View Full Version : how to use advance and fire?
Prussian to the Iron
04-10-2009, 15:30
how can i use this? i tried it once but my men just stood there, and i was afraid of advancing and having them not fire.
pevergreen
04-10-2009, 15:33
I think they do it once they are in range of firing.
Somewhat off topic, but does this tech seem somewhat worthless to anyone else?
You get partial shots at intervals and move like a turtle. It seems better to just close to within range halt and fire, or just go ahead and charge.
Smellycat
04-10-2009, 16:23
why would one want to get closer anyway?
Skunker4455
04-10-2009, 16:25
Somewhat off topic, but does this tech seem somewhat worthless to anyone else?
You get partial shots at intervals and move like a turtle. It seems better to just close to within range halt and fire, or just go ahead and charge.
Yeah, very useless tech. It would be much much better if your troops actually did advance, though. Instead they fire a volley, move about two steps and fire another. I would prefer they fired a volley, hustled a fair distance, and had then had the other group fire another volley and do the same. I envisioned a kind of "bounding overwatch" when i first read the description of the tech but when I used it i started laughing and immediately turned it off.
To use it, just hit the button or use the hotkeys and click to attack the unit you want to fire and advance towards. Watch as your guys are outgunned horribly.
Prussian to the Iron
04-10-2009, 16:32
oh, ok. thankx. requesting close/lock
Fiddling_nero
04-10-2009, 17:59
It can be useful for elite troops or those with experience.(for when reload skill increases) And when they are deployed in blocks after all you are not using breachloaders so you need to have a much larger pool of men to draw from to advance.
Warhammer3025
04-10-2009, 20:55
I think someone said before that the only reason this tech exists is so that we can recreate that scene in Zulu where the redcoats were advance and firing on the charging natives.
Otherwise yea, this tech is pretty much useless and will get you killed by anyone who can return missile fire.
Fisherking
04-10-2009, 21:36
Look, you want to close with the enemy a bit before a charge. Also it should keep up pretty much a steady fire with each rank advancing to fire. The steady fire is the thing.
Trouble is about the only guys who get it are the grenadiers. It doesn’t work so well with light troop you know.
Look, you want to close with the enemy a bit before a charge. Also it should keep up pretty much a steady fire with each rank advancing to fire. The steady fire is the thing.
Trouble is about the only guys who get it are the grenadiers. It doesn’t work so well with light troop you know.
No, the problem is if you lose some guys, after the last rank has moved to the front the game will make the formation reform and pull guys from behind to the new first line and make them start a completely new reload cycle which means once the last rank is in front the steady fire stops and you have to wait for a complete reload cycle before anyone will fire again.
That's a broken game mechanic that already somewhat ruined the musket fire in older games, when the games makes musket formations reform and refill their ranks it should put only men who have finished reloading into the rank that fires next but it doesn't, so the whole first rank has to wait for "new guy" to reload before they can fire.
Fisherking
04-10-2009, 22:01
No, the problem is if you lose some guys, after the last rank has moved to the front the game will make the formation reform and pull guys from behind to the new first line and make them start a completely new reload cycle which means once the last rank is in front the steady fire stops and you have to wait for a complete reload cycle before anyone will fire again.
That's a broken game mechanic that already somewhat ruined the musket fire in older games, when the games makes musket formations reform and refill their ranks it should put only men who have finished reloading into the rank that fires next but it doesn't, so the whole first rank has to wait for "new guy" to reload before they can fire.
That is a good point and something else that needs to be worked out I can see.
Who doesn’t take fire and I get a little tired of them always reforming and not shooting as it is.
Didn’t the Sergeants just shout to close up and the men kept fighting? Why loose a battle just so your ranks have perfect dress?
NimitsTexan
04-10-2009, 23:20
why would one want to get closer anyway?
To charge . . . battles of this period were decided by the bayonett (and this is reflected in the game . . . charges will decide the issue quicker than fire combat, generally).
Ideal use is to halt somewhere inside of musket range, use fire and advance to work to optimum charge range, then charge home.
To charge . . . battles of this period were decided by the bayonett (and this is reflected in the game . . . charges will decide the issue quicker than fire combat, generally).
Ideal use is to halt somewhere inside of musket range, use fire and advance to work to optimum charge range, then charge home.
Right but this can be micromanaged much more effectively and with relative efficiciency.
As:
March to range
FIRE
Run halfway
FIRE
CHARGE
this tech makes them waltz up all slow like.
I think they just included it because it looked cool in Zulu.
It really has no use, and any use that it was intended to have is obviously bugged because your soldiers move as slow as a snail.
pevergreen
04-11-2009, 02:09
Its changeable.
Its changeable.
That's nice for you but not everybody is pevergreen the mod-god who has nothing better to do all day than tweak game files. ~;)
To charge . . . battles of this period were decided by the bayonett
Uh....no they weren't. A bayonet charge was a useful tool to use in specific circumstances, not the battlefield endgame. Wellington himself used the word 'contemptible' to describe French forces attempting to attack his men in column formations. While the shock value of the bayonet charge was very effective, it was a deciding move only in that the attacker realistically had to have already defeated the enemy by placing him in a position disadvantageous enough for it to work. Without such conditions you get shot to hell coming in and bounce off a well ordered, disciplined formation.
