Screenies

[Furious Mental]

"
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]

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

[pevergreen]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

No! cuz you know of course that wasnt that the whole point of napoleonic warfare at all....

[Spankfurt]

Now I can balete all the p0rn off my computer :)

[aftzengeier]

Some screens and a video I've never seen before - excuse me if they aren't new!

Link!

[Ticu]

Dude, I love you for this! Thanks

[Mailman653]

Nice video, wonder if that means you can challenge and be challenged to duels by other generals/leaders.

[pevergreen]

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]

Some screens and a video I've never seen before - excuse me if they aren't new!

Link!

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]

I agree completely

[Intrepid Sidekick]

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.

[Templar Knight]

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!

[Furious Mental]

Actually a minority of them used broadswords and fewer used the targe.

[Templar Knight]

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]

Well things had obviously changed considerably by 1745 then.

[anders]

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.

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]

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.

[Divinus Arma]

Seconded.

Thirded.

[Ulstan]

"
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.

[Templar Knight]

Well things had obviously changed considerably by 1745 then.

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

[Furious Mental]

"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]

''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]

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]

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.