Screenies

[Csargo]

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.

[BeeSting]

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.

[Ulstan]

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.

[BeeSting]

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

[Ulstan]

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.

[Ulstan]

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:

...
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

[BeeSting]

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.

[Ulstan]

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.

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!

[Intrepid Sidekick]

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.

[BeeSting]

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.

[BeeSting]

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.

[BeeSting]

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.”

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Jeremy Black

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

/sorry for off-topic

[Rick]

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.

[CBR]

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

Didnt say they were.

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)

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.

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

[BananaBob]

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

[Furious Mental]

"
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.

[Csargo]

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.

[CBR]

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

[Furious Mental]

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.

[BeeSting]

If you want a hybrid war (melee/gun powder), then the best time period to represent that was in the 16th and 17th centuries.

inaccuracy of muskets were made up by exchanging fire at 50 yards (unless you are a skirmisher firing a rifle) and the effect fired from massive volleys were devastating, it was enough in most cases to break the enemy line without having to engage with bayonets. Consequently the value of an infantry unit was its discipline to not flee and maintain order after receiving such blows. The best example of this discipline in 18th century was the Prussian infantry.

Napoleon was rather unconventional, however. When his opponents were expecting to exchange and withstand or outlast enemy fire, his men threw them off by moving in, after cannonading and skirmishing with an overwhelming concentration of forces in shock bayonet attacks against enemy flanks. This was a new way of fighting which ended an era that bulk of ETW time frame represents, the 18th century warfare largely defined by Marlborough and Frederick II.

So the argument.... we are comparing two different time periods or two different stages of development of European warfare. Yes, bayonet charges became conventional part of warfare from Napoleonic to American Civil wars, but majority of death and wounds were still caused by small arms, muskets and rifles.

[Ulstan]

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.

Yes, but, as I said, that doesn't mean that bayonet charges were not important, did not occur, or that melee combat shouldn't' figure in the game (as people like Beesting are advocating).

Charges to melee were extremely common and very important. They were pretty much the primary means of shifting people off terrain you wanted to capture in the NW. The fact that the enemy usually fled from them indicates that they were considered much more deadly than musket fire.

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

It is a formation wider than it is deep. Therefore, a line rather than a column.

inaccuracy of muskets were made up by exchanging fire at 50 yards (unless you are a skirmisher firing a rifle) and the effect fired from massive volleys were devastating

British officers calculated that in some Peninsular battles it took them about 460 rounds fired to cause one French casualty. And these are British troops in the Napoleonic wars, unarguably the best at actual fire drill in the heat of battle. And their weapons would be even more accurate than ones used in the early 1700's.

There were *occasional* instances of point blank (like, 20 yards) surprise fire being devastating, but the shooting back and forth at most ranges was shockingly ineffective.

Melee should have a very prominent place in these games, as it was highly relied upon and very effective up through the very end of the time period being covered. Some of the most iconic and vicious struggles of the NW were protracted hand to hand melees inside villages and towns and redoubts. It is simply an inarguable historical fact that **both** charges to melee and musketry exchanges were very important facets of infantry warfare during that time period.

but majority of death and wounds were still caused by small arms

You don't know that. We have figures from hospitals that says most hospital patients admitted were there because of small arms fire. This says nothing about people killed out right, or those too badly wounded to go to make it to hospitals, or not wounded enough to go to hospitals.

Anyway, as I said, that doesn't really mean much. If a bayonet charge routes your enemy while a desultory musket exchange doesn't, the bayonet charge is better even if does cause fewer casualties, and it would be a gross historical injustice of the highest order not to include it in a military simulation of that time frame.

[Jolt]

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.

Ah, much like the great wedge formation in RTW, except that it did nothing.

[Sol Invictus]

That's the key though, actual melee combat usually only took place in rough or built-up terrain. In the open field, one side would usually balk before contact was made. I just hope we don't see armies using assault columns in the early part of the game. They should be a tech gained late in the game based on a Military Academy Building. The French only started experimenting with assault columns during the Seven Years War and it was never official doctrine until the Revolutionary period.

[BeeSting]

Ulstan:

Your reference is always limited to Napoleonic wars. And you have no source referring numbers.

Why do you always mention battlefield hospitals? My figures are of "dead and wounded".

Yours is an empirical reasoning from your prior concept which again seems to be limited to Napoleonic war, nevertheless void of facts. I am not arguing with you about the importance of bayonet charges, it had its place in tactics, more applied by French army and those armies copying it during and post Napoleonic wars..... And you are--with all due respect--absolutely ignorant to claim that bayonets were just as lethal as fire arms. any army hospital surgeon will readily prove my point that knife/bayonet wounds are easier to treat than musket ball/shot wounds; and like it or not, it was the major cause of death and life-long cripples even for your favorite war period.

Please read around more.

[Csargo]

Napoleon was rather unconventional, however. When his opponents were expecting to exchange and withstand or outlast enemy fire, his men threw them off by moving in, after cannonading and skirmishing with an overwhelming concentration of forces in shock bayonet attacks against enemy flanks. This was a new way of fighting which ended an era that bulk of ETW time frame represents, the 18th century warfare largely defined by Marlborough and Frederick II.

I believe Frederick the Great did something similar. I remember reading about him trying to roll up their flank. Sometimes it worked with devastating effect and others it didn't work at all and caused a large amount of casualties.

[BeeSting]

[QUOTE=Sol Invictus] They should be a tech gained late in the game based on a Military Academy Building. QUOTE]


I think it should be left at a player’s discretion in terms of being able to stretch and condense lines, and adapting to the context of game mechanics. You cannot maneuver around with a mile long line acutely assaulting enemy positions.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of development of assault columns was more for dislodging enemy's "fixed positions". Columns were vulnerable to enemy cannons.

[Sol Invictus]

There were two schools of thought that debated during and after the Seven Years War in French military circles; the proponents of traditional linear fire combat and the reformers who advocated the benefits of closing with the enemy quickly and deciding the issue with the bayonet. Other nations also had their debates as well. Frederick at times preferred going in with the bayonet as well; though while in Line. The Assault Column was believed to provide momentum to the advance and create mass that could carry the day. The linear proponents prevailed until the Revolutionary era; when mass conscripts were thrown into combat without the requisite training to pull off the difficult maneuvers of linear combat. Assault Columns were certainly more useful when attacking in or through rough terrain or built-up areas than a Line but was not limited to those situations.

One of the Devs mentioned that techs allowed certain abilities for units, so it seems that researching/investing in a military education building would be appropriate in order to allow certain maneuvers, formations, and abilities. I fear that if we players and the AI are allowed to create formations as desired as soon as the game starts, we will very often see the AI use Assault Colunms in the early 1700's. I think this will distort the feel of the battlefield by seeing and using formations and tactics before they were arrived at historicly. At a minimum, I hope that Assault Columns start out as less effective and become more beneficial later in the game as the tactics are developed. I hope Skirmishers are handled in a similar fastion.

[BeeSting]

It's always the AI..... but my hunch is that CA will nail it this time.

[Mailman653]

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.

Plus going by one of those screen shots, that English flag is pre 1801 which means although the French Revolutionary wars were going on, Napoleon himself and everything that came with him would either not be included in the game or come at the very end. Although it's highly probable that it will get it's own expansion since that has been the trend recently