Fire by rank vs Platoon fire

[Dead Guy]

I've been playing a new campaign since the last patch and just got guards again. I checked the unit cards quickly in battle because my guards were behaving strangely. It seemed like the guard get the platoon fire whereas line infantry get fire by rank in the abilities tab? I haven't tested it a lot but it seems that fire by rank is a lot better than plaoon firing, platoon seemed really slow and ineffective. Any thoughts or any experience on this from people who play quicker and more campaigns than me? :p

[FactionHeir]

If the first part of the unit fires, fire by rank usually has a lot more men firing than platoon firing. That's significant in that if your target moves out of range, your units will start anew and have to reload first. WIth platoon firing thus, you get off maybe 12 shots, while with fire by rank you get off around 26.

Also, platoon fire forces the unit to take on a looser formation, so they have to continually re-form their formation before firing too if targets change or if on the move.

[Didz]

Historically, platoon fire was superior to fire by ranks. In ETW they are seperate technical advances and either you have the ability or you don't. If you have platoon fire then all your infantry should be using it, if you don't then none of them will.

What I have noticed, which i consider quite clever is that sometimes, (just sometimes) a whole rank of a unit will not fire when their line of sight is obscured by friends or terrain. So, you get what looks like a platoon volley but in fact the entire rank should have fired, its just that some could not see anything to fire at.

The bad news is that this seems to muck up the fire by rank drill, and I've noticed that the dozen or so men who did fire are expected to reload before the regiment tries to fire the front rank again.

You actually get similar thing happen sometimes in naval battles where you can see a ship just fire off a few of its cannon instead of its full broadside and then there's a pause whilst it re-sync's its gun crews.

[Fisherking]

I have been skipping the fire by rank tech and moving on to the others because, if you have not noticed, it carries a penalty of a 6% increase in infantry upkeep.

Call me cheap, but I can live without it.

The money for troops is more important than the quality most of the time…

Is anyone else picking and choosing techs based on costs to you? Some can not be avoided and I get them all in the end. I just put them off as long as possible.

[Discoman]

I'm starting to be more careful when it comes to investments. I think Rank and Fire is worth it because it shows more results overtime.

Platoon firing is rather effective, it offers consistent fire to thin the enemies ranks and usually results in 2-3 kills per barrage. It also takes alot less time to prepare for than fire by rank.

[Monsieur Alphonse]

Platoon fire doesn't work for me. I like fire by rank because it gives a lot more fire power. The only reason why I research platoon fire is that I have to research something. And it unlocks the last barracks (IIRC) which give an extra XP to line infantry.

[Ishmael]

I've found that against melee armies (mostly in India) platoon fire only gets 2-3 volleys off, which does little actual damage. I much prefer fire by rank to be honest-its a shame you can't toggle this ability in guards and whatnot.

[Vealer]

DEAD GUY..

I think you are onto something here.. At the end of Prussia Campaign VH/VH. I have all military techs, my observations are as follows

1) Line infantry fire by rank as default. I have not seen them platoon fire, can they even do that?

2) Guards. They fire all standing in their rows. I.e. the back rank can fire and the front rank can fire, they do not need to kneel. It seems superior as all can fire not just the first rank! Is this platoon fire?
If so it is much better than fire by rank but it seems it is more like a guard special ability as it is powerful


????

V

[FactionHeir]

Only Elite type infantry can platoon fire anyway, the rest is stuck with fire by rank. Which is a good thing. Platoon fire only works properly at the start and middle of the battle during a prolonged shootout. Once units start to waver and rout and come back and what not, platoon fire is very much useless. You simply can't kill routers efficiently with it while you can with fire by rank.

