General Tactics

[Sir Beane]

Since there will be a lot less naval units than land units I think we can expect more accurate and better balanced navies. Atleast I hope we can.

Another unit that might end up as a super unit would be roket ships. They seem to be mentioned a lot in previews at least.

[CBR]

This discussion quickly took a turn to the technical

Hm yes I guess my post opened a can of worms...

I have a nagging feeling that whatever facts and figures the historians and physicists in this thread come up with, Empire will use a much less accurate model.

In the end it is impossible to get into too much detail anyway. There was a variance in gunpowder quality, density of shot and even different length of guns that rarely are recorded anywhere.

People back then seems to have focused primarily on overall weight of a broadside and that is also what some miniature rulesets are doing. With some minor multipliers for smaller guns and shorter range for carronades, is a fair aproximation of overall firepower for a ship. Of course a computer game does allow for more advanced stuff under the hood.

Although naval combat seems to be the thing that CA, fans and reviewers rave on about the most, it is my opinion that land combat will still be the bread and butter of Total War as naval combat just won't have the same tactical complexity. Neither uber frigates nor rocket ships are gonna change that.


CBR

[Lorenzo_H]

I want to know, for land battles:

Will you have to tell units when to fire? This will make managing large amounts of infantry fiendishly difficult.

Will (otherwise equally matched) infantry engagements simply be decided by whoever opens fire first?

[CBR]

I want to know, for land battles:

Will you have to tell units when to fire? This will make managing large amounts of infantry fiendishly difficult.

Will (otherwise equally matched) infantry engagements simply be decided by whoever opens fire first?

I doubt it will be different from older titles. There might be some kind of fire button so you can pick the precise moment to fire when you want to hold fire until enemy gets very close, but you could do that before too with fire at will off.

If everything is equal then the side who losses men first will not produce as many losses when he fires back. But it depends on % of losses from such a salvo and the randomness of hits.


CBR

[Sir Beane]

I want to know, for land battles:

Will you have to tell units when to fire? This will make managing large amounts of infantry fiendishly difficult.

Will (otherwise equally matched) infantry engagements simply be decided by whoever opens fire first?

CA have confirmed that there will be a 'fire' button as part of the UI that lets you choose the exact moment your units fill the enemy with holes.

Remember the old saying. Don't shoot until you can see the whites of their eyes!

[Oleander Ardens]

In the end it is impossible to get into too much detail anyway. There was a variance in gunpowder quality, density of shot and even different length of guns that rarely are recorded anywhere.

True enough. But as every gun was suscitable to such variances things even out among the calibers. Personally I think that the barrel of larger guns was (caliber-wise) relatively shorter than the one of smaller guns. They might haver used also rather relatively less powder to propel the shots. But still the momentum of a 36 would have been vastly superior to a 24.

People back then seems to have focused primarily on overall weight of a broadside and that is also what some miniature rulesets are doing. With some minor multipliers for smaller guns and shorter range for carronades, is a fair aproximation of overall firepower for a ship. Of course a computer game does allow for more advanced stuff under the hood.

Are carronades even in? So far I haven't seen them.

You could be right…

I saw one of the articles where an American 44 gun took on the line ahead of its mates. I think they said they sank one and boarded the ship that rammed them…a 64 I think it was!

It might have been the USS Constitution, which in reality was of course clearly outclassed by a SOL with 64 pieces unless in heavy waters. Perhaps CA has decided to paint things brightly, for all the colonials here

[Sir Beane]

It might have been the USS Constitution, which in reality was of course clearly outclassed by a SOL with 64 pieces unless in heavy waters. Perhaps CA has decided to paint things in a fashion more agreeable for all the colonials here

I have to admit this is one of my worst fears about Empire. Given how CA have favoured the popular factions in the past (Romans in Rome for instance), I'm worried that they might get a little carried away and give the US really fancy units with little basis in fact.

I can certainly CA the Colonies getting rediculously superior frigates and probably one or two units of sniping skirmishers that will have your generals head off before he can give the first orders.

