Lifting Barrage

Quote:

---

A lifting barrage was a development in which the barrage lifted periodically to a target further back, such as a second line of trenches. This was countered by the defenders infiltrating troops and machine guns into no-man's land or the areas between their own trench lines, so it was found necessary to comb the entire area of the advance with artillery fire. A creeping barrage (also called a walking barrage) was a barrage that lifted in small increments, perhaps 50 yards, so that it moved forward slowly, keeping pace with the infantry. A rolling barrage was more sophisticated still, with two or more curtains of fire, one behind the other, so that when the batteries firing the rearmost pattern ceased fire to lift the barrage, there was no pause or gap in the barrage. Those batteries lifted their fire to become the forward edge of the barrage, and the pattern was repeated to keep the barrage rolling forward without ever ceasing.

---

As you can tell the main point here. Use power attacks that will do nothing but weaken the enemy so that you may move forwards.

Objective: Push out with a bunch of light armed troops to die for their liege and lord, then follow behind with your main line. This means no more leap frogging between cities. When you do an attack you hit every city on your border with a light cavalry/infantry/artillery and then the very next turn have your main line meet the enemy while your weakened light assault forces pull back to re-supply.

Do's: Use it in actual battle, for that would be cool to see.

Don'ts: No more attacking individual cities, it has become a version of WW1 in your game where you attack along the line instead of select spots.

Strategy number 2, lets see how many do this.

das seems as though no one wants to do this strategy, though I might have to re install and test it out. But i think it would work well for certain countries and bad for others like THRE or other countries where they are entirely surrounded.

Hm? That's artillery tactics introduced in WW1. It has no meaning on the strategic map nor in battles in any current Total War game.


CBR

I'm not exactly sure what the idea is here. This seems to be attacking in waves rather than emulating any WWI specific tactic. Here is how i understand it:

Instead of using multiple waves on the battle field, you are using multiple waves on the campaign map.

You attack multiple cities/armies with light troops acting as WWI artillery (doesn't make sense to me but whatever), with the intention that they will will not defeat the enemy, but still cause some casualties.

After you've attacked with all your light forces, you attack again with all your real armies to finish up.

You are trying to create a rolling wave of devastation across the enemy's entire country, take all the border cities at once, then the next line of cities etc etc until all their territory is yours.

Maybe this is what you meant, but you didn't spell it out: Attack with only ranged troops/artillery. Inflict as many casualties as possible from a distance and withdraw before you get your butt kicked. Woe betide you when the enemy has a lot of cavalry though :whip: After you lose that battle, attack the weakened enemy with your heavy troops.

It is an interesting idea but it only seems useful if you are dealing with battles of multiple stacks. Although this may be useful for a 4 stack battle (2 friends, 2 enemies) I don't see any other use. The enemy almost never sends out a 2 stack army, you are lucky to see one stack. And I have yet to see an AI full stack that I can't beat with my own stack - why would I split up my full stack into 2 half stacks.

I prefer to just do this (Broken Crescent)
http://aycu19.webshots.com/image/474...3277793_rs.jpg

I seriously did not think I had a chance here. 1:2 odds and the larger enemy stack had 4 Ansar Warriors, which alone should have pwnd my entire army. Plus it had had 4 archers and I had none. The good news was I started on a plateau with 2 narrow ramps up to it. The smaller enemy stack came onto the map directly behind me on my level. I dispatched them then turned around to face the onslaught of heavy inf and archers as they climbed the ramps. My troops were already 'tired' so I didn't think I stood a chance, but it turned out to be the most lopsided battle i've fought in Broken Crescent. In the end the enemy had only its archers left on the field, and let me tell you, watching 8 horsemen single handedly annihilate 260 archers is what I call entertainment. My general gained 7 exp lol.

Sorry, I got too carried away with my self-congratulation and forgot to tell you this:

If you want to send a wave of sacrificial light infantry, put them in a separate stack and have them as AI controlled reinforcements. Hopefully they will attack the enemy. I don't know why you would want to do this but it seems to be what you are going for.

I tried something similar recently... I decided to make a "maginot" line from hamburg to milan and effectively cut the map in 1/2. The resulting diplomatic mayhem was impressive as there were many alliances that had to be broken along the way. It did not last long as my Imperialistic hunger only grew!!! The composition of the armies were not what u describe though...Seems would be too expensive to actually reproduce.

In battles I use "barrages" if I have many gunpowder troops. Will turn on/off fire at will as needed in sectors...or to draw in attackers to your walls in a siege....they think ur out of ammo so the cav comes abit closer....then turn it all back on! Hurray Slaughter! Also can sometimes get ranged trait for your officer from this.

Riese had it right I meant to use sacrificail infantry on the campaign map and slowly but powerfully move through the enemies region.

Not sure if this is what you mean, but check my Moors game towards the end of this thread here.

I basically rolled west/east for a 32 turn total victory (106 province), using light fast armies for push-through then secondary waves to crush any resistance. in the mid 20's turns my eastern front was over 1000miles long :dizzy2:

Perhaps you could clarify with actual examples as opposed to theory? :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReiseReise

Sorry, I got too carried away with my self-congratulation and forgot to tell you this:

If you want to send a wave of sacrificial light infantry, put them in a separate stack and have them as AI controlled reinforcements. Hopefully they will attack the enemy. I don't know why you would want to do this but it seems to be what you are going for.

---

I have to disagree with you here. AI cannot properly command light/missile units when you fight with several stacks, especially vs mongols or timurids. When i fight vs nomads like mongols, i take best generals and give to one stack of heavy offencive infantry, to another - stack of heavy offencive cavalry and i use defencive mixed army with lots of missile/muskets/cannons and some covering cavalry and spears/pikes. Using this method of army composition i have real fun 3v3 battles and sometimes wonder how clever can be AI under command of 10stars general and using simply composed army. Sometimes i think that i cannot play better than AI in this case. It also react on my moves sometimes:laugh4: