how to use advance and fire?

[nafod]

Somewhat off topic, but does this tech seem somewhat worthless to anyone else?

You get partial shots at intervals and move like a turtle. It seems better to just close to within range halt and fire, or just go ahead and charge.

[Smellycat]

why would one want to get closer anyway?

[NimitsTexan]

why would one want to get closer anyway?

To charge . . . battles of this period were decided by the bayonett (and this is reflected in the game . . . charges will decide the issue quicker than fire combat, generally).

Ideal use is to halt somewhere inside of musket range, use fire and advance to work to optimum charge range, then charge home.

[nafod]

To charge . . . battles of this period were decided by the bayonett (and this is reflected in the game . . . charges will decide the issue quicker than fire combat, generally).

Ideal use is to halt somewhere inside of musket range, use fire and advance to work to optimum charge range, then charge home.

Right but this can be micromanaged much more effectively and with relative efficiciency.

As:

March to range

FIRE

Run halfway

FIRE

CHARGE

this tech makes them waltz up all slow like.

[Khorak]

To charge . . . battles of this period were decided by the bayonett

Uh....no they weren't. A bayonet charge was a useful tool to use in specific circumstances, not the battlefield endgame. Wellington himself used the word 'contemptible' to describe French forces attempting to attack his men in column formations. While the shock value of the bayonet charge was very effective, it was a deciding move only in that the attacker realistically had to have already defeated the enemy by placing him in a position disadvantageous enough for it to work. Without such conditions you get shot to hell coming in and bounce off a well ordered, disciplined formation.

The mythos of the bayonet is a romanticism even the people of the day bought into, when in reality it was overused by the French to the point of self destruction when they suddenly came up against well trained, stubbornly tenacious British forces, or couldn't find the massive local numerical superiority needed to shove enemies off the objective with sheer mass without breaking them down first. The effectiveness of bayonets in Empire: Total War is...well....largely broken when compared to reality simply because it's a game using a stats system and rules so different from real life that to find similarities you have to get down to the point of "they walk on two legs, like real people!".

[nafod]

To charge . . . battles of this period were decided by the bayonett (and this is reflected in the game . . . charges will decide the issue quicker than fire combat, generally).

Ideal use is to halt somewhere inside of musket range, use fire and advance to work to optimum charge range, then charge home.

Uh....no they weren't. A bayonet charge was a useful tool to use in specific circumstances, not the battlefield endgame. Wellington himself used the word 'contemptible' to describe French forces attempting to attack his men in column formations. While the shock value of the bayonet charge was very effective, it was a deciding move only in that the attacker realistically had to have already defeated the enemy by placing him in a position disadvantageous enough for it to work. Without such conditions you get shot to hell coming in and bounce off a well ordered, disciplined formation.

The mythos of the bayonet is a romanticism even the people of the day bought into, when in reality it was overused by the French to the point of self destruction when they suddenly came up against well trained, stubbornly tenacious British forces, or couldn't find the massive local numerical superiority needed to shove enemies off the objective with sheer mass without breaking them down first. The effectiveness of bayonets in Empire: Total War is...well....largely broken when compared to reality simply because it's a game using a stats system and rules so different from real life that to find similarities you have to get down to the point of "they walk on two legs, like real people!".

Wellington was born in 1769. Waterloo was fought in 1815. Age of Empires takes place from 1700-1799.

Might want to think about that.

[A Very Super Market]

"Age of Empires" ???

[Prussian to the Iron]

Age of Empires takes place from 1700-1799.

Age of Empires takes place throughout all periods i believe, or antiquity only. i believe you mean to say Empire: Total War...

[nafod]

Age of Empires takes place throughout all periods i believe, or antiquity only. i believe you mean to say Empire: Total War...

You sir are correct.

[Khorak]

Wellington was born in 1769. Waterloo was fought in 1815. Age of Empires takes place from 1700-1799.

Might want to think about that.