[Dead Guy]

Yeah Vealer that's what i mean. The problem I find with platoon is that the inital amount of fire is so much smaller than with rank fire, since just a section of the unit fires. My defense against cavalry for example depends a lot on a mass of fire to make the cavalry break as they reach the line. With platoon I find it's not quite able to achieve that. I guess I'll have to learn to use elite infantry in slightly different roles than line, and not just use them as a beefed up line regiment. And as FH points out, if you're shooting routers you really need a lot of shots going off in an instant before the routers get out of range again.

[antisocialmunky]

The real idea of platoon fire is suppression and making it so that the enemy can't charge. The AI will charge anyways so its kinda pointless and reduces your Frontloaded DPS.

[Vealer]

Thanks guys

I paid more attention when I was playing last night and yeah I see all elite infantry has platoon fire. To be honest it seems quite valuable to me as they start firing much more quickly and I usually chase down broken enemy with cavalry. Perhaps that is just a habit from RTW, MTW1&2 but it still works..

DO you therefore think that guards are not as not as valuable as line infantry? if I have the cash I usually get Guards but maybe I am just blindly buying the best there is.

I usually add guards to the main battle line. Grens I put them behind the battle line with Greanades on auto fire (with some obsessive manual intervention from time to time). They seem more effective like this so I never use there platoon fire in a serious way in any case

[Kulgan]

I have been skipping the fire by rank tech and moving on to the others because, if you have not noticed, it carries a penalty of a 6% increase in infantry upkeep.




Are you being serious? I find the fire by rank advancement the single most influencial technology on the battlefield. Before fire by rank only a third or less of your infantry could fire their weapon. Half can fire if you line them up two deep but those formations get owned by melee charges and the width of only a few of those units take on too much space to be a make a realistic battlefield.

Once fire by rank is there however, you can line up say 6-7 line infantry 3-4 deep* in the center of your line and have a real solid line that won't break anytime in a melee and will kill anything with musketfire that stands in front of them real soon.

This leaves you with both the free units and the free time to micromanage the flanks which are made up of specialist infantry and cavalry/horse artillery.

* 3 Deep when facing a lot of charging enemies and 4 deep when facing other musketbased armies

[Dead Guy]

Are you being serious? I find the fire by rank advancement the single most influencial technology on the battlefield. Before fire by rank only a third or less of your infantry could fire their weapon. Half can fire if you line them up two deep but those formations get owned by melee charges and the width of only a few of those units take on too much space to be a make a realistic battlefield.

Once fire by rank is there however, you can line up say 6-7 line infantry 3-4 deep* in the center of your line and have a real solid line that won't break anytime in a melee and will kill anything with musketfire that stands in front of them real soon.

This leaves you with both the free units and the free time to micromanage the flanks which are made up of specialist infantry and cavalry/horse artillery.

* 3 Deep when facing a lot of charging enemies and 4 deep when facing other musketbased armies

completely agree

[Servius]

I too agree with Kulgan.

In my experience, Fire by Rank > Platoon Firing.

Fire by Rank is better vs melee enemies like Native Americans and cavalry because 2-3 ranks can get off 100% of their shots before a charging unit reach them. I've often found that 2-3 full volleys is all it takes to make a melee unit change it's mind and flee.

Even vs ranged units, I believe Fire by Rank is superior because there is no suppression in ETW, which negates the usefulness of weaker but sustained fire, nor do I believe there is a morale penalty for being under sustained fire that is any greater than being under fire by volleys. That last part is just a guess though, I haven't actually seen that in the code.

[Marquis of Roland]

Fire by rank is the single most important battle tech you can research in the whole game. Without it your line infantry is pretty worthless.

Btw, only 3 ranks fire.

[al Roumi]

I'd like to jump on the bandwagon here and proclaim myself a heartfelt supproter of FbR (Fire by Rank). It not only marks a sea change in my battle deployment and tactics, it's also a death knell for most Militia units I have.

Would it be fair to say that the shift from FbR to platoon fire actually weakens elite unit's musket fire?

If so, that no sort of supression fire mechanic exists in ETW (as it does in Company of Heroes, for example) begs the question as to why CA bothered to include it?

