Screenies

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=164359

Jeah!

Game looks nice, although I certainly I hope it isn't being designed on the basis that every battle should be fought like that. I mean, troops in column exchanging musket fire?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furious Mental

I mean, troops in column exchanging musket fire?

---

What's wrong with that? :grin: In any case, if they are in-game screenshots and not promotional-heavily-edited-in-photoshop screenies, then that really is candy to my eyes.

Edit: On closer inspection... I'm a little worried, why is it that there's cavalry waltzing out into the midst of the firefight? Also, agreed that the units look a bit odd in their formation... They look like they've come straight out of a roman training ground the way they are deployed... :confused:

Here's a more direct link, by the way:

GamesRadar

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raz

In any case, if they are in-game screenshots and not promotional-heavily-edited-in-photoshop screenies, then that really is candy to my eyes. :smug2:

---

Were you expecting something else? :laugh4:

Well, they look nice, I specially like the smoke and shadows. Anyhow, a sign that ETW is still breathing, and CA hasn't switched over to make Tellthegamersnothing Total War.

Edit :
1. The battlefield in the zoomed out screen does not look any more expansive than the ones in M2TW ~:(
2. Like Raz has mentioned, the formations seem as rigid and unnatural as in RTW.

Coumns were basically for rapid movement across the battlefield and charging. The 4-2 man line maximised firepower. This was central to infantry tactics throughout the period and if the game doesn't reflect this land battles will just be plain ridiculous.

CA have already said we will get column, line and square formations. The troops in the screen shots aren't in any of these, they are just grouped together but apart from this I'm well happy. I like the look at the lighting and shading (My graphics card isn't though). The smoke looks good and I was pleased to see Horse Artillery included. Unit size looks to be about the same as M2TW although I had hoped we might see sergeants as well as officers.

Bit surprised that the soldiers all seem to have different uniforms. This made sense in M2TW, when I believe each man was responsible for providing his own equipment but surely by the 18th century uniforms were, well, uniform.

The ratio of width to length in those pictures is that of a 'closed column'/'colonne serre'. Despite what the word 'column' would suggest, a column could be wider than it was long. By definition a 'line' is 1 to 3 ranks deep, or 4 staggered ranks- the whole purpose of it is to enable all ranks to fire simultaneously. There were probably still some armies that were still using matchlocks and compensating for the slow rate of fire by using deep formations and countermarching, but by the time the game began Gustav Adolphus's linear tactics were well established all over Europe. In any case I see no evidence of countermarching in those screenshots.

But apparently 'lines' and columns' are not distinct formations after all and it is up to you drag and drop them. So I strongly suspect that 'column' will offer none of its historical benefits in terms of momentum and shock on attack, morale, mobility, manoueverability, or speed of conversion into square, most likely making it completely worthless.

Have you not noticed that these days - Graphics > Gameplay...
(Joking, joking... ~:joker:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furious Mental

Coumns were basically for rapid movement across the battlefield and charging. The 4-2 man line maximised firepower. This was central to infantry tactics throughout the period and if the game doesn't reflect this land battles will just be plain ridiculous.

---

CA has so far never managed to make realistic troop movement and deployment in earlier titles so why should it be different in ETW.

Im sure there is a column special formation with uber bayonet/melee bonus but column for movement and maneuvering...lets just say I will be pleasantly surprised if that happens.


CBR

They have already said that there isn't. Apparently a 'column' is just a line that you don't bother to drag out very far. No different to the way it is now then.

They look mighty fine if you ask me.

But you didnt.

Perhaps you should think about doing so, though. It's not easy being alone, here in the dark, talking to myself and making friends out of used tissues and cucumber rinds.

Time for another upgrade....

Wandarah, what do you think of those screenshots?

They look nice graphically. Although that first screenshot isn't exactly how I imagined a ETW-era battle. Are they trying to form a Roman Manipular?

Also didn't the troops in the front row lie down. Then second row kneeling, third row standing? Plus the formations seem strangely deep.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caledonian Rhyfelwyr

Also didn't the troops in the front row lie down. Then second row kneeling, third row standing? Plus the formations seem strangely deep.

---

Early part of this era the front rank was kneeling (at least according to drill) but later on it wasnt used.


CBR

A kneeling soldier presented a smaller target, but it was found that once soldiers were kneeling they didn't want to move. You could also have two ranks kneeling and two ranks standing, but staggered. Staggered ranks were awkward however, especially with backpacks. A deeper line also meant more casualties from cannon balls.

They look nice for Alpha, although the formations should be tighter :2thumbsup:

They look stiff to me, but it is a work in progress after all. Very nice to see finally.

Guys stop complaining. This is only an alpha version and a CA representative said that there are men the kneel and there are officers in later versions. Plus this is probably a multilayer battle where everything is controlled by humans so that means if you want to have a line formation you can. Just because there isn't a line formation in those screens doesn't mean you can't drag to make your own.

