in ETW most units will be hybrids if not all, i cannot imagine how the game will work with the TW AI as we came to know it so far. I will be pleasantly surprised to find that the ETW AI is light years ahead its predecessors, but i doubt it.

[Furious Mental]

There were cavalry detailed to shoot at enemies, to picket an advancing enemy force or protect the flanks of a friendly one. But I can't imagine they ever tried to outshoot infantry. Really every cavalry squadron should have a few in it for that sort of skirmishing, but I doubt that will be the case.

[Noir]

Perfectly agree with you Furious Mental


Originally posted by Noir
...only cavalry archers don't have a direct equivalent since infantry could outshoot cavalry at that era consistently.

[Ozzman1O1]

i think cavalry will prove unuseful since they will just falter under gunfire,theres no point in them exept for morale:smg: :turtle: :hmg:

[Noir]

I doubt that Ozzman1O1 - gunfire has reloading times and in all probability will need co-ordination (all men in unit fire at the same time) to be really devastating.

If you notice, in previous games, leaving fire at will on will change the number of men reloading and fire per volley as men die out in a shoot out. This means that you'll have to micromanage and time the volleys to rout cavalry haed on.

More importantly - cavalry will (hopefully) play the vital role of harassing the flanks in trying to get space for encirclements. Heavy Cavalry will also (hopefully) perform flank charges on units that advance in order to capture a strategic location (say a hill).

A long line unit will need time to re-arrange itself, load aim and fire at a unit of cuirassiers that advances at gallop at their flank.

*edit* Tactics in the period were particularly rich - its the implementation though that will either bring the fact out or make the gameplay poor. The fact that naval battles are also designed at the same time, will naturally cut in resources available. IMO, that's a bad sign.

[Ozzman1O1]

true but considering advanced firepower and that a bayoneted group is like a phalanx,cavalry will be as useful as a barbarain skirmisher in rome total war.:logic:

[Noir]

true but considering advanced firepower and that a bayoneted group is like a phalanx,cavalry will be as useful as a barbarian skirmisher in rome total war.:logic:

:laugh4: it wins indeed - thanks for putting me back in my place!

[Ozzman1O1]

and a toast to that.....hooza!

[Lord Winter]

true but considering advanced firepower and that a bayoneted group is like a phalanx,cavalry will be as useful as a barbarain skirmisher in rome total war.:logic:

Fire power wasn't enough to completly stop calvary, it would slow it down and make the charge costly but you could still break thorough if the enemy persented a flank or was wavering. Calvery in this era was used more as a reserve, commited at the decisive point to break the enemy not to do the actually slugging out of the infantry.

[Sheogorath]

I imagine land battles will be mostly focused on a lot of shooting followed by charges to mop up, since thats what most people think combat in the era was like. IE: An archery duel with guns.
Cavalry will most likely be more important than it really was. I imagine it'll be kinda like MTW2, only slanted more towards infantry (IE: a frontal cavalry charge will kill MOST of the infantry in a unit), unless the infantry are in square formation or something.
I hope they dont make the square TOO strong, but considering how much its been mythologized as the ULTIMATE CAVALRY STOPPING WONDER FORMATION...but then, CA usually does a decent job of balancing things.

Im wondering if we'll be seeing melee infantry units outside of the 'primitive' people (IE: Everybody not in Europe or a European colony, durrhurr). I know that the Russian Empire issued halberds to its NCO's up until the early 1800's.
Wait...are those fantasy units that I smell?

[geala]

Cavalry were indeed very important. Much more important than in the late medieval time at least. They were no longer so important as in the Thirty Years War (where after 1640 many armies contained almost only cavalry), but still the weapon to win battles with. The importance of cavalry declined a bit in the Napoleonic wars.

A man with a musket and a bayonet is a formidable foe for a cavalryman (if he is not running away and has room to move). But a unit with muskets and bayonets is not so comfortable when faced by good cavalry. A bit to contrary belief but that is what soldiers from the time thought about it. A fight between infantry and cavalry is a battle of moral and nerves. Fire discipline was by far the most important thing. The speed of fire was not so important. To hold back the fire and give the cavalry a good volley at the right time was important. Then cavalry never could succeed. If the infantry fired to early or began to move a charge by a good cavalry would often break the infantry. Carrees were not such a great help then. Of course frequently not so good cavalry were on the fields.

Perhaps CA could put effort to timing and situations.

[Sheogorath]

Yes, but CA isnt so keen on morale and such. They like piles of corpses. Besides, it'd be boring to sit around watching your guys launching glorious cavalry charges only to kill ten guys and have the rest run away.

[Ozzman1O1]

Fire power wasn't enough to completly stop calvary, it would slow it down and make the charge costly but you could still break thorough if the enemy persented a flank or was wavering. Calvery in this era was used more as a reserve, commited at the decisive point to break the enemy not to do the actually slugging out of the infantry.
have you even heard about the battle of balaclava!?destroyer of hope!:no:

[Trax]

have you even heard about the battle of balaclava!?destroyer of hope!:no:

Have you even heard about the battle of Hohenfriedberg, where the Bayreuth Dragoons broke 20 batallions of Austrian infantry or about the battle of Eylau, where Murat's 11000 cavalry charged through the Russian centre? :book:

[Ozzman1O1]

have you heard about the thin red lin when 80 british and french soldiers made a russian cavalry charge of 2000 falter!

