Musket Volleys

[therifleman]

I've been noticing in gameplay videos like these:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klqnxGujnD0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOLrWywRAUs&feature=related

that musket armed infantry units seem to be firing at all seperate times, and not in unision like they typically would in 18th century warfare. They just reload and fire at will. I am wondering if in the full game there will be a "volley fire" button that will make your units all fire at the same time. Sorry if this has been covered, but it's just something that's been nagging me.

[Familyguy1]

Most likely thats from an earlier build, they probably have it fixed by now.

[Oaty]

could also be required to be researched

[knoddy]

without watching the vids i could take a few guesses. (im at work)

1. there low lv musketmen, ie like militia musketmen or peasant muskets. ie untrained and not very coordinated. i would assume there would be some form of militia musket men

2. it possibly has to be researched (as stated above)

3. there is an option to turn it on off, while volley fire is effective once the battle breaks down, ur losing men from your line etc the discipline might break down or u might even choose to stop it and just shoot at will.

4. without having watched the vids i cant say for certain but was it staggered fire? with the time it takes to reload quite often units would stagger their fire in lines. first line shoots then second then third then by the time the 3rd or 4th shoots the first has reloaded keeping up a constant barrage.



my money is on 1 or 3. i would say there is either an option ie one option is volley fire the other is fire at will. or its just a discipline/skill thing.

Cheers knoddy

[Sheogorath]

I made a topic a while ago suggesting that fire discipline should be based on experience, with low level infantry firing rather ragged and uncoordinated volleys, getting more disciplined until fire-by-rank could be utilized by gold-chevron'd infantry.
It would definitely give incentive for players to maintain infantry for long periods, rather than scrapping/recycling them at the end of every war.

[therifleman]

I don't think its 1 because the British troops who are doing it seem to be Grenadiers, not exactly what I'd call low level militia men. From what I can see, the American sdoing it seem to be regulars.

I think you having to research it could be the answer, but I always thought that learning to fire in a volley was a basic thing that every 18th century musketeer learned how to do.

I'm gona guess that the option to turn it on/off is the most likely.

I guess I'll never know till the demo arrives, though.

[Phog_of_War]

without watching the vids i could take a few guesses. (im at work)

1. there low lv musketmen, ie like militia musketmen or peasant muskets. ie untrained and not very coordinated. i would assume there would be some form of militia musket men

2. it possibly has to be researched (as stated above)

3. there is an option to turn it on off, while volley fire is effective once the battle breaks down, ur losing men from your line etc the discipline might break down or u might even choose to stop it and just shoot at will.

4. without having watched the vids i cant say for certain but was it staggered fire? with the time it takes to reload quite often units would stagger their fire in lines. first line shoots then second then third then by the time the 3rd or 4th shoots the first has reloaded keeping up a constant barrage.



my money is on 1 or 3. i would say there is either an option ie one option is volley fire the other is fire at will. or its just a discipline/skill thing.

Cheers knoddy




I agree with knoddy. But it could be that they have already shot their first corrodinatd volley and are firing-at-will.

I believe (and most likely I am wrong:oops:) most armies at the time did only fire one or two volleys and by then would be within bayonette charge range. Unless the particular docrine for an army was to stand and fire it out, much like the French and British. Or one of the forces had either, cover, or was dug-in.

However my understanding of land tactics, battles and military doctrine in the game timeframe is severely lacking.

[bloodshed]

I think I remember seeing a button on medieval 2 and probably the games before it for archers that you could disable the fire-at-will while in battle. So I am sure it shouldn't be a big deal.

[knoddy]

mmm different fire at will tho. i agree it will probs be something u turn on and off. But the fire at will in all other total war games was just to make ur archers shoot as soon as the enemy was in range. Where as fire at will in Empire would more likely be fire when u can rather than firing in a volley :)

[Fondor_Yards]

They are said there's going to be options to simply let them fire at will, to tell them to hold their fire until you say to shoot.

[peacemaker]

you know what would be nice? If archers(or, in this case, gunmen) would load their guns BEFORE the enemy came into range. That way, you easily get off an extra volley or two.