The mythos of the bayonet is a romanticism even the people of the day bought into, when in reality it was overused by the French to the point of self destruction when they suddenly came up against well trained, stubbornly tenacious British forces, or couldn't find the massive local numerical superiority needed to shove enemies off the objective with sheer mass without breaking them down first. The effectiveness of bayonets in Empire: Total War is...well....largely broken when compared to reality simply because it's a game using a stats system and rules so different from real life that to find similarities you have to get down to the point of "they walk on two legs, like real people!".
pevergreen
04-11-2009, 13:59
That's nice for you but not everybody is pevergreen the mod-god who has nothing better to do all day than tweak game files. ~;)
thats a nice title. :grin2:
I started modding properly today. I spent about 4-5 hours throughout the entire day on it, most of that just finding out what everything did.
VEM (link in my sig) should do something to address this issue.
Problem is, I don't know if it will make it worse or better. I'm presuming better, from how I changed it.
To charge . . . battles of this period were decided by the bayonett (and this is reflected in the game . . . charges will decide the issue quicker than fire combat, generally).
Ideal use is to halt somewhere inside of musket range, use fire and advance to work to optimum charge range, then charge home.
Uh....no they weren't. A bayonet charge was a useful tool to use in specific circumstances, not the battlefield endgame. Wellington himself used the word 'contemptible' to describe French forces attempting to attack his men in column formations. While the shock value of the bayonet charge was very effective, it was a deciding move only in that the attacker realistically had to have already defeated the enemy by placing him in a position disadvantageous enough for it to work. Without such conditions you get shot to hell coming in and bounce off a well ordered, disciplined formation.
The mythos of the bayonet is a romanticism even the people of the day bought into, when in reality it was overused by the French to the point of self destruction when they suddenly came up against well trained, stubbornly tenacious British forces, or couldn't find the massive local numerical superiority needed to shove enemies off the objective with sheer mass without breaking them down first. The effectiveness of bayonets in Empire: Total War is...well....largely broken when compared to reality simply because it's a game using a stats system and rules so different from real life that to find similarities you have to get down to the point of "they walk on two legs, like real people!".
Wellington was born in 1769. Waterloo was fought in 1815. Age of Empires takes place from 1700-1799.
Might want to think about that.
A Very Super Market
04-11-2009, 16:42
"Age of Empires" ??? :confused:
Uh....no they weren't. A bayonet charge was a useful tool to use in specific circumstances, not the battlefield endgame. Wellington himself used the word 'contemptible' to describe French forces attempting to attack his men in column formations. While the shock value of the bayonet charge was very effective, it was a deciding move only in that the attacker realistically had to have already defeated the enemy by placing him in a position disadvantageous enough for it to work. Without such conditions you get shot to hell coming in and bounce off a well ordered, disciplined formation.
The mythos of the bayonet is a romanticism even the people of the day bought into, when in reality it was overused by the French to the point of self destruction when they suddenly came up against well trained, stubbornly tenacious British forces, or couldn't find the massive local numerical superiority needed to shove enemies off the objective with sheer mass without breaking them down first. The effectiveness of bayonets in Empire: Total War is...well....largely broken when compared to reality simply because it's a game using a stats system and rules so different from real life that to find similarities you have to get down to the point of "they walk on two legs, like real people!".
Seconded....The myth of the bayonet charge was based upon a fantasy propagated by those who never actually saw the front line of battle, but thought they understood what it was about. Actual historical evidence suggests that opposing troops only every crossed bayonets on three occasions during the entire Napoleonic War and two of those were accidents. The only deliberate bayonet v bayonet action occured at Austerlitz when a column of Russian Infantry and a column of French infantry emerged from the mist opposite each other and just kept marching forward rather than trying to deploy. Another accidental bayonet fight occurred between oppositing light troops who were both rushing to secure the top of a ridge line and arrived at the same moment.
By comparison there are numerous eyewitness accounts of soldiers just a few paces apart racing each other to relod their muskets rather than risk the lottery of trying to use their bayonets.
However, Nafod makes a valid point the Napoleonic Wars do not fall within the period covered by ETW. I'm not sure whether bayonets were used more aggressively in the 17th Century, as musketry was in a period of evolution throughout this period.
Seconded....The myth of the bayonet charge was based upon a fantasy propagated by those who never actually saw the front line of battle, but thought they understood what it was about. Actual historical evidence suggests that opposing troops only every crossed bayonets on three occasions during the entire Napoleonic War and two of those were accidents. The only deliberate bayonet v bayonet action occured at Austerlitz when a column of Russian Infantry and a column of French infantry emerged from the mist opposite each other and just kept marching forward rather than trying to deploy. Another accidental bayonet fight occurred between oppositing light troops who were both rushing to secure the top of a ridge line and arrived at the same moment.
By comparison there are numerous eyewitness accounts of soldiers just a few paces apart racing each other to relod their muskets rather than risk the lottery of trying to use their bayonets.
However, Nafod makes a valid point the Napoleonic Wars do not fall within the period covered by ETW. I'm not sure whether bayonets were used more aggressively in the 17th Century, as musketry was in a period of evolution throughout this period.
Hats off to you Didz. That's all I have to say this is not a game about the Napoleanic wars.:yes:
Prussian to the Iron
04-11-2009, 20:54
Age of Empires takes place from 1700-1799.
Age of Empires takes place throughout all periods i believe, or antiquity only. i believe you mean to say Empire: Total War...
Age of Empires takes place throughout all periods i believe, or antiquity only. i believe you mean to say Empire: Total War...
