Printable View
I find that Light Infantry is way better in the early game than line infantry because they can unload all their guns into an enemy at once rather than one line at a time. However by the time you research all those techs, line infatry becomes much better.
Has this been the experience of anyone else or am I just being silly?
I thought you couldn't get Light Infantry until you researched the Light Infantry Tech, which is rather far down the military tree if I remeber right.
I certainly prefer Line, but that is simply do to the fact I am more interested in holding a line rather then killing the enemy, and boxes of men serve that purpose rather well while my more elite unites (Grenadiers, Guards, etc) move up to take care of whatever. :2thumbsup:
Light Infantry are smaller in unit size so they will die faster than Line Infantry will. You can also spread your Line Infantry out to 2 ranks deep to get a lot of the muskets firing. Line infantry also have access to ring bayonets fairly early, which makes them a better CC option.
Light infantry are good, but I wouldn't rely on them as a substitute for Line Infantry.
Late period, there is no question, Line Infantry > Light Infantry smply because of rank fire.
I must say, I'm finding it hard to figure out how best to use light infantry. If I put them in the center, the get mowed down by the enemy line infantry, and if I put them on the flanks, they're vulnerable to cavalry.
I'm not quite sure what role light infantry are good for that another unit can't do better.
AFAIK multiplayer games have no techs researched, so anything that can fire more than 1 row at once is great.
I like to use them as sharpshooters.
Well if you are fighting a city, there is usually alot of Militia and armed citizens, in general light infantry is better then them and good at soaking up shot so your better units don't have to.
If you have colonies in the Americas you can recruit rangers. (At least for the factions that get colonies to start there.) The Austrians also get Paundors(sp?), the Spanish get Guerrillas, and the Russians get Siberian Hunters. So there is plenty of factions that gain access to light infantry early on.Quote:
I thought you couldn't get Light Infantry until you researched the Light Infantry Tech, which is rather far down the military tree if I remeber right.
IMO, until the game can be modded to slow things down a bit, light infantry are useless as skirmishers. As it is now, with skirmish mode set, you are lucky if you can get even 1 shot off before they turn to run, especially if you are fighting native americans or other melee armies, since they like to bonzai charge across the map. If you turn off skirmish mode, then they get smashed by the enemy, since they only have 60 or so men. Dont get me wrong though, I love light infantry/rangers/auxillary and use them often, just as it is now, they die way to quickly, which is a bummer if you are like me and name your units and role play with them.
Well, i think light infantry are skirmishers, I guess their purpose is to harass the enemy with their longer range and higher accuracy and retreat when the enemy advances to get into range, that way you can force the enemy to march onto your lines when they are trying to defend. That's all purely theoretical of course, it's not like I have the game yet, but from the stats I saw posted here they reload slower than line infantry but have more range and accuracy, they are only worth it if you can use that I guess.
I find them useful (Panders, anyway) as skirmishers. In defense you can use them to disrupt an enemy advance: place a few units of light infantry here or there in front of the advancing enemy line, forcing some of them to stop and fire while the others either keep advancing or turn to fire at the skirmishers as well. Either way, you've disrupted the enemy line, and created holes you can exploit. You can also use them to distract enemy units and often pull them away from the main fight; basically, your 400-some gold unit of 60 skirmishers pulls their 700+ gold unit of teched up line infantry off on a wild goose chase for a while, which can only level the odds of the main fight or tilt them in your favor. Later you can finish off the distracted, isolated units in detail.
Lots of uses for the different light units. You just have to be creative and get away from the line up and plug away at each other mindset.
I've used them to screen a deployment of line infantry or artillery, also used them to force an infantry advance to slow down so it can be engaged by my artillery.
The Minute Men from RTI are the units I had in mind when I did started this thread since is 160 men shooting at once. After you get fire by rank, line infantry is largely better due to the ability to stab. Since the light infantry in RTI has the same range as line infantry, I jsut stick them behind my artillery to supplement the canister shot with 160 musketballs.
I don't even have the game but you get more of line infantry so I guess them ,though if its like the demo light inf do get stakes so maybe there versatility would make them more interesting.
