Bunch of new E3 shots

[Divinus Arma]

Somebody can feel free to correct me, and I am no expert on the period, but something seems odd about riflemen in a formation 12 across and 8 deep, give or take. Those shots of deep formations seem very strange.

[CBR]

I must admit I'm starting to get tired of watching formations in 6+ ranks...

What about showing off the uber size of the ETW battlefield instead of all the soldiers bunched up in a small field.


CBR

[Belgolas]

they probably did it for marketing reasons.

Quote from Jack Lusted

Or as has been said before they are just in a block for the screenshot. By default line infantry deploy in thin lines.

[Mailman653]

I can barely make out what I think was a drummer in a screen shot, but no standard bearers? Maybe he hasn't been implemented yet.

Overall, cool screens.

[rajpoot]

In the overhead shot of the battlefield, I can see the smoke of the gunfire, and a somke 'trail' of the musket-ball...........which seems really unusual, as I never knew the smoke from muskets used to spout to such a long distance and that musket balls left smoke trails!!

[Mailman653]

In the overhead shot of the battlefield, I can see the smoke of the gunfire, and a somke 'trail' of the musket-ball...........which seems really unusual, as I never knew the smoke from muskets used to spout to such a long distance and that musket balls left smoke trails!!

Tracer musket balls

[JeromeGrasdyke]

In the overhead shot of the battlefield, I can see the smoke of the gunfire, and a somke 'trail' of the musket-ball...........which seems really unusual, as I never knew the smoke from muskets used to spout to such a long distance and that musket balls left smoke trails!!

Well, we could leave out the trails, but then you might have some difficulty in figuring out why your elite unit was losing a dozen men every 5 seconds... gameplay > realism, in this case, anyway ;)

[hoom]

Could we perhaps have a toggle option for trails in the config file?

[rajpoot]

Well, we could leave out the trails, but then you might have some difficulty in figuring out why your elite unit was losing a dozen men every 5 seconds... gameplay > realism, in this case, anyway ;)

Ahhhh right, well that's a good idea, but all the same a toggle option would be nice........

And thanks for the quick response

[Vuk]

Well, we could leave out the trails, but then you might have some difficulty in figuring out why your elite unit was losing a dozen men every 5 seconds... gameplay > realism, in this case, anyway ;)

I agree with having a toggle. That is one of the things that you as a commander will have to figure out. If it is toggleable (which I sincerely hope it is) I will certainly play with it off.

[SpencerH]

Well, we could leave out the trails, but then you might have some difficulty in figuring out why your elite unit was losing a dozen men every 5 seconds... gameplay > realism, in this case, anyway ;)

That's not a good sign.

[Spino]

Well, we could leave out the trails, but then you might have some difficulty in figuring out why your elite unit was losing a dozen men every 5 seconds... gameplay > realism, in this case, anyway ;)

Well then could you please give us the option of turning them off via the in-game options menu or via the config file?

[Sheogorath]

Somebody can feel free to correct me, and I am no expert on the period, but something seems odd about riflemen in a formation 12 across and 8 deep, give or take. Those shots of deep formations seem very strange.

Riflemen, maybe, but I've heard that the reason people didnt use musketeer formations more than three men deep was because people occasionally got shot in the back of the head with four-man deep formations.

Although it might just be a game mechanic, and only the first three ranks are firing. Its kind of hard to tell from the screenies.

[ThePianist]

Riflemen, maybe, but I've heard that the reason people didnt use musketeer formations more than three men deep was because people occasionally got shot in the back of the head with four-man deep formations.

Although it might just be a game mechanic, and only the first three ranks are firing. Its kind of hard to tell from the screenies.

Napoleon (and I read this as a little kid in another language, so I am not sure whether it's accurate or not) was the one who invented a formation of three row deep, first row lay down, second row kneel, and third row standing. First row fire while second and third rows reload, then second row fire while first and third rows reload, and then third row fire while first and second reload, and so on. Then it was adopted by the other nations during the Napoleonic Wars. Maybe that's why there are mostly rows of threes.

i'm really digging the 10-man deep manipular formations!

Those are marching formations. Combat formations don't have people firing with 10 rows one behind another. Excellent movie is Gods and Generals. It's about American Civil War in the later 19th century, but with improved weapons they still used same early 19th century Napoleon warfare. So heavy casualties. Anyway, in the movie, you see Major or Colonel Chamberlain have his men practice and repeat their changing from marching formation to battle formation. You heard his voiceover (and I don't remember verbatim): "the troops must change from marching formation of four long columns on the road, to the combat formation of two rows across the field. They must know it by heart and be able to do it without thinking. It's easy to change from a combat formation of two rows to a marching formation of four columns. But it's hard to change from the marching formation to the combat formation. And usually when it's done, it's done under fire in unexpected circumstances....."