You sir are correct.
thats a nice title. :grin2:
Are you a lone "mod god," or part of a mod god squad? :laugh4: (Sorry, couldn't resist. :laugh: )
I started modding properly today. I spent about 4-5 hours throughout the entire day on it, most of that just finding out what everything did.
Are the tables in the wiki (https://forums.totalwar.org/wiki/index.php/ETW_Data) proving to be helpful?
DisruptorX
04-11-2009, 22:23
Uh....no they weren't. A bayonet charge was a useful tool to use in specific circumstances, not the battlefield endgame. Wellington himself used the word 'contemptible' to describe French forces attempting to attack his men in column formations. While the shock value of the bayonet charge was very effective, it was a deciding move only in that the attacker realistically had to have already defeated the enemy by placing him in a position disadvantageous enough for it to work. Without such conditions you get shot to hell coming in and bounce off a well ordered, disciplined formation.
The mythos of the bayonet is a romanticism even the people of the day bought into, when in reality it was overused by the French to the point of self destruction when they suddenly came up against well trained, stubbornly tenacious British forces, or couldn't find the massive local numerical superiority needed to shove enemies off the objective with sheer mass without breaking them down first. The effectiveness of bayonets in Empire: Total War is...well....largely broken when compared to reality simply because it's a game using a stats system and rules so different from real life that to find similarities you have to get down to the point of "they walk on two legs, like real people!".
Bayonets are hardly that effective in ETW unless you are attacking from multiple flanks, or attacking light infantry. Attacking a full strength unit head on with a bayonet charge in ETW results in heavy casualties for both sides.
Prussian to the Iron
04-11-2009, 23:01
You sir are correct.
i can haz cookie?
@disruptor:
in my experience, if you fire 2 or 3 volleys and then charge, you can easily win.
one of my strategies when using an army with some cavalry is that i have my main line, then it fires a couple volleys, and have my cavalry flank both extremeties. then i have my remaining cavalry units go around behind and charge. at this point i order my infantry to fix bayonets, and they easily win.
if i feel like i need more of an edge for any reason, i stretch out some of my infantry to envelop the flanks, and pull my cavalry behind. this way, it is impossible to escape, but i also have cavalry behind just in case.
the reason behind the second part is that no one ever routs to the sides. if i stretch my line out a little more to envelop the flanks, then i free up entire cavalry units and kill just as many men. then if any of them escape the back i can use my cavalry to run them down, or redirect them right back into my other men.
that reminds me, i have this hilarious glitch where i get the enemy ot run back and forth. once the enemy is all routing, i bring a cavalry unit straight ahead of a prefereably small routing unit. it will then go to the side or back where it came from. i then move up other cavalry to form an inward facing square around the routing unit. it will continually go one way, find its path blocked, go another way, find its path blocked, until eventually th battle is over. mighty good fun :smash::laugh4:
pevergreen
04-11-2009, 23:03
Are you a lone "mod god," or part of a mod god squad? :laugh4: (Sorry, couldn't resist. :laugh: )
Are the tables in the wiki (https://forums.totalwar.org/wiki/index.php/ETW_Data) proving to be helpful?
I'm not actually using them! :oops:
I might be able to add to them, but im about to be without internet for a week.
Hats off to you Didz. That's all I have to say this is not a game about the Napoleanic wars.:yes:
The only positive evidence I have of troops being expected to use bayonets aggressively from this period was the story of the Battle of Culloden, where apparently soldiers were taught a special drill to deal with the highlanders.
I might be able to add to them, but im about to be without internet for a week.
We'll look for some updates next week, then. ~;)
How are your LUA (https://forums.totalwar.org/wiki/index.php/Acronyms_Abbreviations_Shorthand) skills?
Smellycat
04-11-2009, 23:42
I find that charging my line infantry with bayonets bared followed by a quick cavalry charge to rear results in far less casualties than standing in nice neat lines and pew pewing away This chap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Suvorov) would agree
Didn't Russian Genrell Alexander Suvorov advocate bayonet tactics in battle during this period?
The only positive evidence I have of troops being expected to use bayonets aggressively from this period was the story of the Battle of Culloden, where apparently soldiers were taught a special drill to deal with the highlanders.
It was more a defensive tactic really - the problem was that crazy Scottish people would charge screaming down a hill wielding eight foot swords and hack the redcoats to pieces... the rather counter-intuitive solution was for a soldier to completely ignore the crazy Scot running towards them and instead focus on the one running towards the man on his right. As the Scot lifted up the giant sword he would leave his right chest particuarly exposed to a well timed bayonet stab.
The English won:whip:
Didn't Russian Genrell Alexander Suvorov advocate bayonet tactics in battle during this period?
Use of the bayonet charge (by the infantry, lance or saber for cavalry) was a means to an end: the push through the enemy, as a key to breaking the latter's morale and willingness to continue the fight.
He advocated, taught, trained, and led by example the same kind of initiative and aggressiveness that the British, German, (and later) American armies also encouraged and developed. Here's a good analysis: http://www.clausewitz.org/suvorov.html.
63-0 is an impressive record. The casualty stats, for that era, even more so.
DisruptorX
04-12-2009, 05:18
I think someone said before that the only reason this tech exists is so that we can recreate that scene in Zulu where the redcoats were advance and firing on the charging natives.
Been a while since I last saw that one, didn't they have bolt actions?