Skirmishers are handicapped by having only slightly longer range, sometimes even the same range, as line infantry. They also aren't much faster. Given that the idea is to shoot and scoot, I think this hurts their utility a lot. Plus, you actually have to research the "light infantry doctrine," which is just a fancy term for a skirmishing formation. Which is older than firearms. :inquisitive: I think most skirmishers could use a range of 90.
They still have their uses though. They generally have a smaller unit size, which means you can deploy them in ranks of two while still being maneuverable. They also have better accuracy in general, so you can use them to flank engaged line infantry and get some enfilade fire on 'em. I like to use Rangers in defensive positions if I can hide them.
I've found them to be quite useful personally. In my opinion you only need so many line infantry before your line is too long and they go to waste or you have to put them behind the line itself in which case they still go to waste.
With light infantry you can put them infront of the line and they don't get shot in the back. They are spread out enough so that they take minimal casualties, this is more useful than you might think. A couple of things I have used them for - picking off defenders in a fort, this worked surprisingly well and they didn't get shot to pieces but the guys on the wall did allowing my men to reach the walls mostly unharmed. Secondly - just put them in front of your line infantry the enemy has to waste bullets shooting at them or just take the hits. If they decide to shoot at the light infantry the way they are spread out makes for few deaths and protects your precious line infantry.
Neither of the above is really "skirmishing" and you do only need say 2 - 4 units, I usually turn skirmish mode off unless I'm facing melee infantry. They aren't a replacement for line infantry, use them together for the best results.
That's a good point. I usually have eight-ish units of Line Infantry. I supplement them with artillery, riflemen, cavalry, and skirmishers. Especially artillery and riflemen. Why risk getting blood on your uniform when you can kill the enemy from a ways off?Quote:
Originally Posted by Meldarion
What upgrades can light infantry get? I noticed my militias aren't getting square formation and rank fire.
Did any of you guys try out the Austrian air rifles? Those are insane. Shame they run out of ammo quickly.
Only line and proper infantry get those tactics.Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewt
Militia receive nothing.
I generally put them in front of my line hiding. When the enemy engages I take them out of the forest then use them to shoot the enemy in the back. Or sometimes on my flank if position allows so if the enemy tries to flank me out pops some skirmishers to shoot them. A lot of the time they'll die but they serve their purpose.
I actually use my light infantry (And variants) as a tactical reserve, a la Imperial Guard. They are a lot more lethal when the enemy is distracted, and their smaller size means that they are missed much less.
I've always wondered why no one else fielded elite corps of those.Quote:
Originally Posted by Megas Methuselah
The air rifles were actually to complicated and fragile for military use. The tech was in the region, so they tried it but it was more or less no great success. The rifles were on the other hand great weapons for poaching, a behaviour quite often seen and even admired by many people in the Alps in the 18th and 19th century. There were many complaints about air rifles used for this.
The CA developers did mention that they included a few units that were historically impractical for battlefield use just to increase the tactical possibilities, sort of a 'what if someone had managed to work out the kinks 50 years sooner'. Air rifles, Ferguson rifles, Puckle guns, rifled naval artillery and ocean-going steamships are all good examples.
Wow - Air rifles are in? Thanks CA, I don't know if this thread, this thread or even this one some times (2006-2008) ago about them helped but I could not care less. Note that a good deal of the mentioned units made it in, although it is of course impossible to which extent it influenced CA.
How are the good old Riflemen with the Girandoni?
Try them. They have the killing power and range of riflemen. They also have the second highest RoF in the game after Puckle Guns. However, they are 25% smaller than other riflemen units, about as big as a cavalry regiment. Good support for Line Infantry.
Austria also has superior Riflemen and their basic light infantry use double-barreled muskets. Makes up for the terrible accuracy of their line units. Britain has Ferguson Riflemen but their RoF is half that of the air guns.
infantry cannot fire while moving and that when i use light infantry get off a few shots before the enemy has a chance to settle his lines. once they reach the main lines i use them to ans the flankers to shoot them in sides and back.