Of course since CA are English and Britain was pretty big at the time I can see the same thing happening with them, but at least Britian did historically take a huge section of the world.

It's a bit too early for the Thirteen Colonies to be a real superpower.

[CBR]

True enough. But as every gun was suscitable to such variances things even out among the calibers. Personally I think that the barrel of larger guns was (caliber-wise) relatively shorter than the one of smaller guns. They might haver used also rather relatively less powder to propel the shots. But still the momentum of a 36 would have been vastly superior to a 24.

Yes the general differences in gunpowder would even things out. But there are also national differences as well as improvements throughout the century. There is too little information to produce a precise difference in penetration between year 1700 and 1800, if there even was any.

And yes I do think smaller guns overall had longer barrels but especially for the smaller guns there were several versions and there appears to be very few records that tells us what barrel length a certain ship used at a given time.

A 36# would be better than a 24# but what if you are within a range where both can penetrate then how much better is it? Sure it has 50% more energy at identical velocity but does it produce an average of 50% more casualties and gun dismounts? Carronades did not have same velocity and energy but enough to penetrate at shorter ranges. At such ranges the regular guns could be double or even tripple shotted.

If one looks at surface area of a hole then a 36# has a 31% larger hole than a 24# and that might be a better indicator for casualties.

So there will the advantage of range for heavy guns where smaller guns might not penetrate at all, but also at ranges where not many hits were achieved, to short ranges where the difference in weight might not be the best way of looking at the true effect from hits.

Are carronades even in? So far I haven't seen them.

I don't even know if ships in ETW use different gun sizes so maybe they don't bother with carronades.


CBR

[Fisherking]

I have to admit this is one of my worst fears about Empire. Given how CA have favoured the popular factions in the past (Romans in Rome for instance), I'm worried that they might get a little carried away and give the US really fancy units with little basis in fact.

I can certainly CA the Colonies getting rediculously superior frigates and probably one or two units of sniping skirmishers that will have your generals head off before he can give the first orders.

Of course since CA are English and Britain was pretty big at the time I can see the same thing happening with them, but at least Britian did historically take a huge section of the world.

It's a bit too early for the Thirteen Colonies to be a real superpower.

I wouldn’t worry.
I was half hoping to see the Ferguson Rifles in the SF edition, but they were not there…they could be in the game none the less…and they were British. Tech Tree maybe?

American Riflemen may be a pain for the British but they were militia and lacked bayonets so the best method against them is to charge with what ever you have…so far as I know. Native American rifles my be a different issue as they could have a higher melee value, though I am not sure they should, but perhaps stronger moral…

As to the American Frigates, they were extremely tough opponents and technologically advanced for their time, but taking on a 3rd rate or better would have been foolish.

I doubt that CA will take the wood used in these ships into consideration but at the time it was the difference between using regular iron and high grade steel.

from wiki
Live oak wood is hard, heavy, and difficult to work, but very strong. In the days of wooden ships, live oaks were the preferred source of the framework timbers of the ship, using the natural trunk and branch angles for their strength. The USS Constitution was constructed from Southern live oak wood harvested from St. Simons Island, Georgia, and the density of the wood grain allowed it to survive cannonade; even today the U.S. Navy owns extensive live oak tracts.

Primary materials used in her construction were # white pine, longleaf pine, white oak, and, most importantly, southern live oak, which was cut and milled at Gascoigne Bluff in St. Simons, Georgia. Southern live oak, a particularly dense wood, can weigh up to 75 lb (34 kg) per cubic foot (1,201 kg/m3). Constitution's hull was built 21 inches (530 mm) thick in an era when 18 inches (460 mm) was common. Her vertical hull ribbing was placed 2 in (51 mm) apart instead of the standard 24 in (610 mm). Her length between perpendiculars was 175 ft (53 m), with a 204 ft (62 m) length overall and a width of 45 ft 2 in (13.8 m). In total, 60 acres (24.28 ha) of trees were needed for her construction. Paul Revere forged the copper bolts and breasthooks.The copper sheathing installed to prevent shipworm was imported from England.
_____________________________________________________________

I figure the only reason they are included is because the game was first slated to end in the 1820s. They were not commissioned to be built until 1794. The American navy in the War of Independence built a few smaller frigates but was mostly privateers.