[Trax]

80

???????????????????
:inquisitive:

[Sheogorath]

have you heard about the thin red lin when 80 british and french soldiers made a russian cavalry charge of 2000 falter!
You mean the Thin Red Line, where 2200 elite British troops against 400 Cossacks?

[Ozzman1O1]

i think i meant the charge of the light brigade actualy:idea2:

[hoom]

Have you ever heard that of the 673 who started the charge, only 118 were killed & a further 127 wounded?

That means 428 survived the charge up the Valley of Death, the battle (heavily outnumbered) at the battery at the head of the valley & the withdrawal back down the valley.
Albeit they lost at least 478 horses, with only 195 soldiers still having horses after regrouping.

[Sheogorath]

-Ozzman
Thats odd, 'cause you SAID thin red line >_>
The Charge of the Light Brigade was seven hundred British cavalry and some French cavalry against an unknown number of Russian gunners.
If you want a REAL 'against-all-odds' situation, try the Siege of Petropavlovsk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Petropavlovsk).


-hoom
Doing the math, thats %36 casualties, which is actually pretty heavy. And they were, mostly, fighting against gun crews once they got into the melee, there were some Cossacks, but Cossacks dont do well against organized and trained troops.
I believe the standard for most Western armies to withdraw from battle is about %10-15, which is considered 'medium' in the scale of casualties. One reason the Japanese freaked people out so much in WWII was that they would take as much as %30-40 casualties before they withdrew to regroup. That was not in-line with most nations tactics at the time.

[Lord Winter]

have you even heard about the battle of balaclava!?destroyer of hope!

Yes but that was into a fortified postion and into a nice little cross fire. It was also 30 years pass out timeline.

The fact is you didn't see frontal calvary charges or the orgianal thrust made by calvery in most battles (not counting flanking movements). They were still a fomabiable force on the battle field but they wern't the heavy "Knights" of the medivl period.

[hoom]

thats %36 casualties, which is actually pretty heavyYes but point being that Ozman raised the Light Brigade charge as firepower beating cavalry.

They charged into a fortified position with artilliery & riflemen shooting at them from 3 sides, probably about as good advantage as possible for the guns.

Aside from the guncrews & some infantry, they cut their way through 5000 odd enemy cavalry & still weren't stopped.

[Ozzman1O1]

just read abaout the battle of balaclava please in wiki and you will see

[Ozzman1O1]

(is every body here a nerd or just smart because there teens?im only 10)

[Noir]

(is every body here a nerd or just smart because there teens?im only 10)

I am afraid that we are the worst kind here Ozzman101: nerds in their teens (or above) :laugh4:

[Martok]

I am afraid that we are the worst kind here Ozzman101: nerds in their teens (or above) :laugh4:
Indeed. I'm 30 years old (going on 31 in a couple months), and I know for a fact that many members here -- possibly a majority, in fact -- are around my age or older. ~:)

[TosaInu]

I hope they dont make the square TOO strong, but considering how much its been mythologized as the ULTIMATE CAVALRY STOPPING WONDER FORMATION...but then, CA usually does a decent job of balancing things.


A square is also great to shoot at. So, even if they are ultimate in stopping cavalry, it will be counter balanced by being an ultimate target.

[Stuperman]

I imagine that a typical land battle will involve lining your men up against the edge of the battle map, and then waiting for the enemy to come into range, almost as exciting as watching paint dry.

[Ozzman1O1]

you know that there will be bayonet melee combat right,it wont be all guns...:egypt: :clown:

[S.Selim_1]

i'm not tryin 2 be negative but muskets, cavalry and spear men and surely artillery...it sounds intresting but does it sound fun?! i hope CA work it out to make it fun coz i luv the idea of age of empire III too

[Ozzman1O1]

The tw games are not all about watching cool battles,its about making an empire and conquering the world...i just auto resolve my battles these days....

[S.Selim_1]

really...well now i know why it takes long to conquer a province...but common man...i might as well go play civilization...but it's nice to have some intresting battles..it makes u want to play the game even more, specially if the graphics are goood u know..oh and that reminds me..i gotta upgrade my computer:dizzy2:

[Ozzman1O1]

civilization is a horable montage of history and facts,ex.in 2005 hannibal attaked the roman empire in china and killed ambraham lincoln....very.......interesing game.....:smg: :pirate2: :driver:

[S.Selim_1]

loooooooooooooooool...yeah it is an intresting game..i wonder y they keep "upgrading" the game every year.....somehow this game have fans:no:

[HarunTaiwan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tercio will be included.

[Freedom Onanist]

I hope they dont make the square TOO strong, but considering how much its been mythologized as the ULTIMATE CAVALRY STOPPING WONDER FORMATION...but then, CA usually does a decent job of balancing things.Well, I hope they don't underplay it to pander to the "oh, look, horsies - cool" crowd. It pretty much was the "ULTIMATE CAVALRY STOPPING WONDER FORMATION". I think you'd struggle to find many examples of cavalry actually breaking through a formed square. I think there was one example in the Peninsular War. Where some KGL cavalry charged at a French square and one of the horses in dying rolled over a corner and physically bulldozed an opening for the others. Otherwise cavalry just don't stand a chnce unsupported against squares - the most obvious example being Ney's fruitless charges at Waterloo.