Remember this is alpha.

Jack Lusted means that the first lines can be kneel, i hope the realism is better then in the other tw-titels. These first shots give me the answer. I buy the game!:yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poor Bloody Infantry

Bit surprised that the soldiers all seem to have different uniforms. This made sense in M2TW, when I believe each man was responsible for providing his own equipment but surely by the 18th century uniforms were, well, uniform.

---

I agree on this one.

Battle damage looks nice on the sail combat views, but.... ugh, they're still showing ships sailing directly into the wind:

http://static.gamesradar.com/images/...screenshot.jpg

Either that, or the U.S. ship is in irons, which would be suicidal tactics at that range. It's also in the middle of a battle with most of its sails furled?? :inquisitive:

The blocks of soldiers in land combat look weird to me, too. Very RTW/M2TW-like, and not at all what I expected.

I noticed some grape shot damage to the hull on one of the ships. If that was materially created as a result of in-game dynamics rather than simply a painted appearance on a typical ship, than hoo-ray!

The formations do seem awfully deep. They look like Rome units with Guns.

And why would the ENTIRE unit, eight rows back, be "at the ready", in a position ready to strike? It reminds me of the Rome charge when the entire unit would raise its weapon above its head and robot-army run to battles. I hoped they would have "revolutionized" past that.


Otherwise, I am happy to see some land battles. Looking pretty good all-in-all. This will be interesting.

Actually the only time armies looked like card board cut outs was on the parade ground. On campaign it was make do or mend. On top of that, a lot of men eschewed uniform changes and used whatever suited them.

People are saying 'oh it's alpha don't be so harsh'. Well the game is supposedly going to be released in less than six months.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caledonian Rhyfelwyr

Wandarah, what do you think of those screenshots?

They look nice graphically. Although that first screenshot isn't exactly how I imagined a ETW-era battle. Are they trying to form a Roman Manipular?

Also didn't the troops in the front row lie down. Then second row kneeling, third row standing? Plus the formations seem strangely deep.

---

i think they look totally sweet.

the formations can be adjusted as they've always been able to in the past.

once again, i would like to reiterate - they look totally sweet.

That is my gripe with it. Apparently rather than getting a specific column formation which actually offers any advantage we just get to drag out a deeper line, which is totally pointless.

Maybe they just haven't gotten around to doing the formation commands yet?

Although, in all TW games so far there has been a tradeoff between increasing the width of a unit to maximise its firepower, and increasing its depth to make it more robust. I don't see why this can't be the same in Empire, the differences are more just stark but the tradeoff is the same.

Well a developer said in TWC: 'Just they way they're deployed. Square is ingame, and line and column are just a matter of unit depth and width'

The way I interpret that comment is that there is no specific column or line formation. Frankly I find that quite disappointing because I very much doubt that they will have programmed a deeper formation to have many of the advantages of a dense column, to whit:
- It is very reassuring to be in a big group;
- It moves and manouevres much faster;
- It gets much more momentum behind it when charging;
- It is scary to have it charge at you;

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furious Mental

Actually the only time armies looked like card board cut outs was on the parade ground. On campaign it was make do or mend. On top of that, a lot of men eschewed uniform changes and used whatever suited them.

People are saying 'oh it's alpha don't be so harsh'. Well the game is supposedly going to be released in less than six months.

---

well we don't know the exact date of these photos. What if they released these photos to the public but they are 6 months old.

The columns seem a little deep, but that may be how they wanted it. Other than that they look nice and I'm glad we've finally got some land battle screenies.

Quote:

---

I mean, troops in column exchanging musket fire?

---

They did this right up to the American Civil War, then discovered that Napoleon era tactics with rifled muskets meant mass carnage.

Certainly for the time period the game covers massed infantry is entirely appropriate.

The british were really the only power that favored the long thin lines of troops - other nations would go for more heavily massed formations. See the endless debates over the british line vs french column formations during the napoleonic wars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wandarah

i think they look totally sweet.

the formations can be adjusted as they've always been able to in the past.

---

Uh, yeah... but you can't adjust the enemy AI's formations. It will be a silly game if AI armies don't form up in at least some semblance of the way they actually fought at the time.

A deeper issue is that one of the major problems with the RTW/M2TW game engine, is the way an army tends to fight not as a cohesive whole, but as "every unit for itself," with no relation to the unit on each side or nearby. If there's anything I was looking forward to in this game (assuming the copy protection isn't too Draconian to be worth buying it), it's better cohesion and cooperation of units in the battle line. I'm not seeing it in that one screenie where they're all broken into separate deep-rank blocks, but maybe it's still too early to judge. Or maybe that was a dispersed battle line in the process of re-forming, or something. I'm trying to keep an open mind.

