Effects of experience

In Empire, it would be nice to see experience affect something other than just morale, attack and defence ratings - speed of fire. Since loading and reloading was a complicated affair, it would be realistic to have more experienced units be able to fire and reload faster.

Moving between formations also seemed to require a lot of drilling. It would be nice if experience affected the speed at which units could move from column to line to square. In the ETW era, a unit forming up slowly could result in total annihilation by cannon fire, so the stakes are pretty high.

In addition to what was previously mentioned, the timing of troops volley fire should be affected as well. Everybody firing at once was the sign of a disciplined unit, and would be much more intimidating than ragged, piecemeal fire. Not that it would necessarily do more physical damage, since, last I checked, musketballs werent generally magnetic. But a more experienced unit should do more 'morale damage' with each volley. And look nicer when firing ;)
Also, units with experience should march better. You sort of already covered that, but a unit with more practice would be able to hold its formation on the move. Marching in a line is a lot harder than it looks, especially on anything more uneven than a parking lot :P

Don't forget higher morale, where a fresh unit might break after the first volley if the odds are against them, an elite unit would hold their ground and provide cover for retreating units.

agreed 100% with the storyteller, rate of fire and manouver quality should, togehther with cohesion/morale under fire, be the qualities benefitting most from experience. I dont think close-combat skill increased all that much from experience, and accuracy of fire were so low anyway for musket troops it shouldnt increase much.

rate of fire were also, together with the ability to stand and hold ranks of course, about the most vital quality of line infantry.

Well unless I'm completely off my rocker, I do believe that Lusted or one of the other CA folks has said that more experienced units will be more accurate, as well as shoot/reload quicker.

I'd be somewhat surprised if experience also affected marching/formation abilities (as CA has thus far made no mention of it), but it would be neat if it did. ~:)

Oh, that's nice to know. Thanks for mentioning it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anders

agreed 100% with the storyteller, rate of fire and manouver quality should, togehther with cohesion/morale under fire, be the qualities benefitting most from experience. I dont think close-combat skill increased all that much from experience, and accuracy of fire were so low anyway for musket troops it shouldnt increase much.

rate of fire were also, together with the ability to stand and hold ranks of course, about the most vital quality of line infantry.

---

I believe melee skill would be strongly effected. I haven't read much on the subject, but I do recall that inexperienced troops would tend to simply use their muskets as a club and swing wildly, whereas a well drilled soldier would know how to employ his bayonet and the butt of his gun in combination and to best effect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheo

...Tend to simply use their muskets as a club and swing wildly....

---

Oh, that is so brutally primitive. Awesome... *drools*

:clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheogorath

I believe melee skill would be strongly effected. I haven't read much on the subject, but I do recall that inexperienced troops would tend to simply use their muskets as a club and swing wildly, whereas a well drilled soldier would know how to employ his bayonet and the butt of his gun in combination and to best effect.

---

that sounds sensible, think I read somewhere that the natural reflex so to say is to wield the musket/rifle as a club. still, effective bayonet fighting would probably be as well obtained in specific drill as in a short, sharp charge.

Just a question, how much drill would a man need, to know, that first he needs to use the pointy bayonet at his musket's tip to gut his enemy, and if that does not work, then try and bash his head in with the butt of his gun?
Or to put it straighter, people could get better with swords, but muskets were more like spears, right? So how do you trian a guy to use a spear? That is sort of instinctive.

Perhaps if experienced units used them in a sort of co-ordination......

When I went to the army, I recieved bayonet training. And I can confirm that it is actually quite easy to start wielding it like a spear and drop the club rutine. But it is much more difficult to win a duel against another bayonet-user without extensive training. And you need some conception of actual battle experience to start doing the things that seem slightly unnatural but will save your life. Such as starting to charge the guy coming towards you, instead of doing the sensible thing and run!

/KotR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anders

that sounds sensible, think I read somewhere that the natural reflex so to say is to wield the musket/rifle as a club. still, effective bayonet fighting would probably be as well obtained in specific drill as in a short, sharp charge.