The tactically interesting point about squares is that they have to be formed quickly and efficiently and that a certain level of "steadyness" by the infatry is required. I hope this is represented in the game somehow. So, raw conscripts should have a serious chance of not being able to form square fast enough and/or of losing their nerve and running. Experience and possibly cost of unit (representing extra training) should be factored in - I somehow doubt this will be done, unless they extend the training time of units.

Secondly, as TosaInu points out, squares are extremely vulnerable to gunfire. So feint at infantry with your cavalry, force them into square and then bombard them with your artillery. A mix of manoeuvres that is much more interesting that taking any kind of Hollywood appoach to the effectiveness of cavalry charges.

[Trax]

Extremely vulnerable to gunfire, yes.

I remember reading about a Napoleonic battle during heavy rain, French hussars? approached Austrian? infantry and the infantry formed square. The French didn't charge, but dismounted, loaded their carbines under cover of their cloaks and fired a volley. The infantry surrendered before they could fire second time.

[Furious Mental]

It would be great if we could dismount cavalry like that in battle. Another tactic would be to gall the infantry into using their muskets by having cavalry ride up and fire on them with a long arm or pistols, which could disrupt the dense ranks of infantry.

[Ozzman1O1]

think about it furious metal,cavalry dont dismount because if you had light armor,a saber,and a pistol you would be of no use as infantry,but heavy cavalry is a nother story:smg: :charge: :hmg:

[Warluster]

Most often though Cav was armed with carbines, a shorter version of a musket, and they had armor, so actually they'd be better then infantry dismounted as they have better chances in melee. Only problem is that they have no Infantry Training so I'd just stay on my horse if I was them...

[Matt_Lane]

Most often though Cav was armed with carbines, a shorter version of a musket, and they had armor, so actually they'd be better then infantry dismounted as they have better chances in melee. Only problem is that they have no Infantry Training so I'd just stay on my horse if I was them...

By this period dragoons were light cavalry used for skirmishing, foraging and screening duties. They wore amour plate to offer themselves some protection from long range fire however musket fire would easily penetrate the plate at infantry distances. Their carbines where also mainly used for defense during skirmishing with the saber being their main offensive weapon. As you say with a lack of infantry training and no bayonet I would not want to pitch them against line infantry.

[Furious Mental]

Some cavalry had bayonets, but really if you wanted cavalry to melee you'd put them back on their horses. Aside from carbines muskets, musketoons, blunderbusses, and rifles were also used. I believe only cuirassiers had armour.

[Kalle]

Here is maybe a not so typical battle (neither was cannae typical) but a battle that shows that superior tactics was more important then numbers and also that cavalry still could play the dominant role if used wisely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fraustadt

Wikis account of the battle might not be the most detailed but you can find more info on your own now when you know what battle to search for :)
/Kalle

[Ozzman1O1]

at the time etw takes place cav was used to make a fast skirmish force,not a band of men that charged and trampled there enemies....and dont make fun of cannea,that battle is how im here right now....

[CBR]

at the time etw takes place cav was used to make a fast skirmish force,not a band of men that charged and trampled there enemies....
Cavalry was slightly more than that: http://www.napoleon-series.org/military/organization/c_eylau.html


CBR

[Furious Mental]

Actually as far as I know it was only a minority of cavalry (flankers) that properly knew how to skirmish. And when supplies of weapons got short cavalrymen often had to give up their long arms to the infantry. Really it would be most appropriate if every cavalry unit had some flankers who could be ordered to go out ahead and skirmish. I will be irritated if there isn't a proper skirmishing mechanic for cavalry and infantry.

[Kalle]

at the time etw takes place cav was used to make a fast skirmish force,not a band of men that charged and trampled there enemies....and dont make fun of cannea,that battle is how im here right now....

I think you need to read my post again and also study a bit about 18th century warfare and tactics.

Swedish cavalry in the early 18th century was not a skirmish force (allthough it could skirmish also). It was a massive wall of wedged formed cavalry that would charge, trample and smash any formation put in front of them as can be seen if you take time to study for instance the battle of Fraustadt. And it was not a peasent mob they fought at Fraustadt it was the bulk of the saxon army with allies.

I read you are only ten but since you want us to be aware of that you should also be aware that very many people posting here are adults with academic degrees in the subjets we talk about.

To make it clear I did not make fun of Cannae, I said it was not a typical battle and Fraustadt is the Cannae of the 18th century, thus not a typical battle either.

Best regards and keep the posts coming :)
/Kalle

[econ21]

The tactically interesting point about squares is that they have to be formed quickly and efficiently ...

Secondly, as TosaInu points out, squares are extremely vulnerable to gunfire.

Great post. :bow:

I think it is these kind of interactions that this period among the most tactically interesting in terms of battles. (Once cavalry stop being a factor - around the ACW - battles become more dull until the tank arrives.)

However, it is also these interactions that will make programming the AI an absolute nightmare. It is easy to imagine a situation in which the player can always catch the enemy out of square, but feint the AI into forming squares which the player then shoots to death.

In real life, I think command and control issues precluded such micromanagement. Often a cavalry charge would work or would not work because of sheer luck. But computer games would find it very frustrating if that such "realistic" constraints were introduced to handle the problem.