While it looks pretty, I want a demo! Guilty before proven innocent! Grah rah grumble

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

While it looks pretty, I want a demo! Guilty before proven innocent! Grah rah grumble

---

The game isn't scheduled for release until November. A demo will probably come out a couple of months before the release.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ulstan

They did this right up to the American Civil War, then discovered that Napoleon era tactics with rifled muskets meant mass carnage.

Certainly for the time period the game covers massed infantry is entirely appropriate.

The british were really the only power that favored the long thin lines of troops - other nations would go for more heavily massed formations. See the endless debates over the british line vs french column formations during the napoleonic wars.

---

Uhm no. A battalion in column were not meant for exchanging fire. It was not used like that in Age of Reason, Napoleonic Wars nor American Civil War.

The Brits used lines and columns pretty much like everyone else did at the time of the Napoleonic Wars. The main difference was a more extensive use of 2 rank than 3 rank line.

For more general info:
http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/in..._tactics_4.htm

And about line versus column
http://www.napoleon-series.org/milit...a/c_maida.html


CBR

Yes. Up until the mid 17th century musketeers and arquebusiers typically fought in deep columns because it offered better defense both through depth and proximity to pikemen, and combined with rotating fire allowed them to keep up a steady barrage. However by the time Empire begins this mode of firing had been given up completely for the 4-2 rank line, which maximised battlefield coverage and the firepower of handier, faster reloading flintlocks; the ability to fire in units from platoon all the way up to battalion meant that they could choose constant fire or a massive devastating volley.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furious Mental

Well a developer said in TWC: 'Just they way they're deployed. Square is ingame, and line and column are just a matter of unit depth and width'

The way I interpret that comment is that there is no specific column or line formation. Frankly I find that quite disappointing because I very much doubt that they will have programmed a deeper formation to have many of the advantages of a dense column, to whit:
- It is very reassuring to be in a big group;
- It moves and manouevres much faster;
- It gets much more momentum behind it when charging;
- It is scary to have it charge at you;

---

I don't see why they wouldn't do this, it seems to me it would be easy enough to program a unit to have all these advantages (+morale, +charge bonus etc) when the formation is more than a certain number of men deep.

I'd be very surprised if a deep formation conferred no special advantages, it has in previous titles.

I'm amazed that people think that they can tell what units are going to be capable of from a still shot. This is a relatively old shot of the game.

FYI There are intrinsic combat benefits to having units in different formation widths and depths. Those benefits alter according to the training of your units. As in our previous games we have different combat adjustments according to unit density and depths etc

An basic example of an intrinsic gameplay benefit is: A thin line provides greater fire power than a column. But a column is more useful for attacking a line unit in melee etc. There are a number of other gameplay effects but I'm not going to go in to those here.

I wonder what kind of beast will be needed to run this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zenicetus

Battle damage looks nice on the sail combat views, but.... ugh, they're still showing ships sailing directly into the wind:

http://static.gamesradar.com/images/...screenshot.jpg

Either that, or the U.S. ship is in irons, which would be suicidal tactics at that range. It's also in the middle of a battle with most of its sails furled?? :inquisitive:

The blocks of soldiers in land combat look weird to me, too. Very RTW/M2TW-like, and not at all what I expected.

---

Generally speaking a ship in a fight of that nature would be under minimum sail in order to free up crewmen and in order to minimize the risk of fire. Going into irons, while extremely risky, could and did happen. Usually, of course, by accident.

"I'm amazed that people think that they can tell what units are going to be capable of from a still shot. This is a relatively old shot of the game."

Actually I was going by what one of your fellow staff said.

And they are getting a jolly good telling off for being very wrong. :)

Wasnt having a go at you furious. Sorry if you felt that way. :embarassed:

Whoever it was (from our side) isnt aware of some inbuilt stuff obviously. No big thing. This project is so huge that nobody can know it all. There is more than a visual difference between lines and columns.

No worries. I don't mean to say we've been misled- I'm just saying I'm going by what little we know. If I'm wrong and there's more to it, good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slyspy

Generally speaking a ship in a fight of that nature would be under minimum sail in order to free up crewmen and in order to minimize the risk of fire.

---

I disagree. I take your point about minimizing damage for sails that aren't actually needed, but the sails are the ship's "engine," and you'd want enough way on to maneuver under the prevailing sea and wind conditions. It might make sense to fight mostly reefed like that in a gale, but notice how the other ship has full sail on. That's what doesn't make sense.

Quote:

---

Going into irons, while extremely risky, could and did happen. Usually, of course, by accident.

---

Arrrhhhh, not on MY fleet! Or I'll have the captain in a different sort of "irons." :ballchain: More to the point, I hope we won't be fighting AI captains that don't know how to tack in combat, and that there's a semi-realistic wind/sea model that actually requires it.

Quote:

---

No worries. I don't mean to say we've been misled- I'm just saying I'm going by what little we know. If I'm wrong and there's more to it, good.

