Light Infantry vs Line Infantry

[Shahed]

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.

[seireikhaan]

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.

[Kobal2fr]

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. 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 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 :/

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

[PBI]

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

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.

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.

[Fiddling_nero]

Reload times get a lot better as you get experience.

[Squints]

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.

[katank]

Particularly awesome for defending a puckle gun when you toggle "light infantry behavior" on so that they are continually ducked under the puckle fire.

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.

[PBI]

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).

[Quillan]

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.

[antisocialmunky]

I find that sitting them behind artillery units still works much better than putting them infront of your line infantry.

[a-e]

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!

[Feanaro]

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.

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.

[MikeV]

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.

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.

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.

[antisocialmunky]

Has anyone used them as battlefield assassinsto kill the enemy general yet?

[Nelson]

Historically, light infantry were also used for storming fortifications and surprise attacks, especially at night. Their melee values should be superior to line infantry.

[Kulgan]

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.

[Tsavong]

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.

[andrewt]

Their half size is supposed to be their weakness. They're not half the cost of regular infantry.

[a-e]

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.

[Didz]

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.

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.

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.

[a-e]

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.

[Didz]

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.

[quadalpha]

Didz, I told you in the other thread that open order is the "light infantry tactics" button!

[Didz]

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.

[quadalpha]

But skirmishing is available to Indian and Ottoman units from the start of the campaign.

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.

[Didz]

Yes, but aren't there two issues here, skirmishing and open order?

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.

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.

[Nelson]

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".

[Didz]

Obviously skirmishing was done in loose order and therefore relied upon experienced men who could function thusly without routing or deserting.

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.

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.

[Nelson]

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.

[antisocialmunky]

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.