Anachronisms ?

[Incongruous]

Dragoons continued to use their firearms even after they were reformed into cavalry proper.

Pikeman were used by poorly trained forces all the way into the French revolution, to some effect, it will be useful to have when your luck is down.

[Polemists]

The 18th century, that's what. The age of elighenment. Of course we have no idea on what the turn:date ratio is like.

Hate to break facts to you but it was mentioned in another thread that CA is doing the two turns=one year model again.

You can probably mod it out later of course, and customizing events happening through adjusting a file number, but the out of box game is going to be two turns a year.

So you have 198 turns to play ETW grand campaign, I could be wrong of course if they change the dates or something but the 1700-1799 seems pretty solid.

It's not a period like MTW or Rome's four hundred year span. So it may seem short to many, but it's just way it is.

[lars573]

With only 200 turns I might actually finish more than one campagin. For the second time ever.

[Polemists]

exactly, while CA is going for a more fast paced, quicker momentum game, hopefully with new ai, new battle system, and new graphics there will be tons of replayablitiy (and I think there will). Even playing the same faction again is now different because of individual faction tech trees. Plus with emergent factions, colonies, and like, you new know who you might end up facing.

For those turtles in the crowd who enjoyed the 50 years build up, it pulls some of that away, though hopefully with quicker armies and buildings a couple years will be more then enough time to build up before you begin.

[Fisherking]

Getting into some of the other points, other than pikes; platoon firing should be able to defeat a cavalry charge, particularly with fixed bayonets. Squares would be primarily if you are facing attack from more than one possible direction.

Particularly in Brittan many cavalry units were reclassed as dragoons and dragoons were used more and more in only the mounted role.

The reason for this had nothing to do with their flexibility or lack of it. With more units classed as dragoons it meant that there was a greater need for cavalry.

However, the reason that the units were made dragoons is a key factor if you examine it. It was dragoons were paid less than cavalry.

Regardless of the actual 18th century situation I think it is good to have that tactical option.

The same could be said for grenadiers. They were not used as grenade tossers but as shock troops, though in the game they may retain the grenades.

Tactical flexibility is never a bad thing to have despite historical considerations. There are many historical possibilities that we will not be given. I won’t turn my back on the ones we have.

By the way, Washington was forced to equip some units with pikes a time or two due to shortages. I think at Princeton some companies were so equipped.

All excellent questions that you have asked though Calmarcac.

Good post!

[Sheogorath]

Dragoons (and 'mounted infantry' in general) function largely depended on who was using them. Even their role within the cavalry tended to vary. The Russians employed them as medium cavalry, using them for situations where Hussars were too light, but which didn't warrant attention from the cuirassiers.
I think the Austrians continued to use Dragoons in the mounted infantry role up until WWI, but I could be wrong. That would be uncharacteristically intelligent for the Austrian military leadership.

Cossacks were well known to act as mounted infantry when the situation warranted. Some hosts, like the Don, weren't willing to give up their horses, but the ones with less of a reputation were more than willing to run around on foot if it meant more loot at the end of a fight.

Very practical people, Cossacks.


For Grenadiers, Fisherking is exactly right. Grenadiers in the 18th century and onwards were the heavy infantry. They were the tallest men available and every measure was taken to up their intimidation factor, although I gather that sorting mustaches by unit soon fell out of favor on account of making everybody look silly.

[Kalle]

1/3 of the Swedish infantry at the start of the 18th century was armed with pikes. They were shorter then normal, 4 metres. They were not being used because the Swedes lacked other weapons or as a desperate final resort. Instead they were an essential and integrated part of the Swedish extremely offensive strategy based on shock, superior morale, training and manouver.

Basically they were used for charging the enemy (together with the other infantry and cavalry) and a four metre long pike would be a definite advantage versus a musqet with bayonet in this situation. Once distance was totally closed the pikemen also carried a sword or rapier.

The value of this weapon and the tactic of attack attack attack was demonstrated again and again from the year 1700-1709 against enemies (almost always vastly superior in numbers) from a wide range of other nations (mainly Denmark, Poland, Sachsen, Russia).

If Marlbourough had faced the Swedish army at Blenheim instead of the French he would most likely be in over his head.

After Poltava in 1709 the pikes importance diminished in Sweden also.

I do not know if you could say it is easy to learn how to use a 4 metre long weapon in a tight military formation, at least there is more to it then knowing where the sharp end is.

/Kalle

[Freedom Onanist]

Particularly in Brittan many cavalry units were reclassed as dragoons and dragoons were used more and more in only the mounted role.

The reason for this had nothing to do with their flexibility or lack of it. With more units classed as dragoons it meant that there was a greater need for cavalry.

However, the reason that the units were made dragoons is a key factor if you examine it. It was dragoons were paid less than cavalry.

Nail hit on the head there. As always with the British army, money is involved somewhere. The reason most cavalry units re-classified as dragoons has nothing to do with a change in tactics but everything to do with the fact that dragoons were on a lower payscale and were thus cheaper. They also rode smaller horses which also happened to be cheaper. From a bean counter's perspective you get more cavalry for less £££s. The term Dragoon is somewhat irrelevant, or at least, ambiguous in the context of the British army.

In general dragoons never lived up to their billing. Why wouldn't they concentrateon their main resource the horse? Also, their unit sizes, having to leave some troopers behind to hold the horses, etc, all reduced their effectiveness as infantry units. Used as straight cavalry (up-horsed maybe, the Heavies), or in reconnaissance, skirmishing, harrassing roles they did well. They also tended to be used in "policing" duties.

Pikes, as has been pointed out were used relatively frequently throughout the 18th cent. Most often due to a lack of funds more than anything else. And as has been pointed outprobably required more training and professionalism to use than the accountants were ready to accept. Of course in the Navy pikes were used throughout this period and beyond. Since the British made extensive use of naval landing parties i would expect to see them used quite a lot 9thoug I have no idea at all if we are going to be able to use them and the marines in the game 9landing parties that is).

apart from sieges, Grenades do seem to have dissappeared relatively quickly from use in battle. They were more than likely just as much a liability to the thrower as to the opposition.

[Sol Invictus]

Like most compromises, Dragoons ended up being neither good Infantry or Cavalry so tended to morph into another Cavalry tupe over time. Their theoretical versatility just didn't quite pan out except under very rare and unique circumstances. I am sure that they will be more useful in the game than they were historically in their originally intended role.