[fenir]

Sheogorath,

The Charge of the Light Brigade was 660 to 675 Men, which I think from memory was 4 battalions from 4 Different Regiments. 2 x hussars regiments, 1 dragoons, and 17th Lancers (Death or Glory boys)?

And considering only about 154 where avaiable at roll call the next morning for active duty, (of which offical socures say only 132 where not wounded). Needless to say, the Light Brigade was not used afterwards due to it's casualties.

Which equates to 77% casualties, @ 154/660 or 154/670.
that would equate to 61% casualties, @ 195/660 or 195/670.
But typically casualties are all those that have been wounded, so the equation would be 132/660 which gives casualties of 80%.

Also of note: Just because this amount died, and these didn't, doesn't mean much, because more usually die within the following 7 days.

So 660 against 8200, seems to deminish your claims. (8% of total attackers to defenders).

And considering the odds, 20 Battalions of Infantry, and 5200 Russian Cavalry. Not to mention that they routed and destoryed a considerable amount. These are from offical Russian Documents by the way.

And, I have no information on these French units you claim to be involved, in fact, the French army has no record of French cavalry being Involved in the Charge as you claim.

Note: From my experiance, combat units regularly operate at between 10 to 15% from full strenght when involved in extended line action.
Eastern Front world war two, the germans didn't pull a major unit out of the line until it was 20 to 30% under strenght. And, as the war progressed, it became larger and larger.

Just some observations.

Sincerely


fenir

[Freedom Onanist]

-Ozzman
Thats odd, 'cause you SAID thin red line >_>
The Charge of the Light Brigade was seven hundred British cavalry and some French cavalry against an unknown number of Russian gunners.
If you want a REAL 'against-all-odds' situation, try the Siege of Petropavlovsk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Petropavlovsk). Whatis your point? What is so against the odds there? On the one hand you have wooden ships at sea, on the other prepared shore batteries? Hmm...

+rep to fenir

[Master of Puppets]

I think battles will unfold like this:

Typical infantry formations firing on each other with cannon support.

After 2-3 vollies, I think the infantry should go in for a bayonet charge, whether or not they have ammo left or not. This way, the game isn't boring and the epic music will fit better, lol.

I don't know about you guys, but I play games to have fun and to be entertained. Like any other red-blooded American, I enjoy seeing carnage and violence (haha), so seeing a bayonet charge with thousands of troops would be awe-inspiring, reminscient of Last of the Mohicans or The Patriot. Yes, I am aware that bayonet charges were rare. However, I think that more melee based battles, as opposed to armies just shooting at each other, would be more fun and engaging.

*A cool thing to add would also be to have soldiers be able to shoot at each other randomly in the middle of a massive melee. I don't know, I think that would add to the spontaneous aspect of battle, plus it would be an interesting piece of variety.

Dragoons falling off of horses, but still fighting on the ground would be sick as well, along with wounded rolling on the ground or squirming.

[Matt_Lane]

I hope they allow for infantry to adopt line, square and column formations on the battlefield. Line for attack, square for defense against cavalry but also importantly column for improved maneuverability. Dragoons should be allowed to skirmish and all cavalry should be allowed to form up in waves of squadrons spaced behind the previous one for maximum effect when attacking infantry squares. I also think an infantry units experience and discipline should be critical in battle for maneuvering and withstanding fire. Better troops should be able to move between square and line quicker and tighter whilst less able troops should have a morale penalty that would influence them routing when faced with a bayonet charge.

[Ozzman1O1]

i dont think infantry will be THAT flexible

[Furious Mental]

It will be. They've said that formations are pretty much the crux of infantry tactics and mentioned those three specifically.

[LadyAnn]

think about it furious metal,cavalry dont dismount because if you had light armor,a saber,and a pistol you would be of no use as infantry,but heavy cavalry is a nother story:smg: :charge: :hmg:

Cavalry started to fight dismounted in 1700-1800 time frame. They were called "Dragoon" and sometimes called "mounted infantry". They are tactical skirmishers as strategic units (not sure how to implement it on battlefield). While it takes a foot army to march about 20 km a day, a cavalry unit can arrive to the scene much earlier. As skirmishers, they take turn to fire and retreat, with men staying behind to hold horses. Such "fighting on foot" was evident in 1800 during Napoleonic War, and even in the American Civil War. Riding high on a horse is too much of an exposure to infantry gun fires.

Napoleon proved in the Egypt Campaign that splendid horsemen charge was obsolete tactic. French army slaughtered the Egyptian Cavalry. However, Cavalry has not disappeared: the quick arrival of cavalry to the flank or the rear causes panic and was of tactical importance. Example of successful cavalry charges, especially into an army in disarray, may still be found as late as in the American Civil War. They were no longer the condition for victory, but they may represent a difference between an even fight and a total victory when the cavalry was sent out to mop up.

Anyways, I hope the game mechanic is good enough to prevent "camping": canons on hill top protected by infantry. This is very difficult in player-vs-player battles. In real battles, if you occupy hilltops and camp, the invading army just walk by out of canon-shot to your nearest town and destroy it. Then you will have to chase.

