how to use advance and fire?

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.

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.

why would one want to get closer anyway?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nafod

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.

oh, ok. thankx. requesting close/lock

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smellycat

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NimitsTexan

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.

Its changeable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pevergreen

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. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NimitsTexan

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!".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NimitsTexan

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khorak

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.

"Age of Empires" ??? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khorak

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Didz

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nafod

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John-117

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pevergreen

thats a nice title. :grin2:

---

Are you a lone "mod god," or part of a mod god squad? :laugh4: (Sorry, couldn't resist. :laugh: )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pevergreen

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 proving to be helpful?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khorak

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nafod

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikeV

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 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nafod

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pevergreen

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 skills?