[Phog_of_War]

I imagine that we will finally have preloaded weapons in Empire. Muskets and rifles anyway. Cannon and mortars were not loaded ahead of time IIRC.

[Fisherking]

Nice thread therifleman, welcome aboard!


Just a tiny bit off topic here but didn’t anyone else notice that the Americans had a pronounced English Accent?:inquisitive:

The fact that neither one of them used that accent at the time might also be mentioned.

:no:

[pyradyn]

I think its probably based of experience of the actual unit itself. Since they all have their own experience levels now. Even though a Grenadier it could be a newly recruited one. Even though Historically most Grenadiers were Regulars first and were just good at what they did. Also were just strong enough to toss a large chunk of cast Iron with explosives too. just my 2 cents

[Incongruous]

Nice thread therifleman, welcome aboard!


Just a tiny bit off topic here but didn’t anyone else notice that the Americans had a pronounced English Accent?:inquisitive:

The fact that neither one of them used that accent at the time might also be mentioned.

:no:

:inquisitive:

Well, since we have no idea what either nation sounded like at the time, it is probabaly best to go with well known one, still I would be interested to know if you had any suggestions?:2thumbsup:

[Fisherking]

:inquisitive:

Well, since we have no idea what either nation sounded like at the time, it is probabaly best to go with well known one, still I would be interested to know if you had any suggestions?:2thumbsup:

We do have an idea what they sounded like. An upper class accent from Charleston, SC or Savanna, GA are good examples of the educated, working class Dublin for others, (non French) Canadian may be more toward a universal English sound nearer to then, but not the best idea for the game.

But different from one another might be desirable…at least for the game.

Of course this may be an early on press demo so it could have changed…I hope!

To those born west of the pond, it is a bit like having General Wellington have the same speech patterns as Crocodile Dundee would be to you.:smash:

[Kalle]

Volleyfire was being used much earlier then the 18th century. However both before and during the
18th century this required training, discipline, good commanding officers, high morale and some battlefieldexperience.

Waiting to shoot until the correct moment when facing an enemy that is eager to kill you and especially one that is charging against you (you might only get one chance to shoot) at full speed requires all of the above.

Again I use the Swedes to make an example. In the early 18th century thay had the training and discipline and were well led. Battlefield experience also accumulated.

While Swedens enemies usually rained more or less effective fire upon the Swedes as soon as they saw them the Swedes held their fire until they saw "the white of the enemies eyes" (probably an overstatement but that was the instruction). One massed volley was fired and then full charge. The carnage caused by the volley and the wall of men seemingly not bothered by the loss of comrades during the initial advance coming at you at full speed was enough to make most enemeis turn tail and run.

Even at the battle of Poltava this tactic almost prevailed but only almost...

Kalle

[Fisherking]

Back on topic:

The units we see firing in the links provided are mostly American Colonists. They would not have been well trained and again it my be “fire at will”.

I don’t know that we can draw any deep conclusions until we are allowed to command a battle our selves.

In a demo perhaps…

[Sir Beane]

In a demo perhaps…

Et tu Fisherking? Don't let Polemists take you down that dark path, it can only lead to ruin and destruction. :tongue:

[Fisherking]

Et tu Fisherking? Don't let Polemists take you down that dark path, it can only lead to ruin and destruction. :tongue:

I was a bit worried my self! Have we been trained from constant repetition?

The trouble was it made sense in this context…

I am a bit more concerned at the moment of having General Washington sound like Prince Charles, or Thomas Jefferson sound like Lord Wiffelsnout.

I wasn’t kidding about it being upsetting!

How would you like it if George II sounded Pakistani or Wellington did sound like Crocodile Dundee!

[Sir Beane]

I was a bit worried my self! Have we been trained from constant repetition?

The trouble was it made sense in this context…

I am a bit more concerned at the moment of having General Washington sound like Prince Charles, or Thomas Jefferson sound like Lord Wiffelsnout.

I wasn’t kidding about it being upsetting!

How would you like it if George II sounded Pakistani or Wellington did sound like Crocodile Dundee!