[AussieGiant]

I'd say the boys at CA are going to get around to important gameplay mechanics like this in future patches.

Can someone confirm, that Platoon Fire is only for elite units? Not Line Units?

[al Roumi]

Grenadiers, Guards and other elite line-type infantry (Infanterie petits vieux, coldstream guards etc) can use the platoon fire drill once it has been researched.

AussieGiant, your unswerving faith in CA to "deliver the goods" and live up to expectations never ceases to amaze me.

[antisocialmunky]

How does platoon fire work against cav? I mean, Cav can just wait until someone eats a fire by rank but Platoon fire is a little more tricky.

[Dead Guy]

I'd say the boys at CA are going to get around to important gameplay mechanics like this in future patches.

Can someone confirm, that Platoon Fire is only for elite units? Not Line Units?

My source for this information is the in battle unit card of dutch republican guard and line infantry, as well as observing their behavior in battle. With both relevant techs researched, of course. Though blind faith is never good, I've never, that I can recall, seen false information posted by FactionHeir, so there's further proof :p

[al Roumi]

How does platoon fire work against cav? I mean, Cav can just wait until someone eats a fire by rank but Platoon fire is a little more tricky.

FbR unloads the same number of muskets faster and in a more concentrated dose than platoon fire. It should therefore be quicker to inflict maximum damage on charging cavalry than platoon fire.

Whether there is a greater morale hit for being under supressing fire or taking casualties quickly should determine when/how likely a rout is.

I'm not certain if this is true but FbR may be more flexible vis-a-vis the position of the target, as it's possible each rank updates its target as it comes ot fire. That could be true (and should be) of each platoon in the platoon firing drill though...

[AussieGiant]

So Platoon Fire is only for Elite units. That means Line Regiments stay on fire by rank.

Keep that in mind.

@ alh_p, I'll stay optimistic until the patching is finished. I'm sure there are going to be never statisfied but if we are approximately 50% of the way through the patching work then there are a lot more things to be resolved...a lot.

I'd call my approach pretty measured at this point. :2thumbsup:

[Megas Methuselah]

I utterly hate Platoon Firing. If it has to be included in-game, I wish it were merely an option for the elite units to use in-battle. FbR is much more deadly.

[Marquis of Roland]

Not sure if I saw this correctly but when playing my "guards" army (6 guards infantry, 2 guards cav, 2 light dragoons, 4 rifles, 2 grenadiers, 3 howitzers, 1 gen), I could've sworn I saw my guard infantry fire 1 volley by rank on incoming cav. I had 1 unit of rifles in skirmish in front but they shot their volley about 3sec. before I saw the volley in question.

[Fisherking]

I utterly hate Platoon Firing. If it has to be included in-game, I wish it were merely an option for the elite units to use in-battle. FbR is much more deadly.

Platoon fire should create a moral problem for the units receiving it…I don’t know that it does in game. It should also be just as deadly.

[Didz]

The whole point of platoon fire was that it was continuous and more accurately focused as the officers of each platoon directed it at the most likely targets. So, it ought to be more deadly and avoid the moral issues of troops being left with empty muskets and nobody covering them.

[antisocialmunky]

FbR unloads the same number of muskets faster and in a more concentrated dose than platoon fire. It should therefore be quicker to inflict maximum damage on charging cavalry than platoon fire.

Whether there is a greater morale hit for being under supressing fire or taking casualties quickly should determine when/how likely a rout is.

I'm not certain if this is true but FbR may be more flexible vis-a-vis the position of the target, as it's possible each rank updates its target as it comes ot fire. That could be true (and should be) of each platoon in the platoon firing drill though...

No, I mean that fire by rank can be baited out of all their shots while platoon fire can't.

Would be nice to have a button to toggle platoon firing.

[hoom]

Platoon fire is basically broken so-far.