Been a while since I last saw that one, didn't they have bolt actions?
Probably not, as the first bolt action used by the british was the Lee Enfield (Unless one considers the Martini a bolt action). Nice gun if you can get your hands on one. Not sure when the Zulu wars occured, but I believe the Lee Enfield made it's first war appearance in the Boer Wars. It's a fine rifle, especially considering a British soldier carrying it into war in North Africa or Farnce in WWII was essentially fighting with the same rifle his father faught with in WWI and his grandfather in the Boer Wars.
Mine came from the Longbranch Arsenal in 1943.
Prussian to the Iron
04-12-2009, 07:12
what do you mean probably not? its either bolt-action or it isnt. is it that hard to tell if hey are shoving a stick in the muzzel or pulling a bolt?
i am no weapons expert, but i believe the winchester was the first boltaction. though since it has a different bolt-action than others (pulling down the handle rather than lifting, pulling, pushing, and lowering the bolt) i dont know if t would be clasified under bolt-action.
ok, wikipedia says it can go either way, but is usually clasified under pump-action or lever-action. the Martini-Henry rifle was very similar to a winchester, wth the lever-action design and similar sized cartridge.
for more info on the weapons of the Anglo-Zulu war's, go to the zulu (movie) page in wikipedia and go to historical innacuracies. then down to weapons.
Didn't Russian Genrell Alexander Suvorov advocate bayonet tactics in battle during this period?
As I said those who were never required to actually put theory into practice were very keen on it. The issue however, is whether it ever happened and actual evidence of troops crossing bayonets is pretty sparse, and become harder and harder to find as firearms become more numerous and reliable.
The confusion is increased like the myth of the 'cavalry charge', by writers and artists using romantic imagery to enhance mundane actions. Thus we read of French columns being driven off 'at point of bayonet' when in fact they were destroyed by close range musketry and already falling back in disarray when the regiment were ordered to 'fix bayonets and advance'.
The mentality of the common soldier to the use of the bayonet is easier to understand in books like Mark Urban's history of the rifle regiment where soldiers frequently mention the importance of always having a loaded rifle ready to fire and never discharging your piece until your buddy was reloaded.
The existence of a loaded musket or rifle ready to fire, effectively rendered any advance into close combat suicidal and provided it was managed properly prevented sword, lance or bayonet being used. Being caught without any loaded weapons was likely to result in immediate panic and a rapid advance to the rear if threatened with close quarter action of any kind.
Hence the comment 'men who could barely be persuaded to stand their ground and return fire, suddenly cannot be restrained from advancing with the bayonet as soon as they get sight of an enemy backpack before them.'
pevergreen
04-12-2009, 10:07
We'll look for some updates next week, then. ~;)
How are your LUA (https://forums.totalwar.org/wiki/index.php/Acronyms_Abbreviations_Shorthand) skills?
non existant? :grin2:
Been a while since I last saw that one, didn't they have bolt actions?
No they were armed with the Martini-Henry Rifle. Which was notorious for jamming when it was fired too rapidly and became hot.
Whilst the writer of the following article dismisses this claim battlefield archeologists did find a significant number of discarded rifles on the battlefield of islandwana with cartridges jammed in their breechblocks.
http://www.martinihenry.com/zulu-wars.htm
As I said those who were never required to actually put theory into practice were very keen on it.
Alexander Suvorov had 63 victories and no losses he must have known alot about how to make war in this period, which is more than I do... ie nun at all.
Smellycat
04-12-2009, 16:30
"The bullet's an idiot, the bayonet's a fine chap." (Underlying principle of the Western Way of War: "Get in the enemy's face.") "Stab once and throw the Turk off the bayonet. Bayonet another, bayonet a third; a real warrior will bayonet half a dozen and more. Keep a bullet in the barrel. If three should run at you, bayonet the first, shoot the second and lay out the third with your bayonet. This isn't common but you haven't time to reload..."(Tsouras, 1992, 23)
Suvorov taught his soldiers the "through attack" (or "attack through") with the bayonet for infantry, and the equivalent with lance or sabre for cavalry. The attackers did not stop to trade blows (as is usually portrayed in the movies), but instead tried to rush through the enemy line whether or not they hit their opponents. It is easy to imagine the effect on the enemy's organization and morale.
The drills for this tactic sometimes caused serious injuries and even fatalities, although the soldiers turned their weapons away when they closed with the opposing drill line. The casualties resulted from collisions, especially between galloping cavalry. The drills also, however, removed the soldiers' (and horses') natural fear of massed bayonets so, in battle, they triumphed over opponents not so drilled.
NimitsTexan
04-12-2009, 17:27
Seconded....The myth of the bayonet charge was based upon a fantasy propagated by those who never actually saw the front line of battle, but thought they understood what it was about. Actual historical evidence suggests that opposing troops only every crossed bayonets on three occasions during the entire Napoleonic War and two of those were accidents. The only deliberate bayonet v bayonet action occured at Austerlitz when a column of Russian Infantry and a column of French infantry emerged from the mist opposite each other and just kept marching forward rather than trying to deploy. Another accidental bayonet fight occurred between oppositing light troops who were both rushing to secure the top of a ridge line and arrived at the same moment.
By comparison there are numerous eyewitness accounts of soldiers just a few paces apart racing each other to relod their muskets rather than risk the lottery of trying to use their bayonets.