If accents are a little off it can be off putting and annoying. If accents are off enough to have a pakistani George II then we are suddenly sailing through the seas of hilarity. :laugh4:

An Aussie Wellington complete with Australian slang and one of those cork hats would make for an incredibly funny moment in gaming history. :tongue: Only if it was done intentionally and played for laughs however.

[pevergreen]

Don't make me speak in slang again. Struth.

I've read that you have to research volley fire, as well as the fire at will toggle being off (presumably)

[Fisherking]

Don't make me speak in slang again. Struth.

I've read that you have to research volley fire, as well as the fire at will toggle being off (presumably)

uh'hum is it so? I know Platoon Fire is...

Platoon Fire is a bit different than volleys. In Platoon Fire you should theoretically be able to keep up an all most constant firing into the enemy until your ammunition is gone. Volley fire would be one or two ranks firing all at the same time and then the unit reloads.

One (volleys) is good for destroying morale and killing lots of the enemy at once, if they are close. The other (Platoon Fire) drives the morale down and increases the stress on the unit targeted. Its also go to cover movements of a second unit.

Driving up stress may be very important in the current morale system…
:yes:

[pevergreen]

Oh, I thought they were much the same, line fires, then reloads, constant firing if you have enough lines.

[KozaK13]

Did armies not let off a few volleys and then it broke down to firing at will when the distances between forces got shorter?

Plus at the time of the mod the colonists probably did sound much more like the english than americans.

[Fisherking]

Did armies not let off a few volleys and then it broke down to firing at will when the distances between forces got shorter?

Plus at the time of the mod the colonists probably did sound much more like the english than americans.

Firing would get more ragged as troops took to fire at will…but it isn’t necessarily so.

And no, it would have been the other way round, The English sounded more like Americans than they do today…

[KozaK13]

And no, it would have been the other way round, The English sounded more like Americans than they do today…

:inquisitive: How so?

[Fisherking]

:inquisitive: How so?

To make it a story; some time ( I think in the 1820s but it may have been later) the English upper class began to speak in what they thought was a more elegant fashion. They modified the vowel sounds and lengthened them and began to clip some words. This in turn trickled down into the lower levels of society. (the first time in history that it went form the top down) The shift in pronunciation resulted in what we today think of as the British Accent.

Americans and to a lesser extent Canadians did not go through this shift, retaining the older form of the language. Spelling was also not firmly fixed resulting in different ways of spelling the same words.
So as much as the British love to make fun of their cousins across the sea, they speak a much more recent variety of the language.

If you want further information one book is , I believe, “The Story of English”. There are many others, and like this one written primarily by British Authors.

I hope I have answered the question.

[KozaK13]

Wow i didn't know that, thanks for the info, you have opened my eyes to something i never considered, but what about the current american accent (generic one that is) is it close to what would be the old english one?

[Fisherking]

Wow i didn't know that, thanks for the info, you have opened my eyes to something i never considered, but what about the current american accent (generic one that is) is it close to what would be the old english one?

The most Archaic accents are those from the rural southern US. (other than the real Dublin Accent that is, ) Many of the word pronunciations , word use, and phraseology my be Elizabethan. So the back woods frontier accents are the oldest. The Dublin Accent is thought to be the oldest form still spoken, but it may have more word meanings and phrases at its root than the pronunciation.
The Generic American Accent goes back to the brake with England and you can see the similarities with Canadian English. Also Americans had fixed their spelling of words prior to the Revelation.

[KozaK13]

kk, imagining the cast of black adder the second talking like "rednecks"/ hill billies is difficult...

[Fisherking]

kk, imagining the cast of black adder the second talking like "rednecks"/ hill billies is difficult...
:dizzy2:

I know what you mean!


:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[Incongruous]

To make it a story; some time ( I think in the 1820s but it may have been later) the English upper class began to speak in what they thought was a more elegant fashion. They modified the vowel sounds and lengthened them and began to clip some words. This in turn trickled down into the lower levels of society. (the first time in history that it went form the top down) The shift in pronunciation resulted in what we today think of as the British Accent.

Americans and to a lesser extent Canadians did not go through this shift, retaining the older form of the language. Spelling was also not firmly fixed resulting in different ways of spelling the same words.
So as much as the British love to make fun of their cousins across the sea, they speak a much more recent variety of the language.