Contrary to the common feelthat I should use skirmishers to defend line infantry, I do the opposite. I position the line of line infantry with gaps in between regiments, where a bit further back there is artillery and skirmishers.
that way, while line troops hammer each other, my artillery shoot canister and my skirmishers kill the enemy off due to their better accuracy. I do lose a lot line infantry, but in a more "traditional" battle line setting I lose even more.
bad things tend to happen if I leave too big a gap between two line infantries and some cav gets to the artillery or the skirmishers.
I've used them to stake out my flanks,before I finished deployment to keep those pesky native calvary out,and also used them against there infantry as their bowment and such seem to out-range line infantry by quite a bit..
Yeah I do that too. Its also rather funny when the AI decides to throw all of its horse at one or two guns and get ripped apart by everything else.Quote:
Originally Posted by loony
The best thing about Light Infantry is that they can crouch (toggle light infantry behavior) in front of line infantry allowing the line infantry to fire in syncronicity with the light infantry.
I love these guys have 4 of them in each stack on the Americas, they can also deploy anti cav stakes around arty and/or choke points.
I use light infantry to defend artillery. The combination of deploying stakes + easy hiding + longer range weapons = carnage for any pesky cavalry trying to intercept your artillery. Particularly awesome for defending a puckle gun when you toggle "light infantry behavior" on so that they are continually ducked under the puckle fire.
I somewhat agree - the early light inf. is kind of hard to use as skirmishers, since their range is so close to that of line infantry... But then again, at this early stage, their advantage is probably less range rather than the fact they can hide almost anywhere and all fire at once, so if you micromanage a lot, I suppose you could get them to volley, run away, re-hide out of range, reload and volley again when the line comes closer... Assuming the line didn't run after them. Or there happens to be cavalry anywhere near :/Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanaro
So, yeah, kinda hard to figure out any decent strategery for them. I usually start them hidden somewhere on the expected path of the enemy, fire at will off, and check their hidden icon. The second they're spotted, toggle FAW, and I make them run like hell behind my lines once they've unloaded. After that, I mostly forget about them and use them as reserves where needed. When/if the AI sends cav after them during the retreat, two things can happen :
1) I hid them too far away from my lines, cavalry rolls right over the poor suckers, and that sucks ; or
2) cavalry reaches them just inside of line infantry range. And they die very, very fast in a hail of lead. And that is sa-weet.
However, late game light infantry apparently gets a whopping 125 range, almost double that of line infantry. Can't wait to get my hands on those. They look like they have the same cheese potential as longbows did :laugh4:
Actually I find them tricky to use effectively. The huge range is nice, but they take forever to reload, so I find they can generally only get off one volley before the enemy are upon them. Additionally the AI knows not to muck about in a shootout with them, and will just charge straight at them. I find them useful as bait to draw enemies onto my line infantry, but not all that deadly in their own right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2fr
The exception seems to be the Austrian Windbuschejaegers, who reload even faster than line infantry.
EDIT: The other exception, of course, being offensive sieges, where you can do some highly cheesy sniping at the enemy units inside a breach.
Reload times get a lot better as you get experience.
Well, the Americans get the long riflemen, who had around a 25% range increase (I think it's 80 or so?). They stink at CC, but they're entirely worth having to get the first shot in, before retreating them to the flanks.
Ya know, I tried that in a custom battle. Didn't work. I lost 2/3 of my light inf unit from friendly fire. The puckle guns just fire so darn low.Quote:
Originally Posted by seireikhaan
Yes, I'm finding the same thing when positioning my Jaegers in front of my line infantry; my guys definitely do still take friendly fire from the line infantry. This occurs even if I am fighting against an all-melee opponent, so it is definitely FF.
I suspect what people are observing as the skirmishers being safe from friendly fire by ducking is actually the fact that most of the line infantry shots would go over their heads anyway even if standing or through the gaps in the formation.
The only way I've found to get two rows of units one in front of the other firing without friendly fire is favourable terrain (which, incidentally, is a very handy method of effectively doubling the firepower of that section of your line).
Normal line infantry has a range of 70. Regular light infantry (and rangers in the Americas) are 80. Once you get the Mechanical Rifling tech, you can build units with a range of 125, though.