---

I'd imagine the effect of a grenadier who's a full foot taller than you (including his silly hat), wearing a rather intimidating mustache and screaming like a madman would make you want to rely more on your nice, heavy, club-end and less on your rather flimsy looking (by comparison) bayonet. :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by india

Just a question, how much drill would a man need, to know, that first he needs to use the pointy bayonet at his musket's tip to gut his enemy, and if that does not work, then try and bash his head in with the butt of his gun?
Or to put it straighter, people could get better with swords, but muskets were more like spears, right? So how do you trian a guy to use a spear? That is sort of instinctive.

Perhaps if experienced units used them in a sort of co-ordination......

---

There are a few factors. Getting your men to fix bayonets at the right time is important as well. Having the bayonet on = more weight at the end of the barrel, which makes you shoot quite a bit worse. (Tie a few pounds of metal to the end of a four foot long pole and try pointing it at something).
The main thing is that, as was mentioned, soldiers tended to see it as a 'natural' way to use the musket.
Bayonets then are quite different from bayonets now. As far as I know, the 'knife' bayonet doesn't come about until WWI, and the 'sword' bayonet wasn't terribly effective (adding a heavy, curved, weapon that's a foot or two long to the end of a musket would be pretty useless (IMO) except in the hands of a very well trained professional). Essentially you're stuck with the 'spike' type, which can't really do much gutting. It makes your musket a handy spear, but pretty much all you can do with it is stab.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knight of the Rose

When I went to the army, I recieved bayonet training. And I can confirm that it is actually quite easy to start wielding it like a spear and drop the club rutine. But it is much more difficult to win a duel against another bayonet-user without extensive training. And you need some conception of actual battle experience to start doing the things that seem slightly unnatural but will save your life. Such as starting to charge the guy coming towards you, instead of doing the sensible thing and run!

/KotR

---

Interesting, this was modern bayonet training, right? Not a re-enactment dealy?

If it was modern, I'll put forward a theory:
Modern weapons are quite a bit shorter, and less of the weight is concentrated in the butt, hence you'd probably consider them to be less effective as a club.
Just as an example:
The M-16A2 weighs 8.5 pounds (3.9kg) and is 39.5 inches (1,000mm) long.
The AK-47 weighs 9.5 pounds (4.3kg), and is 34 inches (870mm) long.
The Brown Bess musket weighs 8 pounds, but I'd bet a good majority of that would be concentrated in that solid-wood stock. And it was 60 inches (1,530mm) long, without a bayonet.
The US Model 1816 musket was 77.5 inches long (with bayonet).

The Berdan rifles (not actually a musket, but probably somewhat similar to Russian musket models) weighed 10 pounds (4.6kg) and was 51 inches (1,300mm) long. Which probably shows the Russian emphasis on close combat even at the time :P

Experience didn't seem to mean enough in M2TW, I loved the 'hero' units of RTW.

I was a member of the Brigade of the American Revolution for 10 years during the Bicentennial. As such I had the opportunity to simulate 18th century combat while portraying a soldier of the Continental Army Light Infantry.

We obviously never experienced combat along with all of its’ terror and confusion. But we did march quite a bit, move from column to line and back, fire many volleys and conduct many charges. We used reproduction .75 cal. Short Land pattern muskets (Brown Bess) which accepted the standard 17 inch three sided bayonet.

We could comfortably delivery two volleys per minute indefinitely in a simulated firefight where for safety we never used the rammers. When we competed in the Maryland Governor’s Firelock Match at Fort Frederick we could also load and fire two rounds per minute despite including the ramming of lead shot. So it’s safe to say that troops in the 18th century could do as well. Introduce casualties, fear and gore and things might well slow down.