However, Nafod makes a valid point the Napoleonic Wars do not fall within the period covered by ETW. I'm not sure whether bayonets were used more aggressively in the 17th Century, as musketry was in a period of evolution throughout this period.
Exactly. This game does not cover the Napoelonic Wars (except maybe the very first couple of years). It is the period of the Wars of Succession, Seven Years War, American Revolution, and French Revolutionary Wars. Especially during the first half of the games period, melee was still considered very much more decisive than fire combat. Heck, a couple of nations were still using pikemen in their regiments! Frederick the Great, for example, much prefered the bayonet over musket fire to decide an engagement.
Frederick the Great, for example, much prefered the bayonet over musket fire to decide an engagement.
Actually the reason Frederick the Great army was so successful was that he introduced the iron ramrod which allowed his men to reload far faster than his opponents.
DisruptorX
04-12-2009, 18:24
No they were armed with the Martini-Henry Rifle. Which was notorious for jamming when it was fired too rapidly and became hot.
Whilst the writer of the following article dismisses this claim battlefield archeologists did find a significant number of discarded rifles on the battlefield of islandwana with cartridges jammed in their breechblocks.
http://www.martinihenry.com/zulu-wars.htm
Yeah, as the other posts mentioned. I had forgotten about it. Pre-bolt action similar to a Winchester, no?
All this talk about 19th century weapons is having me hoping for an expansion. So much good material. Napoleon, Mexican-American War, Crimean War, American Civil War, Franco-Prussian War. Plus all the colonial conflicts and battles between the Russians and Turks.
Prussian to the Iron
04-12-2009, 18:34
Yeah, as the other posts mentioned. I had forgotten about it. Pre-bolt action similar to a Winchester, no?
yes, as i sad it was a lever-action very similar to a winchester. the british in the Anglo-Zulu wars also were mequipped with a single gatling gun.
DisruptorX
04-12-2009, 18:40
Now that I remember, the story I always heard was that the British were sure that they couldn't lose a battle due to their high tech guns and so performed very tactically poorly and were defeated.
Quick interwebs search seems to back that up. They were flanked and out maneuvered. Guns not performing as well as planned also played into it.
Now that I remember, the story I always heard was that the British were sure that they couldn't lose a battle due to their high tech guns and so performed very tactically poorly and were defeated.
Quick interwebs search seems to back that up. They were flanked and out maneuvered. Guns not performing as well as planned also played into it.
The battlefield archeology actually suggests that the official version of events was a fabrication. The dispersal of battlefield debris. spent cartidges, discarded weapons and a equipment etc. suggests that the British lost because they were complacent and over confident in their firepower superiority. The best assessment is that instead of forming a battle line close to their camp they advanced on the Zulu positions on the ridge in open skirmish order, without conductnig any scouting and were swamped by the huge number of warriors who suddenly emerged from behind it in much larger numbers than expected.
Panic then ensued, with jamming weapons and extended ranks not really helping. It seems from concentration of cartridges that some small rally squares were formed but the vast majority of the army simply ran for their lives discarding anything that might hamper their flight.
What they didn't consider was that the Zulu's always attack from three sides, and so in running away from one group the fugitives ran into another. Apparently, the final massacres took place in a waddi several miles from the camp where the Zulu's finally caught up with the last of the routers and finished them off. At this point those who still had weapons had fired most of their ready ammunition and the camp had been overrun so there were very few spent cartidges in this area just a lot of scattered equipment, left buried in the soil.
DisruptorX
04-12-2009, 20:52
My wording might have been a little bad, but yeah, that's what I meant. They were overconfident, and didn't bother with basic tactics at all. Not an uncommon source of defeat for a superior force.
Wellington was born in 1769. Waterloo was fought in 1815. Age of Empires takes place from 1700-1799.
Might want to think about that.
A completely, totally and utterly irrelevant point considering Empire: Total War is polite enough to allow us to easily reach a Napoleonic level of combat many, many, many decades ahead of real history. In fact, it joyfully smears the whole time period together with wild abandon so we can have those iconic Napoleonic style battles at a point in history before the theatres of battle would have consisted of "French And British European Pissing Contest", "British India", and "Isolationist United States" with the various "British Trade Territories Already Utterly Dominated By The British Merchant Fleet And Royal Navy". Because that would have been great fun to play.
Might want to think about that.
what do you mean probably not? its either bolt-action or it isnt. is it that hard to tell if hey are shoving a stick in the muzzel or pulling a bolt?
i am no weapons expert, but i believe the winchester was the first boltaction. though since it has a different bolt-action than others (pulling down the handle rather than lifting, pulling, pushing, and lowering the bolt) i dont know if t would be clasified under bolt-action.
ok, wikipedia says it can go either way, but is usually clasified under pump-action or lever-action. the Martini-Henry rifle was very similar to a winchester, wth the lever-action design and similar sized cartridge.
for more info on the weapons of the Anglo-Zulu war's, go to the zulu (movie) page in wikipedia and go to historical innacuracies. then down to weapons.
Easy trigger. There are many more actions than muzzle load or bolt. For instance the Martini very well may have been a breech-loader. Also consider the Mannlicher Steyr )Used by the Austro-Hungarians) which was a straight pull bolt. Additionally the lever actions remain very different in nature.
My primary interest in firearms starts from the variants used in WWII and works backwards. The martini does not fall into my area of interest because the Biritish developed such a fine rifle at such an early time.