---

More a case of me not being very clear in my posts :oops: .

IS has elaborated on it a bit for now, but I'm sure we'll clear everything up later.

Very impressive graphics...but im worried that this will impact lag on MP. I mean people can't even handle M2TW, what will happen with these pant-shrinking visuals!

Please, Jack, don't make me a sad melon!

Or I'll leak citric acid in everyone's eyes and they will share my sorrow!

It is a TOTAL revision of history to think that melee combat played much role in that era... most of the wounds were from musket fires and not bayonets. Generals of that time much preferred to exchange fires till one side broke and ran. Doesn't CA have any historians keeping their fantasy games "somewhat" in line with history?

I just hope the AI has been informed of the instrinsic benefits of varying depths of infantry.

If those screens are old, I can't wait for the new ones!
I'm gonna love this game!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Intrepid Sidekick

I'm amazed that people think that they can tell what units are going to be capable of from a still shot. This is a relatively old shot of the game.

FYI There are intrinsic combat benefits to having units in different formation widths and depths. Those benefits alter according to the training of your units. As in our previous games we have different combat adjustments according to unit density and depths etc

An basic example of an intrinsic gameplay benefit is: A thin line provides greater fire power than a column. But a column is more useful for attacking a line unit in melee etc. There are a number of other gameplay effects but I'm not going to go in to those here.

---

18th century european war was about firepower and blasting away the opponent, and best to achieve that per regiment was linear formation, a long line of two to four ranks deep. 90 percent of wounds at this time were from musket shots. your alluding to the benefit of depth of formation suggests to me that CA is still implementing RTW and MTW melee combat mechanics.... my suggestion: make things simple and limit formations to 2-4 lines deep for a unit/regiment, which i'm sure the AI will have much easier time applying.

If one desires added benefit of deeper ranks it should be of stacking said line units and not stretching a single unit to 4 plus ranks deep, for units behind it boost morale and confidence as having a back up, not unlike the mechanics applied by Sid Meier's civil war games.

Actually that would not make much sense because movement and manouevres were frequently done in a column, and in the latter part of the century the attack column came into use. Also it would ignore the fact that everywhere else in the world plenty of people were still fighting with medieval weapons. Also it would totally constrain modding scenarios based on earlier periods. We should have the discretion to make deep columns (without having to commit a quarter of our infantry to one) or thin lines, provided they each offer worthwhile advantages.

But I think we'd all like to see some screenshots showing some lines and the effect of a volley too!

Happy Birthday BeeSting!!! :cake:

Wow! Thank you, Ichigo.... can't believe i'm 35 already and have been playing Total War games for almost 8 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furious Mental

Actually that would not make much sense because movement and manouevres were frequently done in a column, and in the latter part of the century the attack column came into use. Also it would ignore the fact that everywhere else in the world plenty of people were still fighting with medieval weapons. Also it would totally constrain modding scenarios based on earlier periods. We should have the discretion to make deep columns (without having to commit a quarter of our infantry to one) or thin lines, provided they each offer worthwhile advantages.

But I think we'd all like to see some screenshots showing some lines and the effect of a volley too!

---

Good point. but movement and maneuvers are hardly represented in tw games because from the start of a battle, you have already set your units in line of battle.

And about deep columns, i'm mainly concerned with the AI not taking advantage of the revolution in fire power of 2-4 rank lines. I believe it's all in the modifiable scripting for battle formation so i didn't mean for it to be hard coded.

i think we are having a constructive discussion here so let's keep it going.

The AI will be aware of the need for different formations and their benefits.
We aren't joking when we say we have an AI programmer working purely on land battle AI tactics. AI unit behaviour coding is, virtualy, a never ending task.

As I said its way to much to go in to here. Sadly I have work to do now :whip:

Oh, in some ways... I'd rather you just type how good this game will be, rather than you work on it... even if the result of that would be no game at all. ~:joker:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ichigo

The columns seem a little deep, but that may be how they wanted it. Other than that they look nice and I'm glad we've finally got some land battle screenies.

---

Assuming that this game represents a historical period beginning with 1700 (the Marlboroughian era) and that each figure represents one to five men (dare to dream), historically between 1700 and 1750(ish) the French were still using a five rank line.

Of course, I am in the dark as to what the designers intentions are with respect to scale and formation innovations that will be programmed into the game to occur over time span of the game.

To that end, it be great if the designers, from time to time, could present us with a a more detailed developement diary and explain the nuances of the game as it gets closer to the actual release date.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBR

Uhm no. A battalion in column were not meant for exchanging fire. It was not used like that in Age of Reason, Napoleonic Wars nor American Civil War.

The Brits used lines and columns pretty much like everyone else did at the time of the Napoleonic Wars. The main difference was a more extensive use of 2 rank than 3 rank line.