Annie

[Warluster]

But Cavarly wasn't entirely waiped out remember, A front on charge could still be quite succesful. Though when formed in square, it was virtually (nearly) impossible, it was easy in line formation. Think of Murat's charges in such battles in Poland. The British Cav at Waterloo (Though that wasn't a frontal assualt, it was a more chase) Actually, the only way Infantry was good against Cav was in square, with superior numbers or verusing lower classed enemy cav.

Cannons, at Napoleonic TImes, were mostly beaten by enemy cannons, or as you stated, drawing them out.

[Kalle]

As far as I know both Napoleons prime time and definitly the American civil war is not within the games timeframe. Lots happened in tactics and armaments between lets say the year 1700 and 1800 and definitly until the american civil war that changed the role and use of the cavalry.

And while it is definitly true that Napoleon repeatedly trounced both the Mamluk and Turkish cav armies with his much smaller Egyptian expidition forces it is also true that his own cavalry more then once charged and trounced all kinds of enemies, including the turkish and mamluk aswell.

When talking about the use of cavalry in this game it would be better to concentrate on the Great Northern War, the War of Spanish Succesion, 7-years war and the wars of Frederick the great and the war of American independence or the American revolution (or whatever to call it) and so on.

Main point is I have understood that this is mainly a pre-napoleonic game but many people talk as if it is a Napoleonic game more then anything else. Is there any other official timespan mentioned besided 1700-1800??

/Kalle

[Furious Mental]

The timespan given by the developers is 1700-1820 so that includes the Napoleonic Wars.

[pevergreen]

Well:

Battle of Beersheba:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Beersheba


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 was an effective cavalry charge.

[Furious Mental]

Not easy to replicate in an age of entrenchments, barbed wire and landmines.

[Ozzman1O1]

crecy proved infantry and missles would be the true essential parts of military tactics....until dragoons,who where "extinct" when nazi german tiger tank poped up,hitler showed them!.....no....im not a nazi....

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

crecy proved infantry and missles would be the true essential parts of military tactics....until dragoons,who where "extinct" when nazi german tiger tank poped up,hitler showed them!.....no....im not a nazi....
Horse mounted dragoons were all but obsolete in the European theatre long before WWII, especially on the Western Front. They were good only for raiding, essentially, and then only if the victim had little firepower. This is unless you mean "dragoons" as motorized and mechanized (armoured) infantry, in which case they are still in use today.

[Sheogorath]

Whatis your point? What is so against the odds there? On the one hand you have wooden ships at sea, on the other prepared shore batteries? Hmm...

+rep to fenir
Uh, lessee...

-The siege started on 18 August 1854, when an Allied squadron of three British and French frigates, one corvette, one brig and one steamship cast anchor in the Avacha Bay.

-They had some 218 cannons at its disposal, as compared to 67 cannons available to the defenders of Kamchatka's main city under Vasily Zavoyko.

-Petropavlovsk was lightly defended, with just over 1,000 troops, including the crews of the vessels sheltering in its harbour

- Naval Brigade of around 700 British and French seamen and marines landed on 4 September, under Captains Burridge and de La Grandiere, but they were ambushed and, after some heavy fighting, retreated with 107 British and 101 French dead. On 24 August, 970 aggressors landed west of Petropavlovsk, but were repelled by 360 Russians.

-The Allies left Petropavlovsk to the Russians until April 1855, when Nikolay Muravyov, aware of the insufficiency of troops and weapons to repel another attack on the city, had Petropavlovsk garrison evacuated under the cover of snow.

So they held off a superior force of troops for over a year, and you say thats not as good as an elite unit of British riflemen taking down a smaller force of Cossack cavalry?

[Ozzman1O1]

crecy proved infantry and missles would be the true essential parts of military tactics....until dragoons,who where "extinct" when nazi german tiger tank poped up,hitler showed them!.....no....im not a nazi....
i meant to say,horses where used a war animal,they stopped using them after world war ONE when the russians found them ineffective,they are not used in a modern civilized govermant military.....

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Nazi Germany and the Tiger were WWII era, not WWI, so I don't see why you mentioned them in your previous post.

[The_Baron]

i meant to say,horses where used a war animal,they stopped using them after world war ONE when the russians found them ineffective,they are not used in a modern civilized govermant military.....

Actually, Polish and Russian armies used cavalry and mounted infantry in the Second World War, and I'm pretty sure the Swiss kept some dragoons on until as recently as the 1970's!

Moving on...

The problems I see facing land battles in Empire: Total War are: #1, The changing importance of attributes and, #2, Unit distinguishment and superiority.

With the musket becoming the staple of most European armies, armour and attack attributes become more or less irrelevant. Accuracy, moral and trained efficiency. The question is this: How the **** are you supposed to create enough variation to make land battles even moderately interesting? The way I see it, it's going to end up blander than vanilla yoghurt. Militia (conscript, levy, etc.) units are going to be the best in the game, simply because they do the same thing as the professionals at a much lower cost. It's going to be a simple numbers battle.

Which is sort of a rant, but a valid rant.


-Max

[General_Someone]

Actually, Polish and Russian armies used cavalry and mounted infantry in the Second World War, and I'm pretty sure the Swiss kept some dragoons on until as recently as the 1970's!

Moving on...

The problems I see facing land battles in Empire: Total War are: #1, The changing importance of attributes and, #2, Unit distinguishment and superiority.