A completely, totally and utterly irrelevant point considering Empire: Total War is polite enough to allow us to easily reach a Napoleonic level of combat many, many, many decades ahead of real history. In fact, it joyfully smears the whole time period together with wild abandon so we can have those iconic Napoleonic style battles at a point in history before the theatres of battle would have consisted of "French And British European Pissing Contest", "British India", and "Isolationist United States" with the various "British Trade Territories Already Utterly Dominated By The British Merchant Fleet And Royal Navy". Because that would have been great fun to play.
Might want to think about that.
Fair enough Khorak. If you wish to state that Empire Total War is unhistoric in and of itself why bother throwing quotes from a different time period and using them to support your viewpoint?
Smellycat
04-13-2009, 01:42
A completely, totally and utterly irrelevant point considering Empire: Total War is polite enough to allow us to easily reach a Napoleonic level of combat many, many, many decades ahead of real history. In fact, it joyfully smears the whole time period together with wild abandon so we can have those iconic Napoleonic style battles at a point in history before the theatres of battle would have consisted of "French And British European Pissing Contest", "British India", and "Isolationist United States" with the various "British Trade Territories Already Utterly Dominated By The British Merchant Fleet And Royal Navy". Because that would have been great fun to play.
Might want to think about that.
Nice point but some of us don't finish the campaign in 20 years and then press end turn for 80 years instead preferring to follow a historical (or roleplaying) expansion and technology rate so being able to reach the Napoleonic warfare does not equate in doing it just like having 6 twinkies in the fridge does not equate eating them all at once
Prussian to the Iron
04-13-2009, 15:28
Fair enough Khorak. If you wish to state that Empire Total War is unhistoric in and of itself why bother throwing quotes from a different time period and using them to support your viewpoint?
that in fact is a very good point. i agree 100%
al Roumi
04-14-2009, 17:30
Actually the reason Frederick the Great army was so successful was that he introduced the iron ramrod which allowed his men to reload far faster than his opponents.
Don't mean to undermine you at all here Didz, but surely the introduction and adoption of iron ramrods wasn't the only reason why Frederick's army was so great and successful.
Mystiqblackcat
04-14-2009, 18:07
I am making my way through a book about warfare in the Napoleonic age and it cites that a common British tactic was to from up two ranks deep for increased fire power and fire off two volleys at close range followed immediately by a bayonet charge for shock value. Apparently it worked fairly well, I don't have the book with me otherwise I would quote soem specifics.
I tend to save bayonet charges until the enemy unit is about to break. If not I seem to take too many casualties in addition to having to worry about friendly fire.
Marquis of Roland
04-14-2009, 19:45
Before any sensible bayonet charge was mounted, the section of line to be attacked should have been weakened and/or disoriented by artillery and musket volleys. If you're charging into a solid line of muskets, of course you are going to lose.
Don't mean to undermine you at all here Didz, but surely the introduction and adoption of iron ramrods wasn't the only reason why Frederick's army was so great and successful.
Obviously, not. The Prussian Army at this period was at the peak of its efficiency as a fighting force. Frederick introduced a whole new drill system based upon a standard cadence that ensured perfect precision, discipline and speed of movement, he also introduced a new battlefield strategy based upon a rapid oblique march which allowed his army to place pressure on a single point of the enemy line whilst still pinning the rest of the enemy force in place. This coupled with the overwhelming firepower afforded by his iron ramrods mean't that his army could literally blast a hole through any point of the enemy line he choose to direct it against.
...the iron ramrod, increasing Prussian firepower, and the slow march, or goose-step. The new king trained and drilled the army relentlessly, focusing on the firing speed of their flintlock muskets and formation maneuverability. The changes gave the army flexibility, precision, and a rate of fire that was largely unequaled for the time period.[15] Through drilling and the iron ramrod, each soldier was expected to fire six times in a minute, three times as fast as most armies.
I am making my way through a book about warfare in the Napoleonic age and it cites that a common British tactic was to from up two ranks deep for increased fire power and fire off two volleys at close range followed immediately by a bayonet charge for shock value.
I would not say it was common, it became more prevalent as the Napoleonic Wars progressed. However, even in 1815 there were regiments formed four deep on the Waterloo ridge and bayonet charges were rare during that battle simply because the French were to well organised and supported. One Battalion of the Kings German Legion did attempt it near La Haye Sainte and were promptly cut to ribbons by supporting cavalry.
As I said earlier in the debate the romantic ideal of 'cold steel' appealled to everyone except the soldiers who were being asked to put it into practice. In 1794 Carnot ordered the French Army to seek 'action with the bayonet on every occassion', and Napoleon had a festish for the idea of cold steel. One French officer commented wryly to another that if asked 'one must be killed by a bayonet, as the Emperor has a fondness for those who die in this manner.' Official French Army doctrine, as expounded by the Ecole Polytechnique, claimed that only the first volley of musketry was effective, 'after which the bayonet and the sword may charge without sustaining great loss.'
Austrian and Prussian regulations also stressed the role of the bayonet in the attack, and Archdukle Chalres considered it the best weapon for use in close combat. In Russia the 'Precepts for Infantry Officers on the Day of Battle', issued in 1812, still advocated the bayonet charge delivered in deep column formation as the preferred tactic.
Yet, in practice very few soldiers actually fought each other with cold steel.