A completely, totally and utterly irrelevant point considering Empire: Total War is polite enough to allow us to easily reach a Napoleonic level of combat many, many, many decades ahead of real history. In fact, it joyfully smears the whole time period together with wild abandon so we can have those iconic Napoleonic style battles at a point in history before the theatres of battle would have consisted of "French And British European Pissing Contest", "British India", and "Isolationist United States" with the various "British Trade Territories Already Utterly Dominated By The British Merchant Fleet And Royal Navy". Because that would have been great fun to play.

Might want to think about that.

[nafod]

A completely, totally and utterly irrelevant point considering Empire: Total War is polite enough to allow us to easily reach a Napoleonic level of combat many, many, many decades ahead of real history. In fact, it joyfully smears the whole time period together with wild abandon so we can have those iconic Napoleonic style battles at a point in history before the theatres of battle would have consisted of "French And British European Pissing Contest", "British India", and "Isolationist United States" with the various "British Trade Territories Already Utterly Dominated By The British Merchant Fleet And Royal Navy". Because that would have been great fun to play.

Might want to think about that.

Fair enough Khorak. If you wish to state that Empire Total War is unhistoric in and of itself why bother throwing quotes from a different time period and using them to support your viewpoint?

[Smellycat]

A completely, totally and utterly irrelevant point considering Empire: Total War is polite enough to allow us to easily reach a Napoleonic level of combat many, many, many decades ahead of real history. In fact, it joyfully smears the whole time period together with wild abandon so we can have those iconic Napoleonic style battles at a point in history before the theatres of battle would have consisted of "French And British European Pissing Contest", "British India", and "Isolationist United States" with the various "British Trade Territories Already Utterly Dominated By The British Merchant Fleet And Royal Navy". Because that would have been great fun to play.

Might want to think about that.

Nice point but some of us don't finish the campaign in 20 years and then press end turn for 80 years instead preferring to follow a historical (or roleplaying) expansion and technology rate so being able to reach the Napoleonic warfare does not equate in doing it just like having 6 twinkies in the fridge does not equate eating them all at once

[Didz]

Uh....no they weren't. A bayonet charge was a useful tool to use in specific circumstances, not the battlefield endgame. Wellington himself used the word 'contemptible' to describe French forces attempting to attack his men in column formations. While the shock value of the bayonet charge was very effective, it was a deciding move only in that the attacker realistically had to have already defeated the enemy by placing him in a position disadvantageous enough for it to work. Without such conditions you get shot to hell coming in and bounce off a well ordered, disciplined formation.

The mythos of the bayonet is a romanticism even the people of the day bought into, when in reality it was overused by the French to the point of self destruction when they suddenly came up against well trained, stubbornly tenacious British forces, or couldn't find the massive local numerical superiority needed to shove enemies off the objective with sheer mass without breaking them down first. The effectiveness of bayonets in Empire: Total War is...well....largely broken when compared to reality simply because it's a game using a stats system and rules so different from real life that to find similarities you have to get down to the point of "they walk on two legs, like real people!".

Seconded....The myth of the bayonet charge was based upon a fantasy propagated by those who never actually saw the front line of battle, but thought they understood what it was about. Actual historical evidence suggests that opposing troops only every crossed bayonets on three occasions during the entire Napoleonic War and two of those were accidents. The only deliberate bayonet v bayonet action occured at Austerlitz when a column of Russian Infantry and a column of French infantry emerged from the mist opposite each other and just kept marching forward rather than trying to deploy. Another accidental bayonet fight occurred between oppositing light troops who were both rushing to secure the top of a ridge line and arrived at the same moment.

By comparison there are numerous eyewitness accounts of soldiers just a few paces apart racing each other to relod their muskets rather than risk the lottery of trying to use their bayonets.

However, Nafod makes a valid point the Napoleonic Wars do not fall within the period covered by ETW. I'm not sure whether bayonets were used more aggressively in the 17th Century, as musketry was in a period of evolution throughout this period.