With the musket becoming the staple of most European armies, armour and attack attributes become more or less irrelevant. Accuracy, moral and trained efficiency. The question is this: How the **** are you supposed to create enough variation to make land battles even moderately interesting? The way I see it, it's going to end up blander than vanilla yoghurt. Militia (conscript, levy, etc.) units are going to be the best in the game, simply because they do the same thing as the professionals at a much lower cost. It's going to be a simple numbers battle.

Which is sort of a rant, but a valid rant.


-Max

Ok, first a trained proffetional army can destroy a army made of militia, levies, constripts, or whatever you want to call them even when outnumbered because of morale and accuracy. The proffesionals can form a formation, hold it, and fire acuuratly, while the non-trained troops can't form anything exept a ragged line and shoot randomly and in the first sign of defeat will break and run(a good example is the American army versus the British army in the American Revoulution).
Second, tactics and stategies in this time were one of the most important things on a battlefield, not numbers. Until Napoleon came along, the point of a battle was to out maneauver your enemy not attack blindly and hope you win.
-Chris

[General_Someone]

But sadly it could end up like that. But for C.A. that waould be a HUGE step back.

[Csargo]

It'll be interesting to see how CA does guerilla tactics.

[Sheogorath]

Ok, first a trained proffetional army can destroy a army made of militia, levies, constripts, or whatever you want to call them even when outnumbered because of morale and accuracy. The proffesionals can form a formation, hold it, and fire acuuratly, while the non-trained troops can't form anything exept a ragged line and shoot randomly and in the first sign of defeat will break and run(a good example is the American army versus the British army in the American Revoulution).
Second, tactics and stategies in this time were one of the most important things on a battlefield, not numbers. Until Napoleon came along, the point of a battle was to out maneauver your enemy not attack blindly and hope you win.
-Chris
...Wow. Just...wow.
Should I even bother?

[rajpoot]

Accuracy, moral and trained efficiency. The question is this: How the **** are you supposed to create enough variation to make land battles even moderately interesting? The way I see it, it's going to end up blander than vanilla yoghurt.


-Max

You know what, there's more to those musket battles than it meets the eye, and I atleast have never been dissapointed with the land battles, there are limitations in the game ofcourse, but I have complete trust that land battles will be anything but boring with muskets jamming, cannons blowing up themselves and buildings, with the rag doll bodies strewn all over AND with the enhanced moral system.......

[Sheogorath]

You know what, there's more to those musket battles than it meets the eye, and I atleast have never been dissapointed with the land battles, there are limitations in the game ofcourse, but I have complete trust that land battles will be anything but boring with muskets jamming, cannons blowing up themselves and buildings, with the rag doll bodies strewn all over AND with the enhanced moral system.......
Quite. Not many people realize how much goes into "Stand in a straight line and shoot the other guys."
Theres manuvering, flanking, attacking from the rear, skirmishers, cannons, cavalry, selection of formations and all that. Morale was THE deciding factor in Napoleonic battles, since you rarely saw significant casualties by the modern definition.
Formation is important too, because not EVERYBODY used lines in battle. The Russians prefered to fight in colums because of the enhanced mobility that gave, as well as allowing for better artillery support. And, because the Russians favored the bayonette, their formations had more depth and thus more 'hitting power' when charging a line.
Depth of line is important as well. Two men deep gives you more spread but less resistance to charges, three men was the standard of the day, four men deep gave your concentrated fire, resistance to charges, but reportedly there was a risk of shooting your fellow soldiers in the back of the head.

And when you think about it, the TW games up until now have basically been the same thing, only the guys were lining up and hitting each other with swords instead of shooting each other.
Just a difference in animations, basically.

[S.Selim_1]

I know that cav were very important way after the 19 century...imagine in the battle field with cav gunners(no matter what faction they are)..now these guys will be a killer since they are fast moving gunners..althought they will not be as accurate as the muskets..they will need other cav to run after them otherwise cav gunners will be the strongest unit in the game since they can hit and run.
oh and don't forget that cav are the best unit likely to use against the canons..u know some unit has to get rid of the canons since they can kill a number of muskets or infantry in one blow even if u have to sacrifice some cav to do such a charge.......................yeah i think not just muskets are the important unit in the game..and history has proved so!

[rajpoot]

And when you think about it, the TW games up until now have basically been the same thing, only the guys were lining up and hitting each other with swords instead of shooting each other.
Just a difference in animations, basically.


Sounds drab when you put it that way, but the animations and the improvement in graphics is something wonderful, and I too play these games for fun, I mean somebody seriously into history and battles would find the games redundant because the basics are same, but ETW if still a leap forward I think.
For one, like i said, rag-doll physics is being used this time, and I believe that means that the dead bodies won't just lie motionless on the ground, for example if a canon ball explodes near a dead body it'll fly into the air and get throw further away.......

[Furious Mental]

"they will need other cav to run after them otherwise cav gunners will be the strongest unit in the game since they can hit and run."

Actually since infantry will generally have muskets and will outnumber cavalry the outcome of a shooting match between cavalry and infantry will generally be a no brainer. Cavalry long arms allowed them to do lots of things - skirmish, picket an advancing enemy, provoke charges, disrupt squares, fight dismounted, occupy buildings, etc. But it didn't enable them to go toe to toe with line infantry in a gun battle. For one thing it was often just the flankers in a cavalry squadron that had any skill in using them.