---

The formations pictured in the screenshots are not columns at all, but lines. Their depth is entirely appropriate for the period (early 1700's) depending on what the formation was trying to accomplish. Only the british, as I said, specialized in the very thin very long line to maximize fire power. Other nations went with much more massed formations which would be closer to squares in shape. And they did indeed exchange musketry fire while in these formations.

Of course, musketry fire was not very effective and was not the primary means of winning battle. Typically forces didn't advance solely for the purpose of exchanging fire at all, but rather to charge or repel the enemy and sieze a key piece of ground.

The napoleonic wars were not fought as a series of long thing lines of troops engaging in extended musketry duels, and it would be historically inaccurate to portray it as such.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeeSting

It is a TOTAL revision of history to think that melee combat played much role in that era... most of the wounds were from musket fires and not bayonets. Generals of that time much preferred to exchange fires till one side broke and ran. Doesn't CA have any historians keeping their fantasy games "somewhat" in line with history?

---

I think that is mostly backwards. Lengthy fire fights are a product of the ACW, and not of the Napoleonic Wars (or any time period before). The primary form of attack up through the Napoleonic Wars was a charge to melee, often using a massed column of infantry (unless you were British). The French were best known for their extremely attack columns but after the the thrashing they received at French hands, even the Austrians adopted a similar formation when they revamped their army in 1809.

Extended firing back and forth was role of skirmishers, and they weren't all that lethal at it. Reading accounts of the battles in the NW, time after time after time the forces are described as advancing, firing a volley, then charging. Sometimes even the defenders wait until the attackers are in range, fire a volley, then launch their own counter charge.

The fact that often their enemies would break and run doesn't mean that bayonet charges were useless, it means they were even MORE feared than musketry fire, and thus likely correspondingly more dangerous. If a soldier is willing to stand and endure musketry fire, but gets the hell out of dodge when a bayonet charge comes his way, the only conclusion you can come to is that the bayonet was a more lethal killing weapon than the musket ball - which for that time period, was true. Muskets were terribly inaccurate, which is why most of the attacks didn't rely on musket fire to get the defenders to move, but rather closed for hand to hand fighting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rick

Assuming that this game represents a historical period beginning with 1700 (the Marlboroughian era) and that each figure represents one to five men (dare to dream), historically between 1700 and 1750(ish) the French were still using a five rank line.

Of course, I am in the dark as to what the designers intentions are with respect to scale and formation innovations that will be programmed into the game to occur over time span of the game.

To that end, it be great if the designers, from time to time, could present us with a a more detailed developement diary and explain the nuances of the game as it gets closer to the actual release date.

---

You are probably right, I know only a small amount about the actual tactics of the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ulstan

This is almost completely backwards. Lengthy fire fights are a product of the ACW, and not of the Napoleonic Wars (or any time period before). The primary form of attack up through the Napoleonic Wars was a charge to melee, using a massed column of infantry (unless you were British). You'd go up, fire a volley or two, and then charge.

If your hypothesis was true, you wouldn't have French Columns of infantry bayonet charging everyone throughout the Napoleonic wars, yet this is exactly what happened. Extended firing back and forth was role of skirmishers, and they weren't all that lethal at it.

The fact that often their enemies would break and run doesn't mean that bayonet charges were useless, it means they were even MORE feared than musketry fire, and thus likely correspondingly more dangerous. If a soldier is willing to stand and endure musketry fire, but gets the hell out of dodge when a bayonet charge comes his way, the only conclusion you can come to is that the bayonet was a more lethal killing weapon than the musket ball.

---

Where are you getting these ideas? Then how do you explain the consensus from military history books that majority, 80-90% of casualties, were from musket shots? Bayonet charges into enemy ranks were not common and they were done only when the other side was starting to show signs of breaking up. It was the rate of fire and discipline to maintain it under fire that won the day, not bayonets. The development of bayonets was to replace pikes, which was largely used as deterrence to cavalry charges.

Quote:

---

Bayonet charges into enemy ranks were not common and they were done only when the other side was starting to show signs of breaking up.

---

This is simply not true. Read the accounts of the officers actually at the battles. Probably the most used phrase is "they fired a volley and then charged with the bayonet". Often times regiments will simply charge and not even bother to fire a volley.

Even if this was true, it would merely confirm my statement that the musketry fire was aimed at disrupting the opponent and the bayonet charge was used to force the issue and finish them off/drive them from the field.

If musketry was 'better' than bayonet charges, you wouldn't bayonet charge when your opponent was starting to show signs of breaking, you'd keep doing your musketry thing as there'd be no point to switching to a less lethal and less effective form of combat.

Charges to melee by infantry were extremely common and arguably the *most common* form of attack to seize ground. The idea that they were never used is rather implausible, especially considering that dozens of such charges might be launched back and forth to secure key areas like villages.