If you want further information one book is , I believe, “The Story of English”. There are many others, and like this one written primarily by British Authors.

I hope I have answered the question.

:inquisitive:

I am afraid that sounds a bit off to me, you see, wherever you go throughout the old Empire, people of British descent sound different. Now, you cannot tell me that the English aristocracy decided to change the way it spoke everytime there was a large influx of Brits to the colonies?

Now, there was study, a very good one, done recently about the European NZ accent, it has now been proved that it is slowly changing and moving away from what it originally was. This would indicate that in fact, all those departed from their ancestral homeland, have also gone through the same process.

If you here a recording of a kiwi from the end of the 19th cen. they sound like either Scots, English or Irish. They clearly no longer do, thus I would, by simple application of logic, have to refuse to accept such a hypothesis, to boot that book is now over twenty years old and its research is probably a bit long in the tooth.

There are also, so many ancient regional accents in Britain that it is impossible to state that the English accent has lossed its historical roots through an aristocratice revolution of pronounciation, it simply cannot be true that the farmers I met in Cornwall are the end effect of such a thing. I can hardly understand them, same goes for the boys up north. These accents and dialects are ancient and reach well beyond the founding of the U.S.A.

[Martok]

We seem to have drifted from the original subject. :focus:


I'm still thinking/hoping that the uneven gunfire is due to the units being low-level and/or inexperienced, and that with time they'll improve to the point that simultaneous gunfire becomes the norm for them.

[Polemists]

Well I think if I recall they mentioned that there was a fire at will button and a "FIRE" button, so the theory going that you can wait and hold fire, and then hit Fire and they all fire in unison, but if you say fire at will then they all just start shooting.

In reality, I think this is how the battlefield would work, as not everyone would be firing in unison normally do to bullet fire, melee combat, etc.

Though perhaps there is a tech tree upgrade where you can learn it, we do know Drilling of Infantry is one avenue of the tech tree after all.

[Fisherking]

We seem to have drifted from the original subject. :focus:


I'm still thinking/hoping that the uneven gunfire is due to the units being low-level and/or inexperienced, and that with time they'll improve to the point that simultaneous gunfire becomes the norm for them.

:oops: I took it here...https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?p=2127779#post2127779


On topic:

That is what I thought when I first looked at the battle links but then I saw that the Americans had three chevrons on their infantry units.

The caption says it is believed to be an early rending of play. It could be that like others have said, it is fire at will, which makes sense because you see that the player is just whipping the units around and not taking time to control firing.

Perhaps if you want strict volley fire you have to control it. I hope platoon fire is a little easier…

[Sir Beane]

:oops: I took it here...https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?p=2127779#post2127779


On topic:

That is what I thought when I first looked at the battle links but then I saw that the Americans had three chevrons on their infantry units.

The caption says it is believed to be an early rending of play. It could be that like others have said, it is fire at will, which makes sense because you see that the player is just whipping the units around and not taking time to control firing.

Perhaps if you want strict volley fire you have to control it. I hope platoon fire is a little easier…

I think that 'fire at will' is most likely to be what is producing the effect. There are plenty of other videos and screenshots which seem to show volley fire working exactly as it should. :2thumbsup:

You probably have to use the 'fire' button if you want a unit to fire as a volley rather than as and when each man feels like it.

[Durango]

I'm still thinking/hoping that the uneven gunfire is due to the units being low-level and/or inexperienced, and that with time they'll improve to the point that simultaneous gunfire becomes the norm for them.

Sounds exactly what I want as well.

Although for some odd reason, I prefer the look and sound of ragged gunfire rather than muskets going off at precisely the same time. Maybe it has something to do with the battlefield being an orchestra or an opera, with different weapons being instruments... No, I'm not a nutcase :beam:

Also, guns going off prematurely would be interesting.

Like in The Last Samurai, when the....well "Ashigaru Teppo" or whatever they would be stand in the forests facing the Samurai. One of them start to piss his pants and accidentally fires, with the result that everyone starts to panic and fire too soon. They got annihilated, and so should we in ETW if that happens.