At Austerlitz the Russian Guards made a classic 300 yard bayonet charge, but were so exhausted after breaking through the first French line that they were easily driven off by musketry fire from the second. Generally, it was the threat of the bayonet, rather than its actual use that decided an issue. General Larry, of the Grand Army noted that in all his years of service with the French Army he had only ever seen five bayonet wounds, and concluded that the effect of the weapon was largely psychological.
Whilst Guthrie a senior medical officer in the British Army noted that 'troops charging with the bayonet never actually meet and struggle hand to hand and foot to foot; and this for the best possible reason, that one side turns and runs away as soon as the other comes close enough to do mischief.'
General Lejeune supports these views stating that in his expereince it is 'very rare, for as a rule one of the the corps is demoralised to begin with by the firing, and draws back before the enemy is close enough to cross muzzles.'
Jomini declares on the same subject 'I never saw such a thing on a regular field of battle.'
Extracts from 'The Art of Warfare in the Age of Napoleon' by Rothenberg
The only occassion when bayonets were used in the Peninsula Campaign was at the battle of Roncesvalles on 25 July 1813 as described by Captain Tovey of the 2oth Foot.
'The division had been expecting an attack that morning and the twentieth were lying in column by their arms. It was daylight however, when a german Sergeant form the Brunswick Corps, who had been out in front, came in haste to tell us that the French had made the Spainish piquet prisoner without firing a shot. The left wing of the Twentieth were moved instantly to form on some strong ground in the direction they were coming, and while doing so the enemy light troops opened so galling a fire that Major Ross, who was on the spot called for a company to go in front and drive them off. Without waiting for further orders, I pushed out with mine, and in close order and double quick march cleared away the skirmishers from a sort of plateau to our front. They did not wait for us, and, on reaching the opposite side, we came so suddenly on the head of the enemy's infantry column, who had just gained a footing on the summit of the hill , that the men of my comany absolutely paused in astonishment, for we were face to face with them, and the French officers called on us 'to disarm; I repeated 'Bayonet Away!', and rushing headlong among them, we fairly turned them back into the descent of the hill; and such was the panic and confusion occassioned amongst them by our sudden onset that our small party, for such it was compared to the French had time to regain the regiment. The enemy had many killed and their leading officer fell at my feet with two others, all bayonetted. The company, with which I was the only officer present on this occasison, did not amount to more than seventy or eighty men, and we had eleven killed and fourteen wounded....a powerful man by the name of Budworth returned with only the blood-soiled socket of his bayonet on his piece; and he declared that he had killed away until his bayonet broke; I am confident, from the reckless and intrepid nature of the man, that he had done so.
Extract from 'Wellington's Army' by Glover.
Warhammer3025
04-15-2009, 18:58
While i can see how the Napoleonic Era had less bayonet fighting due to increase in effectiveness in musketry and disciplined formations, how about earlier eras (say 1550-1700) during the height of the Musket and Pike? Were there times where there were tactical ramifications of plugging your musket with a bayonet and before receiving or attempting a charge? Was close in fighting more prevalent due to firearms being not all that refined yet? Were there many if any instances of situations where bayonet wielding troops got caught up in a pike push?
While i can see how the Napoleonic Era had less bayonet fighting due to increase in effectiveness in musketry and disciplined formations, how about earlier eras (say 1550-1700) during the height of the Musket and Pike? Were there times where there were tactical ramifications of plugging your musket with a bayonet and before receiving or attempting a charge? Was close in fighting more prevalent due to firearms being not all that refined yet? Were there many if any instances of situations where bayonet wielding troops got caught up in a pike push?
Exactly, there must have been some sort of progression from ancient and medieval warfare which was very much close up and personal, to the horse and musket era' of massed musketry. Certainly, in he mid-17th century one still got the 'push of pike', but perhaps it was the decline of the pikeman that triggerred the change in doctrine. When everyone has something to use that kills from a distance it begins to get less appealing to stand too close.
I've never actually seen anyone cover this transition in a methodical way, most books concentrate on weapons and ignore soldiers attitudes.
Exactly, there must have been some sort of progression from ancient and medieval warfare which was very much close up and personal, to the horse and musket era' of massed musketry. Certainly, in he mid-17th century one still got the 'push of pike', but perhaps it was the decline of the pikeman that triggerred the change in doctrine. When everyone has something to use that kills from a distance it begins to get less appealing to stand too close.
I've never actually seen anyone cover this transition in a methodical way, most books concentrate on weapons and ignore soldiers attitudes.
I intend to keep this argument civil and in no way insult anyone.
If we are talking about the Napoleaonic wars I would have to agree with those that discredit the use of the bayonet as a viable tactic, as it remained a predominate part of US military doctrine and was used extensively in the early battles of the US Civil War and generally met with disastrous results. As the doctrine failed to realize the advancements in firearms that had occured between then and the war of 1812.
As far as the 18th century covered by this game I'd have to disagree.
Simply put a line advancing in the American Revolutionary war wasn't in real danger from musket fire until closing to within 50 yards, and nothing significant until around 30. By the 1860's these ranges had increased to 100 and 50 yards respectively.
Also consider that most firearms of the 18th century did not have sights (by most I'm implying the arms provided in mass to a nations army). Not even a pip at the end of the barrel like a modern day shotgun.
Volleys were not necessary to score hits, but rather project a wall of lead in unison, in an instant in a hope of causing a route. A bayonet charge functioned the same way. Of course if the defender stayed it would be a bloodbath. It always is with an enemy that simply will not give up ground.