There *were* extended firefights (read, lasting about 10 minutes in the extreme cases) but these were far from the norm and usually occurred when the attackers had already lost a bit of their nerve and decided to engage the enemy in a shootout rather than pressing their bayonet charge. Theses cases usually resulted in a repulse for the attacker.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ulstan

This is simply not true. Read the accounts of the officers actually at the battles. Probably the most used phrase is "they fired a volley and then charged with the bayonet". Often times regiments will simply charge and not even bother to fire a volley.

Even if this was true, it would merely confirm my statement that the musketry fire was aimed at disrupting the opponent and the bayonet charge was used to force the issue and finish them off/drive them from the field.

If musketry was 'better' than bayonet charges, you wouldn't bayonet charge when your opponent was starting to show signs of breaking, you'd keep doing your musketry thing as there'd be no point to switching to a less lethal and less effective form of combat.

Charges to melee by infantry were extremely common and arguably the *most common* form of attack to seize ground. The idea that they were never used is rather implausible, especially considering that dozens of such charges might be launched back and forth to secure key areas like villages.

As for the casualties issue, I doubt very much the reliability of those figures, given the well known inaccuracy of the musket. Are they ignoring artillery entirely? At any rate, if soldiers didn't die to bayonet charges as much because they fled as soon as such a charge came their way, that simply reinforces my point.

---

I don't want to argue numbers and facts since they speak for themselves. If you don't mind my suggestion, I think you should do some more reading and here's a good start:

Warfare in the Eighteenth Century by Jeremy Black

And regarding the casualties issue...The idea that 90% of all casualties in the napoleonic wars were caused by muskets is pretty absurd, given the inaccuracy of the weapons and how much damage was inflicted on formations by artillery while they were formed up and by cavalry after they dispersed.

Most of the casualty breakdowns are arrived at by totaling up the breakdowns of wound types in hospitals - all that tells us is which type of fighting is most likely to cause wounds, as dead men aren't admitted to the hospital.

Muskets probably had a very high proportion of wounds/deaths due to the inaccurate nature of musket fire.

Bayonets and swords, when used, probably had a very high proportion of deaths/wounds because you're not throwing your bayonet at a block of troops 90 yards away and hoping it hits someone, you're stabbing some guy in his torso to kill him. Either he evades the blow, or it lands and he dies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeeSting

I don't want to argue numbers and facts since they speak for themselves. If you don't mind my suggestion, I think you should do some more reading and here's a good start:

Warfare in the Eighteenth Century by Jeremy Black

---

I have done a great deal of reading. As, apparently, have you. It matters *what* one reads, however.

I tend to think the accounts of the officers that actually fought have a higher precedence over others opinions.

Here, for example, is Marshal Ney:

Quote:

---

...
It would be better, therefore, after the two first ranks have fired, to charge boldly with the bayonet, and by an act of vigour force the enemy to retreat. The German soldier, formed by the severest discipline, is cooler than any other. Under such circumstances he would, in the end, obtain the advantage in this kind of firing, if it lasted long... These observatons are of a nature to urge colonels... to prepare and drill their men to attacks by main strength... a French commander ought never to hesitate in marching against the enemy with the bayonet, if the ground is at all adapted to a charge in line with one or more battalions at a time."

---

This isn't some armchair general writing years after the fact, that is one of Napoleons Marshals.

Are you still going to claim that charges simply almost never happened? Infantry launching a charge against other infantry was extremely common. In fact it was pretty much the default method of attack. To say that melee combat has no place in a game covering the NW is thus not very historically accurate. It may be that the enemy often didn't stick around to receive such an assault, but that simply emphasizes how much it was dreaded.

And it wasn't only used against after a long fire fight. A few examples ready to hand with the aid of google

"The French regiment formed close column with the grenadiers in front and closed the battalions ... They then advanced up the hill in the most beautiful order without firing a shot ... when about 30 paces distant our men (British) began to waver, being still firing ... The ensigns advanced 2 paces in front and planted the colors on the edge of the hill and officers steped out to encourage the men to meet them. They (British) stopped with an apparent determination to stand firm, the enemy (French) continued to advance at a steady pace and when quite close the Fusiliers gave way: - the French followed down the hill on our side."

-English Officer

""The French regiment came up the hill with a brisk and regular step, and their drums beating pas de charge: our men fired wildly and at random among them; the French never returned a shot, but continued their steady advance. The English fired again but still without return ... and when the French were close upon them, they wavered and gave way."

-John Burgoyne

"'Major-General Tsibulski, on horseback in full uniform, told me he couldn't keep his men under control. Over and over again they after exchanging a few shots with the Frenchmen in the cemetery tried to throw them out of it at bayonet point."