[Sheogorath]

asj_india
The graphics dont look TOO much better, but the ragdoll physics will be nice, I hope.

Furious Mental
I believe the original purpose of the cavalry gunner was to outrange pikemen, since a carbine/pistol could (barely :P) outrange a guy with a pointy bit of metal on a stick.
Of course 1700 is a little late for that, but this IS CA.

[Furious Mental]

Yeah I realise that but at least in 18th century and 19th century Europe pikes weren't much of a concern. Even when pikes were widespread cuirassiers and harquebusiers were still outgunned by prolific musketeers. Once the musket became universal I doubt cavalry stood much of a chance of beating infantry in a gun battle. That isn't to say that cavalry had no use for guns, but they weren't like horse archers. Actually it will interesting to see if some states like the Safavids, Mughals and Qing can recruit cavalry armed with bows and guns. I'm feccin' sick of TW's insistence on two weapons only.

[S.Selim_1]

to name some..mamlukes and the dragoons were mounted gunners and they were sooooooo important and feared in one way or another...think about it they are fast moving gunns. even muskets will have a hard time hitting these guys while they are movin...weather against muskets or other cav they had an important role... at least in the battle of the pyramids "Napoleon realized that the only Egyptian troops of any worth on the battlefield were the cavalry" -wikipedia.
it is not mentioned they had some kind of a gunpowder weapon in their hands..but mamlukes in the early 19 century surely had some kind of a musket to fight the ottomans and the french

[Furious Mental]

Err yeah firing muskets while galloping around on a horse was, to my knowledge, generally considered to be pointless because it exacerbated the natural inaccuracy of the weapon. Egyptian mamelukes used blunderbusses which, being the equivalent of a shotgun were fired at short range anyway where it probably made no difference, but at that range cavalry were food for infantry muskets so they'd only advance that close and use guns for a special reason, e.g. to goad a square into firing back. Just because they were better than the worthless Egyptian infantry did not make them equivalents of, much less better than European line infantry in a gun battle.

That is another thing: the most common cavalry longarms- smoothbore carbines and musketoons- were shorter than muskets because they were easier to handle on horseback (and in the case of the musketoon they could fire more buckshot than a musket). However, it meant their effective range was shorter than an infantry musket. Some cavalry did have infantry muskets but they would have been awkward to reload. Some cavalry had rifles which gave them the edge in range but were still more awkward. I am not disputing that cavalry used guns (in fact aside from lancers almost all cavalry were supposed to have pistols and longarms) but they were not like latterday horse archers; it was simply folly to waste such expensive troops by trying to have them beat line infantry in a gun battle because they would inevitably be outgunned. This is why cavalry formations had horse artillery to blast infantry apart and prepare the way for charges, and why cavalry were inevitably the first to lose their longarms when there weren't enough for the infantry; it was accepted as a given that a gun was of more use to an infantryman than a cavalryman.

[rajpoot]

Main point is, at least what I believe it is is, that cavalry was never given the firearm as a weapon of seious offense........unlike the horse archers of medieval era, the imperial period cavalry did not usually use firearms offensively, reason being that shooting the innaccurate and unwieldly firearms from horseback roobed it of most of its meaning............
Aye, they had firearms with them, but their main job was to use their sabres or lances and charge in on fleeing or wavering foes.....at places where lines had been thinned by musketeers or at the flanks..........straightforward cavalry offensives against infantry would have been stupid because even if the riders won, it would have been at a large cost........
By what I know, cavalry firearms were a sort of scarcely used aid.......why make the dragoons fire against the superior muskets of the infantry when you have musketeers of your own......

[S.Selim_1]

yeah i guess ranged cav are not important at all in this time period..i think the major disadvantage is the reloading. any ways i think cav in ETW will still have a very important role in the game coz as soon as the cav touch the infantry muskets and canons they become deadly...offcourse u'll have to sacrifice a number of them while charging but u can reduce the casualties by setting the loose formation...cav are still deadly in this time of period.
guerilla warfare is also gona be a new gameplay... hiding ur troops and waiting for the right time to ambush is going to be very coooooool... i'm not that worried about the land battles i must say..CA will find a way to make it intresting..i hope:inquisitive: !

[Matt_Lane]

any ways i think cav in ETW will still have a very important role in the game coz as soon as the cav touch the infantry muskets and canons they become deadly...offcourse u'll have to sacrifice a number of them while charging but u can reduce the casualties by setting the loose formation...cav are still deadly in this time of period.!

Cavalry generally avoided attacking infantry head one, their role was to use their maneuverability to attack from their flank or rear. A loose order would be used when skirmish but the aim of the charge is to deliver a decisive blow so squadrons would ideally form up into line to maximize the number of sabers they could bring onto the enemy.

[Furious Mental]

"reason being that shooting the innaccurate and unwieldly firearms from horseback roobed it of most of its meaning............
Aye, they had firearms with them, but their main job was to use their sabres or lances and charge in on fleeing or wavering foes"

That is a bit of a simplification. Every cavalry squadron had trained marksmen ("flankers") and their raison d'etre was to skirmish with firearms.

"yeah i guess ranged cav are not important at all in this time period"

Horse archers were still employed in many place outside of Europe. Often guns supplemented rather than replaced bows.