The bayonet weighs about a pound I suppose and the musket itself 8 to 10. Fixing the bayonet did NOT retard our accuracy or our rate of fire. Not in simulated or live firings. With enough drill a man learns to avoid the blade while loading. As for accuracy, the weapon is already so inaccurate that the thing doesn’t even have a sight. The bayonet lug on a Bess is often mistaken for a sight but it is not. The French Charleville had a brass sight but is no more accurate. Men were encouraged to aim low because they tended to aim too high. We always aimed at the belt. No one cared if the ball hit a shin, a toe, a limb or a head. In smoothbore match shooting any touch on a target silhouette scored a point. Period. A chest shot or a foot shot was a matter of luck at 75 yards. Now the rifle guys could do MUCH better but we were smooth bore. I did get a chance to fire a Pennsylvania rifle and easily put my first shot into the target’s chest at 80 yards. I’m not boasting as this was a very easy shot with a rifle at smoothbore range. The riflemen themselves would be very dangerous marksmen at ranges at which a musketeer would only make noise.

The bayonet made the musket into a spear about 6 feet in length. Like any spear it’s for thrusting. No one would swing it like a club if they could help it. It’s way too clumsy and slow. Lunging with a bayonet is simple and quick. Riflemen would use an ax or a sword or knife in a melee. Besides, you’d risk breaking the stock which would ruin the weapon. Of course, the charge is really a morale check that you want your opponent to fail. No one wants the thing to end in a melee and they seldom did. Almost always it degenerated into a very close range shootout before one side or the other fled.

Many people probably already know that a charge was a very controlled advance. No running. It went in at a marching step in cadence, quick time maybe but in good order always. Typically a formation would advance with muskets at the shoulder, stop, fire, shoulder arms and continue to advance. At some point the order to “Charge Bayonets!” would be given and the men would bring the muskets to the charge position while continuing to move forward toward the enemy, still in cadence. Cheers were common following the charge command. Hopefully the enemy would flee the field. If he did not it meant that the assaulting force was facing some tough cookies indeed and if your guys weren’t their equals the attackers would stall. Both side refusing to yield was unusual and open field melees rather rare but they did happen. The Maryland Line and the British forces under Cornwallis had some nasty encounters with cold steel.

Sometimes the men would be ordered to remove the flints from their muskets before an assault. This would encourage a rapid close to melee where any firefight would be disadvantageous to an attacker. Against, say, a fortified position or at night when an errant shot would alert the defenders.

Practice and drill can make a big difference but standing fast and functioning amid great stress would have to be a plus for experienced units which in game terms would be expressed as more effective fire and steadier morale.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anders

that sounds sensible, think I read somewhere that the natural reflex so to say is to wield the musket/rifle as a club. still, effective bayonet fighting would probably be as well obtained in specific drill as in a short, sharp charge.

---

I dont know about you but (this is actually probably because I've had experience with a bayonet from Army Reserves) I'd be more inclined to skewer someone than just slap em in the face with the butt.

Id really like to see quicker forming up, and cohesion when marching, aswell as being all round better in hand to hand. I hope when you get into CQB soldiers can fight with their bear hands... that would make things entertaining, watching notonly them try to bayonet/club eachother but some tripping another, gutting them or getting down and dirty in the mud.

Curiously enough I'm part of an English Civil War re-enactment society (The Sealed Knot) and (This being pre-bayonet) we often fight with a 'clubbed' musket, which involves hitting peeps with the blunt end. I've never done any research on the matter myself, so maybe the peeps telling us to do so are wrong, but the clubbed musket has the advantage over the 'hanger' type sword typically issued to ECW soldiers of having a longer reach. Also the soldiers sword tended to be his 'go to' sharp thing, often used for wood cutting and the like and would more often than not devolve into a sort of iron club, and if your going to use a club in combat you might as well use the longer one.

The butt of a early-modern period musket was very heavy and unlikely to break by being brought into contact with anything as fragile as an over-evolved monkey. I think the picture below shows this quite well.

https://img235.imageshack.us/img235/...omsticklc0.jpg
https://img235.imageshack.us/img235/...jpg/1/w640.png

Anyway, nothing to do with the original topic posted, but I hope I have presented a bit of a rationale for the use of a reversed musket in combat, although I do have to say I cant imagine why anyone would use a swung musket butt over a thusting bayonet, if the bayonet was availdable.