I think that 'fire at will' is most likely to be what is producing the effect. There are plenty of other videos and screenshots which seem to show volley fire working exactly as it should. :2thumbsup:

You probably have to use the 'fire' button if you want a unit to fire as a volley rather than as and when each man feels like it.

:2thumbsup:

I want to hear officers shout loudly whenever the commands are given:

"Make ready! Preeeeesent! Fire!"

And when the muskets go off, there should be a sound of flint striking the cap before the main ignition. This is extremely important!

[Nelson]

It could be exceedingly difficult for officers to prevent the men from firing once they had a mind to shoot. Unless a charge was conducted without flints it was all too tempting to fire at the enemy as soon as you could. When defending the temptation was to fire early and often because the men would become frightened or impatient. Good discipline was not unknown of course but more rare than many would believe.

One theory in the 18th century advocated free for all firing because it would lead to more shots. Waiting for others slowed the faster men. Regardless of the technique espoused by the generals, the men were still very hard to control.

[Durango]

It could be exceedingly difficult for officers to prevent the men from firing once they had a mind to shoot. Unless a charge was conducted without flints it was all too tempting to fire at the enemy as soon as you could. When defending the temptation was to fire early and often because the men would become frightened or impatient. Good discipline was not unknown of course but more rare than many would believe.

Ah, I see good Sir... but may I politely remind Sir that whilst thou was referring to mere unwashed scum and rabble, my humble self had the King's Royal Redcoats in mind.... It is as they say back home at my cottage in Essex, only....*hrmm*... less gentlemanly brawlers who stand shaking in the face of four aimed shots a minute.

Huzzah!

:clown:

[KozaK13]

Discipline is something fairly overlooked i think. It is what made the roman army the way it was. It is what helped alexander conquer persis. It is what aided prussia to acendance. It is what helped Napolean conquer europe (de facto). With out discipline noe of this would have happened...

I hope that is is somehow implimented...like there comes a point when you can no longer control your men's rate of fire.

[Polemists]

They have mentioned that drilling is a tech, so I think discipline is part of the technology tree.

So like I said, if you want to focus on infantry, your units may fire in unison. Keep in mind even if they don't, you can select 4, 8, or however many units and just click fire button, so you don't have to click on each unit indivdually and give the command. Also you can hit P for pause and then click it.

So yes, you can focus on discipline rather then infrastructure or education, just don't be surprised when your men are very organized but don't know which way to point the musket :)

[USS Providence 1972]

They have mentioned that drilling is a tech, so I think discipline is part of the technology tree.

So like I said, if you want to focus on infantry, your units may fire in unison. Keep in mind even if they don't, you can select 4, 8, or however many units and just click fire button, so you don't have to click on each unit indivdually and give the command. Also you can hit P for pause and then click it.

So yes, you can focus on discipline rather then infrastructure or education, just don't be surprised when your men are very organized but don't know which way to point the musket :)

That's interesting. I'm guessing you develop drilling as a discipline and then your troops are able to fire by rank. I would also guess that the ability to form squares has to be drilled. Experience probably then makes them more accurate and speeds up the reload time, as well as better at hand to hand.

I wonder if there will also be drills for the iron men on the wooden ships.

[Fisherking]

That's interesting. I'm guessing you develop drilling as a discipline and then your troops are able to fire by rank. I would also guess that the ability to form squares has to be drilled. Experience probably then makes them more accurate and speeds up the reload time, as well as better at hand to hand.

I wonder if there will also be drills for the iron men on the wooden ships.

One of the things I saw in a review was that the starting cartridge boxes held twenty rounds and it was hinted that that could go up.

It seems a strange tech to me.

Not like the commander says, alright boys, this could be a long day. I want each man carrying 60 rounds into battle.

I could understand if it was loading buck and ball in the cartridges or other special shot, but the number of rounds?

Ship technologies I hope will prove to be more substantial. Copper bottoms comes to mind…a long held British Military Secret.

[Polemists]

Okay guys, again this from another forum, you should thank me for hoping forums so much :).

So straight from a CA dev's mouth again

here's the link

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?p=4407246#post4407246

Entitled: Entire units of infantry firing at once


We had a bug in some of the videos where all men fired. We have men firing in different ways with a different depth of ranks depending on the firing drill.