Are carronades even in? So far I haven't seen them.

I thought I saw them in one of the naval reviews…but which?

[Oleander Ardens]

A 36# would be better than a 24# but what if you are within a range where both can penetrate then how much better is it? Sure it has 50% more energy at identical velocity but does it produce an average of 50% more casualties and gun dismounts? Carronades did not have same velocity and energy but enough to penetrate at shorter ranges. At such ranges the regular guns could be double or even tripple shotted.

If one looks at surface area of a hole then a 36# has a 31% larger hole than a 24# and that might be a better indicator for casualties.

So there will the advantage of range for heavy guns where smaller guns might not penetrate at all, but also at ranges where not many hits were achieved, to short ranges where the difference in weight might not be the best way of looking at the true effect from hits.

Good observations. Personally I think that the difference between a 36# and a 24# is especially important in artillery duels between SOL, where the targets where plentiful, large and sturdy. The ability to shatter the hull of the ship from far further afar was therefor a great advantage. From short range the larger holes and greater splintering should have been made more than up for a slighty slower ROF.

So we can deduce that the heavy frigate was a very clever design. Usually able to outrun a SOL it was sturdy enough to make it problematic to engage it with 18# while being able to create havoc with the 24# against the light hulls of the normal frigates. Given that the colonials could not even dream to muster anytime enough SOL to be a halfaway credible threat in a decisive battle it settled for an interesting raider.

Live oak wood is hard, heavy, and difficult to work, but very strong. In the days of wooden ships, live oaks were the preferred source of the framework timbers of the ship, using the natural trunk and branch angles for their strength. The USS Constitution was constructed from Southern live oak wood harvested from St. Simons Island, Georgia, and the density of the wood grain allowed it to survive cannonade; even today the U.S. Navy owns extensive live oak tracts.

Primary materials used in her construction were # white pine, longleaf pine, white oak, and, most importantly, southern live oak, which was cut and milled at Gascoigne Bluff in St. Simons, Georgia. Southern live oak, a particularly dense wood, can weigh up to 75 lb (34 kg) per cubic foot (1,201 kg/m3). Constitution's hull was built 21 inches (530 mm) thick in an era when 18 inches (460 mm) was common. Her vertical hull ribbing was placed 2 in (51 mm) apart instead of the standard 24 in (610 mm). Her length between perpendiculars was 175 ft (53 m), with a 204 ft (62 m) length overall and a width of 45 ft 2 in (13.8 m). In total, 60 acres (24.28 ha) of trees were needed for her construction. Paul Revere forged the copper bolts and breasthooks.The copper sheathing installed to prevent shipworm was imported from England.

Very nice info.

American Riflemen may be a pain for the British but they were militia and lacked bayonets so the best method against them is to charge with what ever you have…so far as I know. Native American rifles my be a different issue as they could have a higher melee value, though I am not sure they should, but perhaps stronger moral…

I really hope that skirmishers with rifles are not too strong. Since the early 18th century Tyrolean riflemen proved to be fearsome enemies and were able to win practically every battle bar one on homesoil against the French and Bavarians. But often the terrain was ideally suited for skirmishing, being the heartland of the Western Alps. The french and bavarian line infantry of the enemy deployed often as skirmishers, driving casualities down. I really hope we can skirmish to some extent with line infantry.

Good riflemen should be important thanks to their ability to shelter from fire, speed and accuracy of fire. But the should not drop too many enemies in one volley. BTW Veteran skirmishers were sometimes even able to hold their own against cavalry, I even read about seasoned units charging cavalry with cold steel in line formations.

[Fisherking]

Riflemen should give you a sound advantage in range but a lower rate of fire. I don’t know about European Rifles, but the American ones being locally made lacked bayonets.

Depending on the ammunition carried they could definitely be your most powerful anti-infantry weapon while holding the line infantry in reserve until the great bayonet charge! Then perhaps they would be used as fallow on units aiding in the grand rout!