Thank you all re-enactment people, you surely are an, uhm, interesting lot. Doing the stuff with all the "real" equipment shows you what can be done and what can't. At least to some extent. Can we conclude that early muskets could have been used as a club, and once bayonets came into play only as a spear?

As for my own experience, it was a meter long (~40 inches), roughly 4 kg (~8 punds), modern assult rifle (or somewhat modern, I think it was designed in the sixties). The bayonet nothing more than a long knife, some 20 cm (~8 inches). The bayonet fighting just struck me as beeing so primitive, or rather unmodern, I assumed it hadn't evolved over the last 200 years. But I see I have something to learn about bayonets.:book:

Then it all boils down to experience enhancing morale and rate of fire. As for "hero" units, I think it would add a nice dimension to the game. Yet with all the different things to consider, I'm starting to worry the game would be too detailed.

/KotR

Knight of the Rose;

to answer your question about bayonet fighting being primitive, in the enlightenment era it was perhaps not quite frowned upon but, amongst civilised gentlemen who were fighting an orderly battle, the bayonet was a last resort.

It was always better if the infantry exchanged volleys whilst the cavalry fought hand to hand. Most of Marlborough's battles involved fairly equal armies going head to head, the infantry would face off, whilst the cavalry struck the final killer blow. All in all everyone would take equal casualites and the loser suffering a lot of prisoners taken.

The French revolutionary wars (Which started in 1793? I think) and are the end of this period represented a major change in tactics, as the ideas of Fredrick the Great involving lines of troops facing off with iron discipline and zero initiative were replaced with the French revolutionary army, which relied on mass conscription, citizen armies living off the land (thus enhancing their mobility) and pushing columns of infantry into your face, whilst your own ability to manoeuvre was hampered by skirmishers along the entire length of your line shooting at you.

So in the early 1700's most generals would have seen shock tactics as very primitive, and preferred a more scientific method of war, using the threat of firepower in a superior posistion to force an enemy to retreat. However as the period went on Generals realised the advantage of a mass shock assault, backed up by cannons on every prominence. (Napoleons Grand Battery).

Its worth mentioning though that early musket/bayonet drills were somewhat hampered (at least in the British army) by the tendency to treat the musket/bayonet combo as a pike and hold it at shoulder height, presenting the point as high as possible to fend off cavalry.

The attempt by Charles Stuart to restore the Stuart line (in 1745) in the United Kingdom taught the British army how to use bayonets against infantry, as they has to face off against the front line of Scottish clansmen armed with broadswords and Targes, and a new bayonet drill was introduced just in time for the government sanctionted murder fest that was Culloden.

Could one of you history buffs please explain to me how

Quote:

---

It was always better if the infantry exchanged volleys whilst the cavalry fought hand to hand.

---

Calvary work in this quote or in this time period. I mean I'm envisioning knights from MTW2 and if they charge gun me, they'd just get shot down, alot. Yet it is my understanding in this time frame the calvary and horses don't wear armor. So if they charge a valley won't they just be cut down by musket fire?

Maybe i'm just not seeing how this works.

the armour would be useless anyway.

ever heard of the charge of the light brigade?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Polemists

Could one of you history buffs please explain to me how




Calvary work in this quote or in this time period. I mean I'm envisioning knights from MTW2 and if they charge gun me, they'd just get shot down, alot. Yet it is my understanding in this time frame the calvary and horses don't wear armor. So if they charge a valley won't they just be cut down by musket fire?

Maybe i'm just not seeing how this works.

---

I'm a "history buff", yet I asked the very same question: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=108237

/KotR

1. Musket balls didn't hit the mark every time.
2. Cavalry moves fast.
3. They normally charged only an enemy that was weak or broken. Or when they flanked the enemy.
4. Once it comes to blows, hand to hand, a horseman with a sabre, is better than a footman. And this can cause fear, charging horses always cause fear.