I'd wager the bayonet charge faded into military history romantically the same way the calvary charge did. As infantry men gained the ability to accurately place fire further and further away it became a much more difficult task to get ever closer without taking on immense casualties. As there was no longer a need to "wait until the last second." This largely did not occur until the early 19th century however.
I'd also comment that soldiers attitudes matter little. Either they followed orders or they routed. Obviously any fighting man would prefer entrenchment on good ground but ultimately if a unit will not follow orders, be they advance or otherwise, it is no longer an effective fighting unit.
As far as the 18th century covered by this game I'd have to disagree.
Thats fair enough...I mean none of us actually know what happened so everything we are discussing is personal opinion and conjecture.
However, what I'm trying to explore is what people who were there actually said happened, rather than what drill manuals, drunken generals and boastful old vets said ought to have happened.
I mean there is the 'They don't like it up 'em, Mister Manering.' attitude towards the use of cold steel that still persists in some military attitudes today, and there is the actual attitude of the troops in the battle on the day and how they reacted.
To be honest I'm interested in both, but I like to keep a clear distinction better 'What was supposed to happen, what people said happened afterwards, and what actually happened.' Thats really what we are discussing here.
I'd also comment that soldiers attitudes matter little. Either they followed orders or they routed. Obviously any fighting man would prefer entrenchment on good ground but ultimately if a unit will not follow orders, be they advance or otherwise, it is no longer an effective fighting unit.
I have to disagree with this simply because it contradicts itself. As has been commented on numerous occassions 'In battle the Morale is to the Physical as 10 is to 1'. In other words it is what the solider is thinking and what he beleives to be true which matters much more than any orders being shouted at him.
The battle being fought on the drill squares and in military training camps around the world is to try and turn soldiers into unthinking machines that will indeed follow orders without thinking and repeat their drills instinctively even when they no longer make any sense. However, personal accounts of show that this is a lost battle before it even starts. The sights and sounds of battle are so alien to humanity that men who are exposed to them do think, and so its what THEY think that matters, not what orders are being shouted at them. History tends to gloss over the facts when trying to make sense of the results, it likes to report the orders and tries to explain how they were carried out, but it also tries to ignore when they patently weren't followed becuase it has no explanation in the official record of what happened instead or why.
You say, a fighting man either followed orders or they routed, but that in itself is far too simplistic. There is a process of transition from order to chaos and from cohesion to rout, and that process is driven by what it going on the heads of individual soldiers and the impact their behaviour has on those around them. Units do not suddenly go from being under command to routing, the process probably begins before the unit even comes under fire. A seed of doubt perhaps planted in the minds of the soldiers a perception of chaos and disorder on the part of their officers.
Tolstoy actually captures this perfectly in his description of the Battle of Austerlitz, where he describes the attitude of the Russian soldiers waiting to go into action. That is of course a fictional account but I have a few eyewitness accounts from the same period which suggest that the same sort of process was taking place in every soldiers mind.
This from a French Sergeant talking of the famous French column attack against a British line.
'The Britsh did not move, they just stood there with their arms at the recover and ignored us. We were getting closer and closer and still the British stood like a wall across our path, they did not move, the men began to get nervous. I was worried about how close we were getting, the effect of their fire when it did come would be terrible. The men began to shout 'Vive I'Empereur', 'En Avant' they were thinking the same as I. We could see the enemies faces, we could see the buttons on their uniforms, and still they did nothing. The men began to falter, to take shorter steps, they did not want to get closer. The officers began to shout 'keep moving, forward, forward' a musket was fired then another, men began to push each other. Then the British moved, in one sudden movement they raised their weapons to the shoulder. That movement alone stopped us and for a second there was total silence. Then the world exploded around me and everyone near me was flung backwards down the slope. There was a groan and I looked around to see nothing but chaos everywhere and as I turned back and looked up the slope the British were marching out of their own musket smoke their bayonets lowered and howling like wild animals. There was nothing to be done, they are not human.'
It's the 'what actually happened' aspect that I'm mainly discussing here, there must have been a point at which soldiers ceased to consider the use of cold steel to be feasible and that should be capable of being plotted by looking at actual events on the battlefield.
You mentioned the American War of Independence, are there examples of troops actually crossing bayonets in any of the battle of that war. My own memory is more familiar with stories of the long range fire and retire tactic's used by American irregulars which were a constant frustration to the British.
No they were armed with the Martini-Henry Rifle. Which was notorious for jamming when it was fired too rapidly and became hot.
Whilst the writer of the following article dismisses this claim battlefield archeologists did find a significant number of discarded rifles on the battlefield of islandwana with cartridges jammed in their breechblocks.
http://www.martinihenry.com/zulu-wars.htm
The Martini-Henry rifle was a drop block design single shot design. Single shot rifles do not have feeding jams. At most the soft shell casing will expand against the chamber and not eject leaving you to dig it out with a knife. That is not a problem with the rifle design more a problem of the shells.
This can happen to revolvers also.
The Martini-Henry rifle was a drop block design single shot design. Single shot rifles do not have feeding jams. At most the soft shell casing will expand against the chamber and not eject leaving you to dig it out with a knife. That is not a problem with the rifle design more a problem of the shells.
This can happen to revolvers also.
Well whatever, it appears there was a problem with the rifles becoming jammed for whatever reason. The commonly held belief that the men had been overrun because of a shortage of ammunition proved to be false.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.