I am fairly sure that some of these tactics will prove to be ridiculously optimistic when the game gets here, but it gives us mental exercise while we wait.

[Tomisama]

Some things I hope you will enjoy.

BBC Animated Map: Battle of Trafalgar

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british...rafalgar.shtml


18TH CENTURY FRENCH DRUMMING

INTRODUCTION

http://fortress.uccb.ns.ca/search/HE09-3.htm

And if you have time.

DRUMMERS IN THE GARRISON

http://fortress.uccb.ns.ca/search/HE09-12.htm

I never had any idea how important drummers were

[ConnMon]

A quick question on the topic of how units will fire, it was stated that there will be a button to initiate firing, right? So I'm wondering if you have to keep pressing the button or will they keep firing until giving the order to stop?

[CBR]

A quick question on the topic of how units will fire, it was stated that there will be a button to initiate firing, right? So I'm wondering if you have to keep pressing the button or will they keep firing until giving the order to stop?

Although no details are out I doubt CA have removed the standard fire at will ability.


CBR

[Fondor_Yards]

You can either use the normal fire at will option, or have it so they only fire when you chose, IE a close range full barrage.

[Ishmael]

i think ill leave it late in a custom battle or two, simply so i can see dead horses clobbering my men (to use the CA persons example).
That said, does anybody know what a good range is to shoot on level ground? For that matter, what were the accurate ranges of the guns at the time (yes, i know thats on the site somewhere, but i cant be bothered to trawl the forum)?

[CBR]

i think ill leave it late in a custom battle or two, simply so i can see dead horses clobbering my men (to use the CA persons example).
That said, does anybody know what a good range is to shoot on level ground? For that matter, what were the accurate ranges of the guns at the time (yes, i know thats on the site somewhere, but i cant be bothered to trawl the forum)?

In real life waiting until the enemy was within 50 meters or less you had a good chance at stopping or even routing the enemy with just one salvo. Generally the closer the better and depending on quality of unit.

But of course guns had much longer range and units could try to do a slow advance with individual platoons firing and the rest marching a bit forward, then another platoon fires etc and they would start at perhaps 200+ meters with that.

Tests of muskets showed they were not as inaccurate as some people thinks. At 50 meters range one could expect to hit a target (a badly made musket would be worse of course) and units firing at large targets could achieve hit rates of several % at 300 meters. But that was peacetime tests and there was a big difference between that and the realities of the battlefield.


CBR

[Polemists]

I think as another player stated it is a good system.

On the one hand, some of us don't want to have to keep clicking to fire, and on the other hand, there are advantages to holding your fire.

I assume this will be similiar to MTW with fire at will button (if you want automatic fire) a halt button (to hold fire) and probably a third button for fire.

You could do this in MTW2 you just had hit fire at will when the enemy was where you wanted them, though it wasn't as advantegous.

I'm more curious about urban assualt regarding the garrisoned buildings.

In one screenshot/video I saw a cannon shot took out a house a bunch of men were garrisoned in. While true enough, it makes me think that people will just blow up every building in sight with the cannon before entering lol.

So i'm hoping there is some damaged building mecanic or something.

Like you can garrison your men in the barrack or something, that way if enemy wants it they have to take it the hard way

[pdoyle007]

If you turn a house to rubble is the rubble then something to be used and hidden behind?
The 'hold fire' option would be interesting if you were garrisoning a house, wait till the enemy are walking past then 'BOOM' with a full company's worth

[Polemists]

Well this goes back to my urban combat idea.

I mean are we really going back to flags?

I mean it makes locating your units easy, but I hope the other side can't see the flags because how lame is that?

"Where are they hiding general?"

"Well do you see that large flag above building 4, fire your cannon at that one."


I mean i'd like to be able to do some city ambushes.

[Fisherking]

The game uses physical models for the gun fire. Evidently it also seems structures such as ships, buildings and walls are modeled. Whether rubble is a physical object in the game though is only a guess.

It would be great if everything is a physical object on the battlefield. That sure takes care of any line of sight, line of fire difficulties…so long as shrubs and grass don’t block fire.