Atleast, that is what I know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by india

1. Musket balls didn't hit the mark every time.
2. Cavalry moves fast.
3. They normally charged only an enemy that was weak or broken. Or when they flanked the enemy.
4. Once it comes to blows, hand to hand, a horseman with a sabre, is better than a footman. And this can cause fear, charging horses always cause fear.

Atleast, that is what I know.

---

This got me thinking. In MTW2 heavy cavalry could easily defeat lots of muskets. I mean, I really found no use for the muskets in MTW2 since their range and toughness as infantry was... well... crap. My question is, how well does the heavy armor hold up against a musket ball?

At longer ranges a breast plate (cuirass) should be able to stop a musket ball. But most shots would hit the horse anyway. In this era armor was not expected to help against missile weapons but was there purely for melee and morale purposes.


CBR

In regards to the musket/club issue...
I really dont see the stock breaking simply because it was used to crush somebodies skull. Unless they were using remarkably crappy wood to produce the muskets of the era, which I doubt they would in most cases, simply because if its fragile enough that hitting somebody with it would break it, then I'd bet that just firing it would also risk breakage.
The model of bayonet would matter as well. If I recall, the British muskets were generally regarded as rather light in comparison to mainland models, besides the French types. Russian muskets were usually very heavy, having been designed with intent to be used as a melee weapon (more on that later).
And, of course, your average new recruit wouldn't care about that, would they? Hence, even IF it was likely that the musket might break if used as a club, they would, if it seemed effective at the time, do so anyway. For instance, if they had a sudden attack of horses and had failed to fix bayonets earlier.

On aiming, it depends on the model of musket. The French musket of the era put the bayonet above and slightly to the left of the barrel. In other words, directly in the line of sight of the person trying to aim it.
And aim does matter quite a bit in the closer ranges (IE: Where you're likely to have fixed bayonets). Having researched the Russian army of this era quite a bit, I can tell you that they were regarded as the worst shots in Europe, capable of firing a volley at sixty paces and missing every single shot. The Russian's recieved almost no marksmanship training, whereas the British got tons of it. Thus, a British unit could easily outshoot a Russian unit. Most likely ANY Russian unit, because the Russian 'light infantry' didn't get much more training than their line counterparts.
The effect on aiming is also subject to the TYPE of bayonet. The British design for the Baker rifle was a 24 inch long sword-type bayonet, which probably weighed quite a bit more than a little metal spike. And I gather that the sword/knife type was more popular with other nations. Of course, it has a great advantage in that you can use it as a sort of axe instead of just a spear, but it'd make firing (and reloading, even if you knew how to avoid it) quite a bit more of a challenge. Some of the early types came quite close to the barrel, which would mean that you'd have to hold your hand in EXACTLY the right position unless you wanted some strange scars on your fingers.

And while a charge of disciplined men might be done in cadence, fresh soldiers are quite a bit more likely to simply run as fast as they can towards the enemy. The Russian army in particular had issues with this, because soldiers were typically overeager to get into melee thanks to the Suvurovian doctrine ('Bullet is an idiot, bayonet is a fine chap', something along those lines). There are accounts of Russian officers having to beat men back into line with the flat of their swords, only to have the section of line they just left try to charge again.


---

All that aside, one other effect of experience I think would be neat would be the unit acquiring 'custom' weapons. I understand it was fairly common practice for veteran units to get their hands on something with better firepower than their standard gun. Rifles, for instance, or models of musket from different countries. I do know that the Moscow Grenadier Regiment was armed mostly with Brown Bess muskets purchased from the British.
Maybe not actually possible, but hey, it'd be neat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Celtic_Punk

the armour would be useless anyway.

ever heard of the charge of the light brigade?

---

That was about 1858 or so against cannons.

I think what you might be thinking about with the clubing thing, is that during the US Civil war, suposedly the men would prefer to club each other in melee instead of bayonetting. Bayonet wounds were considered nasty. Besides from a moral/ethical point, its easier to shoot someone at a distance than to stab them up close and personal.