[rajpoot]

Every cavalry squadron had trained marksmen ("flankers") and their raison d'etre was to skirmish with firearms.

:oops: That sure is news for me, I didn't know about it. Now I do thanks :2thumbsup:

[S.Selim_1]

paintings of cav in the 17 abd 18 century show almost every cav has a gun aas a secondary weapon and their spears as primary...i guess every cav used his gun for only one needy shot...i can hardly picture a cav in 17 & 18 century standing i the middle of the battle field reloading thier guns :wall: ...that's like suicide!
i hope CA makes the game as accurate as possible thought

[Furious Mental]

Well from the modern perspective it also seems suicidal for footsoldiers to stand in a field getting shot at with guns at cannons. Something you have to remember is that if the flankers didn't form a vidette to hold off or at least slow down an enemy then the main body of a cavalry squadron would start getting shot at and then it's not just the flankers (who were spread out anyway, ) getting shot at, it's everyone. The same was true of skirmishers on foot; it was often their job to risk getting shot at to do things that in themselves were not decisive but which collectively shortened the odds; buy time, conceal the movements of one's forces, inflict some casualties (especially on officers), frustrate artillery crews, irritate and provoke. It helped that it often seemed like a waste to fire volleys or artillery at enemies who were so dispersed and often concealed.

[S.Selim_1]

Cavalry generally avoided attacking infantry head one, their role was to use their maneuverability to attack from their flank or rear. A loose order would be used when skirmish but the aim of the charge is to deliver a decisive blow so squadrons would ideally form up into line to maximize the number of sabers they could bring onto the enemy.

Oh and one other thing...Muskets are not deaf not to hear horses galloping from their behind...if the AI is good enough (I HOPE!) muskets will turn around shooting the cav. it is just as the same as attacking from their front..about the same to be honest. so weather u like it or not...about 40% of the cav will be dead before reaching the infantries

[Matt_Lane]

Oh and one other thing...Muskets are not deaf not to hear horses galloping from their behind...if the AI is good enough (I HOPE!) muskets will turn around shooting the cav. it is just as the same as attacking from their front..about the same to be honest. so weather u like it or not...about 40% of the cav will be dead before reaching the infantries

Battlefields are noisy places with muskets, hooves, drums, cannons, screams and chants disorientating you. After a couple of volleys the smoke from the black powder will probably obscure the enemy you are firing at. Battlefield are rarely open plains so natural obstacles will obscure your view as will the light cavalry. By acting as a skirmishing force they block the enemy's view of the heavier assault troops.

Once you have seen a threat you need to reorientate and reorganize yourself to deal with it and changing the formation of about 1500 men takes time. Well drilled and experienced troops will achieve this quicker than green indisciplined men. Once square is formed the only real hope for unsupported cavalry is that their skirmishers can prevoke the square to fire too early, allowing the cavalry to charge before the muskets can be reloaded. Or that it rains.

[S.Selim_1]

yeah i hope their will be obstacles in the battlefield coz M2TW didn't have much of obstacles in it..it's rare to find a forset or a cliff while u r fighting..but i hope ETW does come up with creative obstacles in the battlefield....yeah i think i read some things about hiding in building and shooting behind walls...sounds fun..but the hard part is the actually doing the game

[Warluster]

Well from what I've read and seen, Infantry was basiclly naked to a Cavarly charge. A square was the best defense. Infantry, shooting at say 150 yards at cav, would take down about 10 out of a Squadron of some 300. At 50 Yards, in a British Line could take down lots more, and this could decimate the cav, but in a French line or Austrian Line, they would easily crumble beneath the charge.

Maybe they'll make something CoH like? Where the soldiers think for themselves? :bigcry: I am crying 'cause I know that won't happen until Atlantic:TW or something...

[Frederick the Great]

As I understand 18th Century(that's 1700's for some people)major battles started with a artillery duel to soften the enemy up.Infantry formed the centre usually with cavalry on the flanks.Infantry battalions were formed up in a line formation about four ranks deep thus making the maximum use of volley fire.These battalions would be shoulder to shoulder forming a vast line and some even had artillery attached using small 3pdrs or howitzers.
Few battles were encounters between two armies and so with the use of cavalry as scouts,one army would defend making use of terrain while the other attacked making use of weaknesses in the defender's line or out manoeuvring him.
Infantry tactics were usually to close within musket range and blast away at the enemy infantry and those with the better moral and discipline standing while the others falted and routed.If this didn't work then a bayonet charge was enough to see them off.
Cavalry usually stayed well clear of infantry because of the devasting volley fire and don't forget at the start of the century some infantry were still using pikes in small numbers.Cavalry tended to concentrate on the enemy cavalry or exploited gaps,flanks and rears of the enemy.They were also used for scouting and breaking lines of supply.If cavalry did charge infantry frontally then it would have to be timed perfectly with devastating effect as the infantry square was not used until later in the Napoleonic period.
Light infantry (skirmishers) were becoming better trained and more tactical using gorilla warfare and picking off officer's and N.C.O.'s and harassing line infantry formation's e.g. American militia with their long barreled musket's during the American Revoltion.
Fog of war or battlefield visability would be at a minimum once the battle got under way because of the cloud's of smoke caused by firing gunpower weapon's.