And of course it's the later 19th century, so it's slightly different adaptation of Napoleonic warfare, hence two rows rather than three, in the earlier 19th century.

[Sheogorath]

Napoleon (and I read this as a little kid in another language, so I am not sure whether it's accurate or not) was the one who invented a formation of three row deep, first row lay down, second row kneel, and third row standing. First row fire while second and third rows reload, then second row fire while first and third rows reload, and then third row fire while first and second reload, and so on. Then it was adopted by the other nations during the Napoleonic Wars. Maybe that's why there are mostly rows of threes.

Rank-and-File formation, I believe thats called. I'm not sure about the kneeling/laying down, since that would make it rather difficult to reload. I'm pretty sure the Chinese were the first to use the idea, though. Napoleon may've been the first to make it popular, however. I'm not sure.
The three-man-deep line formation was in use long before Napoleon. I think it was Frederick the Great who made it famous, but people'd been using it for a while, even by then.

[CBR]

Napoleon did not invent it. 3 rank formation was in use by some armies in early 18th century and most armies switched to that before or during the Seven Years War.

If anything the first rank would kneel, second crouch a bit with third rank standing normal. But that was increasingly seen as not good enough as the first rank would not always stand up to reload or charge when needed.


CBR

[AussieGiant]

My general reading of combat at the time (1775-1815) put effective musket range at around 50 to 75 meters. That is to say massed volley fire in which aiming was basically possible with the first volley. Past that there was no chance due to smoke.

Aimed shots were certainly possible by good skirmish units and that put the range out to about 150 meters or less. Anything over this was simply in the realm of freakish marksmen who are not available in any decent numbers to talk about in overall combat conditions. A lead ball floating through the air became like a flying loaf of bread once even a small amount of velocity was lost.

Rifles on the other hand had effective aimed ranges out to 300 meters by the average user, and shots up to double that for top echelon marksmen. (This is only possible using the correct wadding that bits into the grooves in the barrel causing the ball to spin, therefore creating the accuracy. If you do not use the wadding then a rifle is as effective as a musket) I vaguely remember some boast of a riflemen of time hitting a target up to 800 meters. I've yet to read enough accounts of this to believe it.

The British, apparently the only force at the time to use live ammunition to practise with, were able to get off 3 to 4 shots a minute. 4 shots being Guard or Grenadiers units.

Other nations were known to be able to get off 2 to 3 shots.

There were exceptions but too few to have these averages changed.

The British used two and three rank formations to great effect and were able to use simple mathematics to defeat Napoleon. He was very famous for massing his regiments into rectangle blocks of 40 to 90 men wide and 60 to 100 ranks deep and marching them like battering rams at the enemy lines.

[Sheogorath]

Likewise, the Russian's preferred columns for their mobility, since line formations were blindingly slow.
Russian units normally deployed in a sort of 'checkerboard' formation, the space between infantry columns usually being filled with artillery and officers and so forth. Hence, Russian armies usually were firepower deficient in terms of musketry, but made up for that with their artillery obsession.
Considering that the Russian infantryman was famous for not being able to hit the broadside of a barn from the inside, I can understand that sort of thinking ;)

[CBR]

I vaguely remember some boast of a riflemen of time hitting a target up to 800 meters. I've yet to read enough accounts of this to believe it.

That must be infamous myth of Thomas Plunket shooting the French general Colbert. No sources actually give any indication of it being an exceptional long ranged shot. It might come from a Sharpe's novel. The most silly thing is to check the entry on Wikipedia on the Baker Rifle and then go through the history of edits. That 800 yards range just won't go away although people have no sources for it.

The British used two and three rank formations to great effect and were able to use simple mathematics to defeat Napoleon. He was very famous for massing his regiments into rectangle blocks of 40 to 90 men wide and 60 to 100 ranks deep and marching them like battering rams at the enemy lines.

Sorry but that is way too simplistic and columns were never that deep anyway:9-12 ranks for standard battalions and sometimes a few battalions in depth.

The website is normally working fine but at this moment it is down: http://www.napoleon-series.org/milit...a/c_maida.html but this one explains a bit too http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/in...ycombatcolumns

edit: website is working again


CBR