In some FAQ CA mentioned that experience will also effect the ability to perform in harsh circumstances... they said cannons, used by inexperienced soldiers in harsh weather might even blow up and cause casualties under your own men

Bayonets:
Melee combat with infantry against infantry in 18th and 19th c. battles occurred only seldomly as far as I know. In most cases one side broke before contact. This said, if you have to really fight one on one, the guy with the big club is at a huge disadvantage against the guy with musket, bayonet and a little bit training. Clubbing with a long and heavy musket is awfully slow, it's easy to stab first or to deflect the blow and stab or close in and hit the head with the butt (from the front or side, not in a overhand clubbing manner). In formation combat the club guys would face a wall of spiky steel with more than one bayonet thrusting at them; not so nice, too.

Medical examinations in the later 19th c. and during WWI revealed that wounds from thrusts with spike bayonets and knifes were the most deadly ones compared to normal knifes and sword bayonets thrusts. Slashes from all weapons of all kinds were mostly unserious. The main reason seems to be that the spike bayonets produce deep wounds with a lot of tissue damage because of the triangle form of the blade.


Cavalry:
Manuals from the time after the Napoleonic wars state that the ideal cavalry unit could break every infantry unit in sqare with the perfect charge (e.g. lure the infantry with a troop to fire prematurly, attack the corners of the formation with the whole cavalry regiment). In reality such things nearly never happened, because of a lot of reasons. So the advice was only to attack infantry units already shaken or on the move.

(sry for my English)

My comments on experience and marching/maneuvering:

It would be great to see an effect in normal march speed and order during march; both while running and walking.

Also, if my sources are right, the formations tended to slow down more and more the closer they got to the enemy. This isn't probably factored into the game, but it would be a nice "added" flavour. Experienced units would march faster even at a closer proximity to enemy lines.

Another thing I'm curious about is the formations' effect on morale. In Total War games it has usually been based more on flanking and local/global numbers, plus the general. There are other aspects that would be nice to accommodate: for example, rock-paper-scissors due to unit types in certain formations. For example, a loose formation vs. cavalry closing by might cause a rout pretty quickly, unless it's an experienced unit of light infantry. The square formation is pretty simple: it is difficult to flank. Tightly packed columns reassure men.

On the one volley, then bayonets assault: sometimes the enemy infantry broke already when they saw the attacking infantry attaching bayonets.

On cavalry charging against formed lines: bad idea.

Against a fully organized line it was difficult to charge an infantry line. First of all, at 30 paces the volley caused lots of casualties, and broke the tight formation, which meant a weaker overall mass of the charge. Also, at such close range, the second cavalry line didn't have time to fill the gaps, and tripped on dead horses. Thirdly, the tightly packed line formed a solid spear wall, which was naturally more difficult to charge, especially as lances weren't used too often.

Cavalry charges usually didn't work against well-formed infantry lines, that is why the charges were usually set up with cannon fire/continuous (i.e. free) light infantry fire and other combined arms operations, or by other infantry units. Skirmisher and cannon fire caused gaps in the organized lines (which enabled cavalry to charge the corners of a less-organized infantry square). Under pressure and under constant casualties (and sharpshooters killing officers and NCOs) an organized volley was difficult to pull off, and weakened morale meant that the enemy broke easier even before contact.

An infantry unit engaged in a melee with another infantry unit, or engaged in a firefight, was a better target, but of course you should flank if possible.

However...

Things aren't that simple, though. When we talk about larger scales, i.e. a cavalry regiment attacking an Infantry Battalion, the situation is different. Consider a cavalry regiment in a column attacking an infantry battalion in a line. An infantry unit formed into a line may cause large casualties and break the first 1 or 2 waves, but the following waves usually manage to hit the line, and cause large casualties, often causing a rout in the localized area. If the infantry is in a column, even if the first three man line is broken or pushed back, the men behind it can still fight the cavalry off. Also, the tighter column formation is more reassuring, and the tightly-packed men feel safer.

An infantry column attacking an infantry line in melee works supposedly the same: 3-man deep line is relatively thin compared to a huge mass of men running at you with their bayonets. Of course, such a formation is an easy target to infantry fire, and there will be lots of casualties.