It needs to have the platoon size and/or the rate of moving to the next platoon scaled based on the size & width of the unit.

As it stands, playing on Ultra or higher unit sizes where you can spread a unit out to the maximum width the game allows, the first platoon is done reloading long before they get to fire again.

With a unit size of 300 you have at least a third of the unit standing there loaded & waiting for their turn to fire.

[Didz]

Hoom is absolutely correct. The whole point of platoon fire was that the right hand platoon fired again as soon as it was loaded. French eyewitness accounts reported that the platoon fire from a British Regiment seemed to flow along the line from its right as each platoon fired in sequence.

However, the firing was continuous the right hand platoon fired again as soon as it was ready, even if all the platoons had not yet completed their first volley. Thus in a large battalion there might be two waves of fire progressing along the line.

[AussieGiant]

Hoom is absolutely correct. The whole point of platoon fire was that the right hand platoon fired again as soon as it was loaded. French eyewitness accounts reported that the platoon fire from a British Regiment seemed to flow along the line from its right as each platoon fired in sequence.

However, the firing was continuous the right hand platoon fired again as soon as it was ready, even if all the platoons had not yet completed their first volley. Thus in a large battalion there might be two waves of fire progressing along the line.

That's the exact description I have in my mind.

Rippling up and down the line is a continuous level of fire. After the first volley no one can really see anything so there is a much greater level of suppression (as FK has stated) rather than the selection of targets.

It should also produce a steady level of casualties over the course of a few minutes of fire and certainly no less than rank fire.

With better soldier animation and implementation, we should see this work in the next patch or two.

The basics are there already.

[Marten]

Hoom is absolutely correct. The whole point of platoon fire was that the right hand platoon fired again as soon as it was loaded. French eyewitness accounts reported that the platoon fire from a British Regiment seemed to flow along the line from its right as each platoon fired in sequence.

However, the firing was continuous the right hand platoon fired again as soon as it was ready, even if all the platoons had not yet completed their first volley. Thus in a large battalion there might be two waves of fire progressing along the line.


That's the exact description I have in my mind.

So in next patches i would prefer a "prussian" variant. Platoon fire in the prussian army started at both ends, rolling to the middle of the regiment (Leopold I. von Anhalt-Dessau).

(Source: Fighting Techniques of the Early Modern World: Equipment, Combat Skills, and Tactics by Christer Jorgensen)

[Husar]

With better soldier animation and implementation, we should see this work in the next patch or two.

The basics are there already.

I wish, you wish, but if I have seen one thing in the previous games, it's that CA's handling of unit mechanics seems a bit stiff, there should be more dynamic in it, in other words, I hope but doubt it.
For example the engine is unable to make four ranks fire by rank, with platoon fire your unit has to stop marching, form up, then spread out, then shoot, why can't they already stop marching in the spread-out state? That would save a lot of time and probably make them more effective already.
The thing about starting a second wave sounds great but that would be like running two behaviour routines per unit or so and somehow my gut feeling says we won't get that from CA, just like fire by rank doesn't work if the target unit is so far sideways that the soldier at the other end of the first rank does not turn to fire on them, from what I've seen that completely turns off the fire by rank thing and the first rank will reload standing until they can fire again while the rest of the formation is idle.

Of course I'd hope CA would prove me wrong and change that but then they couldn't even make pikemen work properly after RTW... :sweatdrop:
I don't want to sound like a CA basher, they make great games but that doesn't mean there is nothing to criticize about them, for a good example of what I would call dynamic, look at the formation routines AoE games have had since AoE2, give them a short route and they advance in line, give them a long route and thay march in a column, either way they will wind around obstacles like a snake etc. I haven't seen anything as dynamic as that in CA games so far. Could be optimizations due to the far higher number of soldiers involved but we got dual and quad cores now(which the game didn't really take full advantage of last time I checked) so there should be some power to make some changes in that direction, could be optional like desynchronized animations were in RTW.