It is going to be interesting to see how different ammunition effects structures and people. I am sure the Physics of the game will need to be complex to handle all the surfaces and objects there.

Ammunition is something that we have had very little discussion on. I want to see buck and ball loads for close range work! And don’t forget canister for your cannon, to stop that charge!

I surely agree that the General’s unit should not stick out like a neon sign, with a flashing SHOOT ME pointing at him. I hope everything has a hide ability to some degree. And yes even elephants, provided they have cover or concealment of some kind. It would make those scouting units useful like they were in earlier games. It is very hard to ambush an enemy if he sees where every unit is.

I am looking forward to see how it all fits together, especially with the delayed release, I would like to see some more concrete information.

[Sir Beane]

I think we can assume that rubble will be a physical model in game. One of the previews I read definitely stated that trees and bushes and things will be modelled.

I think we can also guarantee different kinds of ammo for your cannons, unlocked through research. I have seen it mentioned many times throughout the various previews and interviews. I would assume canister, grape shot and possibly even things like heated shot will be included in game.

I also think that ambushed and things might feature more heavily this time, given that lines of sight and fire and also cover are playing a much bigger part in the game.

I hope we can hide units in buildings only to have them pop up and catch the enemy in a deadly crossfire during a seige.

[Fisherking]

I know most of the CANNON ammunition will be there!

I want to see the INFANTRY ammunitions!

More from wiki:
Buck & Ball Ammunition:
round lead ball combined with three buckshot pellets
Construction
Buck and ball was issued in paper cartridges that combined the projectiles with the black powder propellant charge to facilitate rapid loading of the weapon. The buckshot would set in front of the ball, so that the ball would act as a gas seal for the buckshot. Like any other paper cartridge, the rear of the cartridge would be torn open to expose the powder, which would be loaded, and the remaining paper, balls, and buckshot would be rammed down on top.

Purpose
The intent of the buck and ball load was to combine the devastating impact of the full-size ball with the spreading pattern of a shotgun, and served to greatly improve the hit probability of the smoothbore musket used in combat, especially at closer ranges, where the buckshot would retain significant energy.
Claud E. Fuller, in his book The Rifled Musket (New York: Bonanza Books, 1958) shows tests of a rifled musket firing Minie balls, and a smoothbore musket firing round ball and buck and ball rounds at various ranges. At ranges of 200 yards (180 m) and under, the buck and ball from the smoothbore musket, while less accurate than the rifled musket, actually produces a greater number of hits due to the greater number of projectiles; 37 of 50 Minie balls, vs. 18 of 50 balls and 31 of 150 buckshot, for a total of 49 hits in 50 shots. Beyond this range, the buckshot will have lost sufficient energy to become ineffective due to its lower ballistic coefficient.

Use
Perhaps the most famous proponent of the buck and ball loading was George Washington, who encouraged his troops to load their muskets with buck and ball loads during the American Revolution. The buck and ball load was standard issue throughout the Seminole Wars of 1815 - 1845. With the advent of general issue rifled muskets in the American Civil War, the buck and ball loading began to fade from use, though it did see action in the remaining inventory of smoothbore muskets. The buck and ball load has been replaced in current military inventories by standard buckshot loadings in the combat shotgun.
As you can see the stuff was effective!

[Sir Beane]

Infantry ammo types huh? I'm not so sure on this one. It sounds like something which would be good to have in game though. Since CA seem to be making a big thing of unit upgrading and researching new tech then maybe it will be included.

[Fisherking]

Infantry ammo types huh? I'm not so sure on this one. It sounds like something which would be good to have in game though. Since CA seem to be making a big thing of unit upgrading and researching new tech then maybe it will be included.

Yes, but I hope we do not have to waist too much time on no brain projects like that. Some should be so simple as to be forgone.

Carrying more than one cartridge box, using buck &ball, double loads, loading with shot, and such should not waist precious research point and time in a game already so short.

It would be like researching horses before you could ride, then bridals ,then saddles, then stirrups…get the idea?