-Russian Officer in 1812

"Though hotly engaged at the time, I determined to watch their movements. The 88th Foot [Irish] next deployed into line, advancing all the time towards their opponents, who seemed to wait very coolly for them. When they had approached to within 300 or 400 yards, the French poured in a volley or I should say a running fire from right to left. As soon as the British regiment had recovered the first shock, and closed their files on the gap it had made, they commenced advancing at double time until within 50 yards nearer to the enemy, when they halted and in turn gave a running fire from their whole line, and without a moment's pause cheered and charged up the hill against them."

-Officer during the peninsula campaigns

I’m hesitant to argue verbatim and that charges never happened and deny the example from a general’s writing above. Simple fact is that concentration and rate of fire was the mainstay for causing disorganization and route then costly bayonet charges. It seems that this particular general was encouraging his subordinates to do what they were accustomed to do, which was exchanging of fire and hesitation of bayonet charges. Again, the numbers of casualty speak for themselves. And Napoleonic wars are speaking from a different era; yes, french army under his leadership have used more aggressive, unconventional tactics.

Quote:

---

Again, the numbers of casualty speak for themselves.

---

No, they really don't. Casualties admitted to hospitals are not representative of casualties as a whole. For one thing, dead people aren't admitted to the hospital.

Your reasoning is that muskets were the main form of death dealing in the NW because about 70% of hospital cases had musket wounds, and that therefore melee combat is not to be considered, as it caused fewer hospital cases.

If your reasoning is correct, we may as well get rid of artillery and cavalry from the game entirely, because they also caused fewer wounds than muskets in the admitted hospital cases.

Attempting to close to melee was an incredibly common tactic for attacking infantry in the NW. That the enemy so rarely let them do this doesn't mean that tactic wasn't important or that it didn't happen, any more than the fact cavalry couldn't usually break formed infantry meant that cavalry was a useless and non-important aspect of the NW.

Quote:

---

And Napoleonic wars are speaking from a different era; yes, french army under his leadership have used more aggressive, unconventional tactics.

---

Not really. There's more or less a linear path of accuracy and deadliness of firearms. The better and better firearms get, the less and less effective melee charges become. Melee charges and cavalry pretty much ruled the day when muskets were still in their early stages. In the Napoleonic eras they were still very important but muskets could also cause a lot of damage. By the time of the ACW rifled barrels and percussion caps had made things like cavalry and bayonet charges virtually suicidal.

As an aside, this is why I think the ACW would be so incredibly dull for a TW game - you have essentially infantry in line and artillery and that's it. NW has our arms of combat, artillery, cavalry, formed infantry, and skirmishers, and all were incredibly important and potent in their own ways on the battlefield. Not only that, infantry would adopt many different formations for many different battlefield situations!

OK coming to the end of my working day so some more time to address points.

The unit sizes presented in the picture represent very early 18th Century combat formations. And in 1 to 5 scale as suggested by Rick.

Whether a unit uses ranked fire tactics, column tactics, line tactics or not will, as said before, depend on training, faction and unit type.

Some good points on both sides about Column, Line and the usefulness of melee and bayonets. But please, both sides, calm down a little. :) Finding the "truth" is always a complex thing and usually involves a much broader picture than anyone suspects.

As Ulstan points out,
Columns were useful for assault manoeuvres.
Lines were useful for maximising firepower.

Bayonet casualties varied from battle to battle and were different all across the periods between 1700 up to the end of the Napoleonic wars. The Battle of Culloden for example included a very bloody melee where the bayonet proved its usefulness.

As an example of the value and importance of the bayonet and melee; one of Napoleon's chief infantry tactics was to encourage his infantry to advance in column on the enemy and where possible briefly engage the enemy closely with musket and then charge with bayonet. And as Alexander Suvorov said: "attack with cold steel - push hard with the bayonet" and "The bullet is a fool, the bayonet is a fine chap". Two great generals with an exemplary battle record who both saw the bayonet as an important weapon in battle.

It is also true that advances would stall and become attritional exchanges of gunfire. But that was often, traditionally, regarded as a bad thing, except by Prussia and Britain who saw the opportunities and advantages, created by good weapons training, for armies without numbers on their side. That advantage was to infilict casualties on an enemy with superior numbers, prior to engagement in melee. Despite this approach, even those nations saw the psychological value of the bayonet charge as a "morale breaker". In fact Britain still does to this day - The last succesfull bayonet charge being carried out in Iraq in 2004 by the Prince of Wales Regiment and the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders. Does that mean guns weren't or arent useful? No, of course not. Does it mean that meleee with bayonet is pointless? Again, no.

We at CA have decided to take a more balanced approach. We haven't ignored the value of either of these arms of warfare of the period. Each element has its value and it's place in Empire Total War.

Ulstan:

Your knowledge of warfare seems to be limited to Napoleonic Wars, which is in early 19th century. The main time frame of the game is in the 18th century. And these numbers aren't pulled out of my ass. Please read that book I mentioned and i will introduce you to more so you can grasp a bigger picture of what happened then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Intrepid Sidekick

We at CA have decided to take a more balanced approach. We haven't ignored the value of either of these arms of warfare of the period. Each element has its value and it's place in Empire Total War.