[Didz]

After the first volley no one can really see anything so there is a much greater level of suppression (as FK has stated) rather than the selection of targets.
Although there are eywitness accounts of platoon officers/sergeants directing the fire of their platoons, indeed one of the advantages of platoon fire was that it could be directed at local targets of opportunity or greatest threat. Given that a battalion of 600 men had a frontage of about 120 yards and that visibility was probably less than 30 or so after the first few volleys the ability to direct fire locally rather than just firing into the smoke did have advantages even if you only directed the volley at the other sides mussle flashes.


It should also produce a steady level of casualties over the course of a few minutes of fire and certainly no less than rank fire.
I would have thought it would produce a higher level of casualties in fact. Fire by rank has the disadvantage of being centrally controlled from the centre of the battalion, which as already stated could be 120 yards long. Therefore, the timing of the fire would be very difficult to judge, particularly if you can only see 30 yards through the smoke. If the enemy do not oblige you by coming at you head on in the centre of your line the chances are that a large volume of each ranks volley will be wasted firing into thin air.

Add to that the fact by implication firing by rank would have needed a greater degree of control and the drill for performing it would added to the delay between the timing of each volley.

BTW: I was interested to read that in fact, when firing by ranks the third (rear rank) actually fired first, and nobody fired until the first and second ranks had already got their heads out of the way. So, the sequequence must have been 'front rank kneel>third rank step to the right>Present>3rd Rank Fire>2nd Rank Fire>1st Rank Fire>All Stand>Reload>Front Rank Kneel>Third Rank step to the Right>Present...and so on. The obvious danger of having the front rank fire first is that in the excitment of battle having discharged their muskets they might stand to try and reload and the French noted that they were losing a lot of men from the front rank getting their heads blown off by men from the 3rd.

[AussieGiant]

Certainly platoon fire could be a little more deadly due to localised orders to fire at what was presented. As you mentioned Didz, the worst you could do was aim at the muzzel flashes.

Most of what I've read in first hand accounts talks about a white smoke filled haze which simply meant pouring as much fire into the general vacinity of the enemy as possible.

Gusts of wind could of course create patches of visibility and enough of it would create a fairly visible enemy. Many accounts don't indicate this happened too often though.

I hope you are right Husar in that CA can get animations and these types of issues sorted out.

[Marquis of Roland]

I ran a few custom battles the other day on normal with a platoon fire guard unit and a line infantry unit. The trend seems to be the fire-by-rank unit outgunning and causing more casualties on the first 2 volleys, but the constant losses they are taking makes them start redressing their lines sooner than the guard unit, and on volley 3 casualties are roughly even. By volley 4 the line infantry is losing too much firepower from casualties and by volley 5 they're usually around 40 casualties more than the guard unit and soon routs.

[hoom]

Try again with 300 strong units.

[AussieGiant]

I ran a few custom battles the other day on normal with a platoon fire guard unit and a line infantry unit. The trend seems to be the fire-by-rank unit outgunning and causing more casualties on the first 2 volleys, but the constant losses they are taking makes them start redressing their lines sooner than the guard unit, and on volley 3 casualties are roughly even. By volley 4 the line infantry is losing too much firepower from casualties and by volley 5 they're usually around 40 casualties more than the guard unit and soon routs.

hmmm very interesting.

I'm sure the CA guy that is responsible for this working in the game is going; "~:doh: it's not like we didn't put ANY thought into it!"
:balloon2:

[Elmar Bijlsma]

I'd be careful drawing any conclusion from that. Line units just don't have the stats to go toe to toe with a guards unit in any case, irrespective of whether the guards are using rank or platoon fire.

[Monsieur Alphonse]

I had a unit of guards defending its section of the line loose against one unit of militia. That militia unit shot my precious guards to pieces. It might be that it was the VH bonus for the AI, but was not a fine moment for my guards.