I've personally used LI to winkle out troops who have taken up inside fortified buildings, as I usually outrange them. I'll move the LI up to just within range and let them use their superior range and accuracy to cause casualties without an enemy response.
I haven't had to fight with them yet, but currently I have 2 units of Riflemen (Green Jackets) and one unit of Ferguson Riflemen defending Gibraltar in my campaign. I have 3 units of mortars inside, one unit of light dragoons, and the rest are line infantry.
I find that sitting them behind artillery units still works much better than putting them infront of your line infantry.
The problem is that light infrantry are ment to fire at the same rate/faster then line infranty, they fire at a third of the rate in the game. So edit them!
They're even better than that. Long Riflemen can hide while walking. If the enemy takes up a defensive position, you can sneak them up to vulnerable units like cavalry, get off one shot, and run like hell. If they are reluctant to give up their position, you can just sit there and snipe them(though all riflemen can do that). Now, if only the 13 colonies were playable during the normal campaign. The option you get at the end of the Road to Independence campaign is too short.Quote:
Originally Posted by Squints
That's the classic use, in an open-field battle. After they're done skirmishing, and withdraw behind the line, they're available to protect the line's flanks (especially if the cavalry's busy chasing off the opposing cavalry). Their longer range helps them contribute fire onto the units engaged in front of the line. After the enemy foot units break, they can also chase them down (again, if the cavalry are off doing something else, or re-forming after a charge) without having to commit the line and have them lose order.Quote:
Originally Posted by NimitsTexan
The other major use is against buildings and other field fortifications, especially when they can out-range the defenders. The line take too long, and too many casualties, to be as effective.
As ever (well, since the time of Alexander, anyway), think "Hammer and Anvil." The line, in this case, is your Anvil, and Artillery/Cavalry your Hammer. Light Infantry aren't quite peltasts, but they're useful in the auxiliary roles.
Has anyone used them as battlefield assassinsto kill the enemy general yet?
Historically, light infantry were also used for storming fortifications and surprise attacks, especially at night. Their melee values should be superior to line infantry.
Their melee values shouldn't be higher IMO. They did not receive surplus training in melee fighting or were chosen from the bigger stronger men. Their melee values should be identical to those of line infantry though, whereas now they are lower.
Im happy with them being less especially rifles light infantry as they have huge range they need a weakness and melee is probably what it should be.
Their half size is supposed to be their weakness. They're not half the cost of regular infantry.
Their weakness is their size and that they are quickly slaughtered by calvary. They are meant to be better in melee because they (along with grenadiers) the elite of a battalion and commonly caught in the most bloody combat.
I think they've been rendered pointless by the poor implementation of skirmishing and the lack of open order. Light infantry survived on the battlefield by being intelligent, and not presenting the enemy with a target worthy of being fired at. That meant spreading out and making full use of cover and darting out of sight if the line infantry looked like it was going to waste a volley on them. Likewise, when threatened by cavalry they would rapidly withdraw into a nearby square or take shelter in a wood until the cavalry got bored and buggered off.Quote:
Originally Posted by PBI
None, of that behaviour seems to feature in ETW so, even those troops with a skirmish button seem the stand around in dense groups under musketry and artillery fire and only react to cavalry when they they are in the final stages of a charge and running would actually be the least sensible option.
I've just stopped training them now as they a waste of funds.
it doesnt help that the use of light infantry to work infront of the battle line is never implemented the computer so the function of light infrantry to destry other light infantry never comes fully to fruition.
Yes, historically there were only two counters to enemy light infantry. 1) Cavalry and 2) your own light infantry. Cavalry were only viable if the enemy did not have artillery or their own cavalry to drive you off, so most armies employed their own light troops to fend off the enemies. By the end of the Napoleonic war for example every third man in a Prussian Regiment was trained for potential employment in the skirmish line, and Britain had whole regiments and divisions trained for this role.Quote:
Originally Posted by a-e
Didz, I told you in the other thread that open order is the "light infantry tactics" button!