---

I think that's the most reasonable approach. ~:cheers:

I didn't think the 80-90% casualty factor applied to the American frontier war but it apparently did according to this book: The Great Frontier War: Britain, France, and the Imperial Struggle for… http://books.google.com/books?id=DeZ...l=en#PPA126,M1

“In all, musket balls accounted for about 80% of deaths and wounds, and cannon shots and shells about 10 percent. Bayonets were rarely used and accounted for only 9 percent of casualties.”

Quote:

---

Jeremy Black

---

He actually spoke at my university on the Iraq war. ^_^

/sorry for off-topic

Some really great battles to study regarding all this would be, first, the Battle of Poltava (only because so much has been written about it, including the Russians using a 5 rank formation for its battalions) and, second, the Battle of Waterloo. Featherstones book on Firepower (not sure of the exact title) is a good one. And it lends some credence to what I've seen written in this thread so far.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ulstan

The formations pictured in the screenshots are not columns at all, but lines.

---

Didnt say they were.

Quote:

---

Their depth is entirely appropriate for the period (early 1700's) depending on what the formation was trying to accomplish. Only the british, as I said, specialized in the very thin very long line to maximize fire power.

---

The info I have on ranks used by various armies in WSS:
British/Dutch: 3
Austrian/Bavarian: 4
Various German states: 3-4
French: 4-5 (still using fire by rank)

Quote:

---

Other nations went with much more massed formations which would be closer to squares in shape.

---

Battalions/regiments stopped looking similar to squares many decades earlier.

Quote:

---

Of course, musketry fire was not very effective and was not the primary means of winning battle. Typically forces didn't advance solely for the purpose of exchanging fire at all, but rather to charge or repel the enemy and sieze a key piece of ground.

---

And typically units engaged in firecombat and was stuck doing that as it was difficult to get the men forward after they started shooting. That doesnt mean there werent charges and even melee combat, but trying to go in against an undisrupted enemy generally meant a quick defeat. But a charge was an excellent way of routing a demoralised enemy that would otherwise have stayed put and kept on firing.


CBR

I'm interested in seeing some Jainessaries or other Ottoman troops.

"
Muskets probably had a very high proportion of wounds/deaths due to the inaccurate nature of musket fire.

Bayonets and swords, when used, probably had a very high proportion of deaths/wounds because you're not throwing your bayonet at a block of troops 90 yards away and hoping it hits someone, you're stabbing some guy in his torso to kill him. Either he evades the blow, or it lands and he dies."

In fact that French surgeon Dominique Larrey studied the consequences of a 'bayonet fight' between the French and Russians (both of whom considered themselves masters of the weapon) and discovered that there were almost no casualties caused by it. Almost all of them had simply been shot with muskets at extremely close range in the melee. The extremely low proportion of casualties caused by bayonets generally also accords with the fact that actual melees were a rarety, especially in open field and especially between large bodies of troops. In the vast majority of cases, either the charging formation broke under musket fire or the other side ran away.

Aside from that, the fact is that it was only casualty rate, not the fatality rate, that mattered in terms of winning the battle. Arguably even to wound was in fact better than to kill because it because it gave soldiers who didn't want to be in the front line an excuse not to be there by carting people away from it- this was a well known phenomenon even if it doesn't feature heavily in patriotic accounts of glorious charges. And even if someone who had been hit by a musket ball lived (which was unlikely) they were not going to fight again.

"The info I have on ranks used by various armies in WSS:
British/Dutch: 3
Austrian/Bavarian
Various German states: 3-4
French: 4-5 (still using fire by rank)"

Sounds right to me. The depth and the proportion of depth to width of the formations in the screenshots is not that of a line.

I would think that a bayonet thrust at someone would be easily parried because of the size of the weapon. Could anyone give me some incite into this?

If this is true then I would think that a bayonet charge would be a last resort or used to end a battle quickly if one side had an overwhelming superiority in numbers.

There are statistics from Paris Invalides in 1762:

Small arms: 68,7%
Swords: 14.7
Artillery: 13,4
Bayonets: 2.4

This is of course those who survived. Cavalry combat was noted for its many wounded but not many killed. Cannonballs and grapeshot were quite devastating so not many survived being hit by that. It might even be somewhat difficult to see the difference between a wound from a light cannister ball and a musket ball.

IMO bayonets overall meant more killed than wounded as it happened in melee where it was difficult to get away. But even if bayonets didnt kill or wound that many, compared to other weapons, doesnt mean they werent important. There are lots of examples of units melting away before contact so the act of charging had a big impact alone.


CBR

Yeah but it was far, far more common for the bayonet charge to drive the enemy away before contact was made, especially in large field battles.