So there you go, further confirmation, it's all about the drill :)

and another firing comment regarding multiple ranks firing.


Please don't misquote me. It's not a feature that ALL ranks can fire. What is true is that improved firing drills let MORE ranks fire than just the first rank.

[Sir Beane]

Okay guys, again this from another forum, you should thank me for hoping forums so much :).

So straight from a CA dev's mouth again

here's the link

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?p=4407246#post4407246

Entitled: Entire units of infantry firing at once




So there you go, further confirmation, it's all about the drill :)

and another firing comment regarding multiple ranks firing.

You're getting good at fact-finding Polemists :2thumbsup:. Different drills allowing more ranks to fire is an excellent way of representing better discipline in certain units. :beam:

[geala]

Interesting videos. I'm not really able to interpret however. The fight seems to take place in the War of Independence. At that late time at least the British troops should have the most modern fire mode.

This means imho a combination of platoon fire and volley fire. At least this would be true for the Prussian army. I'm not as sure for the British, but I think they used a similar system. With platoon fire it is of course normal that only parts of the line are firing at the same time. But the fire is steady and without pause, contrary to the outdated rank firing.

By no means rank firing was a modern form of firefight in the 18th century. It was the old form, used already in the 1600s. Some armies were bound to this antique form of fire longer than others, f.e. the French. But the Prussians and British f.e. developed platoon fire relatively early. The Prussian army in the middle of the 18th c. used volley fire (meaning that the entire battalion fires at once) in some circumstances too, f.e. from short distance prior to a bajonet charge. Platoon firing from greater distances was however the norm.

I hope CA got it right and platoon firing is in the game.

[Sir Beane]

Interesting videos. I'm not really able to interpret however. The fight seems to take place in the War of Independence. At that late time at least the British troops should have the most modern fire mode.

This means imho a combination of platoon fire and volley fire. At least this would be true for the Prussian army. I'm not as sure for the British, but I think they used a similar system. With platoon fire it is of course normal that only parts of the line are firing at the same time. But the fire is steady and without pause, contrary to the outdated rank firing.

By no means rank firing was a modern form of firefight in the 18th century. It was the old form, used already in the 1600s. Some armies were bound to this antique form of fire longer than others, f.e. the French. But the Prussians and British f.e. developed platoon fire relatively early. The Prussian army in the middle of the 18th c. used volley fire (meaning that the entire battalion fires at once) in some circumstances too, f.e. from short distance prior to a bajonet charge. Platoon firing from greater distances was however the norm.

I hope CA got it right and platoon firing is in the game.

Platoon firing is definitely in the game: (quote taken from CA's site)


Platoon Firing

This firing plan for musketry ensures an infantry unit keeps up a continual barrage of shots against an enemy.

Nearly all line infantry carry smoothbore, muzzle-loading muskets. These take considerable time to reload after firing: anything up to a minute for poorly trained or nervous troops. During that time, the enemy can close or return fire unmolested. In the time it takes to reload, a unit can be cut down, its half-loaded weapons useless in the face of an aggressive foe. It is sensible to make sure that not everyone in an infantry unit is reloading at the same moment; this, in turn, means that not everyone should be firing at the same time.

Platoon fire is a way of dividing a unit into smaller groups that each fire, reload and fire again in turn. The result is a “rippling fire” down a line formation and, as the last platoon fires its muskets, the first is ready to fire again. A unit can always give some fire to the enemy at all times, even if this is less than a complete volley. When more than one unit is involved all the troops in every first platoon fire, followed by all the second platoons, and so on, creating several rippling barrages down the battle line.

The word “platoon” in this context does not have the modern meaning of being a sub-unit of a military company. Platoon assignment to what was a “fire group” was made on an ad hoc or informal basis, and could mean a whole regiment being assigned to a “platoon”.

[geala]

Thank you. :yes: Shame on me, I should read the sticky thread more often and accurately. I'm curious wether CA created platoon fire after the existing systems. The descprition sounds like one end of the line starts and the other end ends the platoon fire what would normally not be the case imho.