But skirmishing is available to Indian and Ottoman units from the start of the campaign.Quote:
Originally Posted by quadalpha
Yes, but aren't there two issues here, skirmishing and open order? I was saying open order exists. Skirmishing ... I don't really touch, since the AI usually charge my skirmishers and they end up not doing much shooting, though there was one time a unit of cossack cav managed to distract one wing of the enemy pretty much autonomously for a good half of a battle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Didz
I suspect your right in game mechanic's and design terms, but in historical terms the two go hand in hand. Skirmishing and operating in loose formation e.g. Open Order are synonimous and have been one and the same thing since ancient armies employed skirmishers to screen the deployment of the phalanx. In fact, it would have made more sense to permantently deploy skirmish units in open order than have them stuck in close order until a tech update.Quote:
Originally Posted by quadalpha
Ironically the Ottoman's have a melee uinit which is in permanently in open order and a skirmshing unit which isn't so you actually have two useless units types. A skirmishing unit that can't skirmish and a mellee unit that can't melee.:laugh4:
There is skirmishing and there is open order. One is an activity and the other a formation.
Obviously skirmishing was done in loose order and therefore relied upon experienced men who could function thusly without routing or deserting. It is this experience that endowed the flank companies with their superior combat power. Light infantry and grenadiers were often kept at full strength by culling the best men from the line companies. The higher proportion of experienced men made these companies better in every respect to their line counterparts. They generally had fewer cowards and more fighters.
Open order (without regard to skirmishing) could be adopted by any formation that was required to maintain a position while under fire. It spreads the men out so as to loose fewer to artillery and what not. The men may not have been expected to do much in open order but it did help if they couldn’t move out of harms way and instead had to stand and "have a taste of it".
Exactly my point. Skirmishing is always done in loose order, therefore it is a nonesense to have units with the ability to skirmish who are not deployed in loose order, as it renders them useless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nelson
In fact, historically the evolution was the other way round. Early warfare was always conducted in loose formation, not just because men were not trained to fight in close order but quite simply because men could not fight in close order using the early weapons available to them. They needed space around themselves to fight and so they fought in loose formations. The development of drills and weapons that enable men to fight in close formation was a technical evolution that included the Greek Phalanx and the Roman Legion as its most famous exponents.
You do not need to train a man to fight in a loose formation any warrior will do that naturally, you only need to train a man to fight as part of tight unified group.
Too right, Didz. Even in the 18th century ranks and files in both columns and lines were more open than is commonly appreciated until the Prussians introduced a cadenced step. (which incidentally Frederick the Great considered a state secret). The new cadence made formations more compact which in turn made them handier to deploy and maneuver without needing to stop and dress so often as before. Until the “secret” was out no one could keep up with Prussian infantry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Didz
I dunno Didz, that sounds more like hyperbole. You have to train the people how to fight right. Give just get anyone a sort and its pretty much a coin flip that that person will be totally ineffective and die.
It would be more appropriate if it was about drilling rather than all around training.
My point was that you do not need to train men to fight in loose order, they will do that naturally, all you need to do is teach them how to fight. Therefore, it should not be a technical innovation to enable your men to use loose formation and any unit with skirmishing ability should be deployed in loose formation by default.Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
As it stands I have skirmish units in the Maratha Army that are useless to me becuase they are depicted in close order and so take equal casualties to their close order opponents even though they have half the men.
It just another feature that worked before but now doesn't.
Line Infantry -
Has twice the number of men as Light Infantry, and therefore more staying power.
Light Infantry -
Half the # of men, much greater range, ability to deploy spikes.
The best use of Light Infantry isn't on the flank or in the center... they are best deloyed where they can stay hidden and snipe from a safe distace. The spikes are best deployed near the artillery or in the woods where trees will obscure them from vision somewhere directly between thier starting cavalry position and your artillery.
Making a line out of Light Infantry seems temping but it just doesn't hold unless you are under ideal circumstance (ie hard cover, uphill).
Consider French revolutionary armies and it becomes pretty obvious that the instinct of untrained or scarcely trained men under fire was to spread out and use cover. No one needs to be trained to use their common sense. What they did have to be trained to do was operate in a formation even if it was an open and flexible formation.
Well I'm getting the hang of this now and have developed Ottoman Column tactic's to make the best use of the way infantry work.
Four Jannissary units in dense column grouped with two units of skirmishers in line with skirmish on.
What happens is that as the enemy approach they get a volley of musketry from the skirmishers which usually provokes them to charge. The skirmishers retreat through the the jannisaries, I order the jannisaries to charge, the skirmishers stop running, and start firing at the enemy in the melee.
So you end up with enemy musketeers (melee defence 4/5) being hacked to bits by janissaries (melee attack 15) and shot by skirmishers. The only thing to avoid is using artillery, which would make mincemeat of everything.
The AI seems to get really confused at having its own expliot used against it, I've even seen Russian Musketeers try to form square. It also works against cavalry if you turn the skirmish ability off so that your snipers keep firing, they seem to pick off the cavalry quite quickly as the jannissary keep them busy.
Um, that time period (which is after the ending of the campaign in this one) featured the "Levée en masse," which was the 1st large-scale compulsory conscripting of the Industrial Age. Napoleon's tactics focused on a combination of massed cannons, cavalry charges, and infantry columns breaking through the enemy line and convincing the survivors to leave the field ... bloody, but effective (at the time: imitating them later led to the horrific casualties of the ACW and WWI).Quote:
Originally Posted by Furious Mental
Skirmishers were deployed relatively rarely, and even then they were recalled and re-attached to the assault column. One theater that saw extensive use of skirmishers (and guerrillas) was the Iberian Peninsula,
Well, the American Revolutionary army tried that, at first, with their militia. They were copying the tactics that seemed to work during the French and Indian Wars. However, collections of individuals shooting from behind trees and such were generally only useful for harassment, not for taking and holding a battlefield.Quote:
Originally Posted by Didz
Also, fighting in such an "ungentlemanly" manner caused the British troops to take out their frustrations on the unarmed citizenry of the towns they occupied ...
Eventually, the Continentals brought in "Baron" von Steuben to train them in the European style. The rest, as they say, is history.
Not Napoleon. He had a professional army. He meant the revolutionaries in the beginning.
Also, your attitude towards the British is fairly demeaning, if not completely wrong. For one, the whole point of the British campaign was to only target revolutionaries, and not the largely ambivalent populace. Any officer that allowed their troops to ravage a town would have received hefty punishment for blatant disregard for the commander's intent.
That's exaclty what skirmishers are supposed to do, they are not intended to take and hold battlefields thats what the line infantry is for.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeV
And he taught them close order tactic's, not light infantry tactic's, in fact, the British did the reverse and taught some of their regiments to fight in open order as skirmishers to oppose the guys behind the tree's. The 60th Rifle Regiment which fought alongside the 95th in Spain and Europe was actually formed in America as a response to the snipers.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeV
Yes, I think that assessment was based upon the Mel Gibson version of the war as portrayed in the film 'Patriot', otherwise known as 'How to teach your children to become murderers.'Quote:
Originally Posted by A Very Super Market
'Um, that time period (which is after the ending of the campaign in this one) featured the "Levée en masse," which was the 1st large-scale compulsory conscripting of the Industrial Age. Napoleon's tactics focused on a combination of massed cannons, cavalry charges, and infantry columns breaking through the enemy line and convincing the survivors to leave the field ... bloody, but effective (at the time: imitating them later led to the horrific casualties of the ACW and WWI).
'
Yeah cheers but I don't need a lecture on Napoleonic tactics, especially from someone who thinks it was all about assault columns. The point is that soldiers instinctively spread out and protect themselves when they get shot at. They is why they had to be trained to stand shoulder to shoulder and fire in unison, which in any case even trained soldiers could not manage for extended periods of time.
The American example showed as the earlier war of the Seven Wars before that you need both irregular and regular troops, both men capable to stand up in battle and men adept to skirmish. The regular units - or part of it - were also employed as Skirmishers and were usually the better men than the common soldier. However both the fighting styles needed trained men.
IMHO there are two often conflicting tendencies in this ages for no very well trained troops:
a) to bunch up
b) to take conver
The result would be a completely unstructured cloud of men - very difficult to command. An example would be the successfull battles in Tyrol against the French and Bavarians. Through superior positions and fine markmenship they were able to inflict quite stunning victories but were unable to exploit most of them.