[nafod]

Seconded....The myth of the bayonet charge was based upon a fantasy propagated by those who never actually saw the front line of battle, but thought they understood what it was about. Actual historical evidence suggests that opposing troops only every crossed bayonets on three occasions during the entire Napoleonic War and two of those were accidents. The only deliberate bayonet v bayonet action occured at Austerlitz when a column of Russian Infantry and a column of French infantry emerged from the mist opposite each other and just kept marching forward rather than trying to deploy. Another accidental bayonet fight occurred between oppositing light troops who were both rushing to secure the top of a ridge line and arrived at the same moment.

By comparison there are numerous eyewitness accounts of soldiers just a few paces apart racing each other to relod their muskets rather than risk the lottery of trying to use their bayonets.

However, Nafod makes a valid point the Napoleonic Wars do not fall within the period covered by ETW. I'm not sure whether bayonets were used more aggressively in the 17th Century, as musketry was in a period of evolution throughout this period.

Hats off to you Didz. That's all I have to say this is not a game about the Napoleanic wars.

[Didz]

Hats off to you Didz. That's all I have to say this is not a game about the Napoleanic wars.

The only positive evidence I have of troops being expected to use bayonets aggressively from this period was the story of the Battle of Culloden, where apparently soldiers were taught a special drill to deal with the highlanders.

[NimitsTexan]

Seconded....The myth of the bayonet charge was based upon a fantasy propagated by those who never actually saw the front line of battle, but thought they understood what it was about. Actual historical evidence suggests that opposing troops only every crossed bayonets on three occasions during the entire Napoleonic War and two of those were accidents. The only deliberate bayonet v bayonet action occured at Austerlitz when a column of Russian Infantry and a column of French infantry emerged from the mist opposite each other and just kept marching forward rather than trying to deploy. Another accidental bayonet fight occurred between oppositing light troops who were both rushing to secure the top of a ridge line and arrived at the same moment.

By comparison there are numerous eyewitness accounts of soldiers just a few paces apart racing each other to relod their muskets rather than risk the lottery of trying to use their bayonets.

However, Nafod makes a valid point the Napoleonic Wars do not fall within the period covered by ETW. I'm not sure whether bayonets were used more aggressively in the 17th Century, as musketry was in a period of evolution throughout this period.

Exactly. This game does not cover the Napoelonic Wars (except maybe the very first couple of years). It is the period of the Wars of Succession, Seven Years War, American Revolution, and French Revolutionary Wars. Especially during the first half of the games period, melee was still considered very much more decisive than fire combat. Heck, a couple of nations were still using pikemen in their regiments! Frederick the Great, for example, much prefered the bayonet over musket fire to decide an engagement.

[Didz]

Frederick the Great, for example, much prefered the bayonet over musket fire to decide an engagement.

Actually the reason Frederick the Great army was so successful was that he introduced the iron ramrod which allowed his men to reload far faster than his opponents.

[DisruptorX]

Uh....no they weren't. A bayonet charge was a useful tool to use in specific circumstances, not the battlefield endgame. Wellington himself used the word 'contemptible' to describe French forces attempting to attack his men in column formations. While the shock value of the bayonet charge was very effective, it was a deciding move only in that the attacker realistically had to have already defeated the enemy by placing him in a position disadvantageous enough for it to work. Without such conditions you get shot to hell coming in and bounce off a well ordered, disciplined formation.

The mythos of the bayonet is a romanticism even the people of the day bought into, when in reality it was overused by the French to the point of self destruction when they suddenly came up against well trained, stubbornly tenacious British forces, or couldn't find the massive local numerical superiority needed to shove enemies off the objective with sheer mass without breaking them down first. The effectiveness of bayonets in Empire: Total War is...well....largely broken when compared to reality simply because it's a game using a stats system and rules so different from real life that to find similarities you have to get down to the point of "they walk on two legs, like real people!".

Bayonets are hardly that effective in ETW unless you are attacking from multiple flanks, or attacking light infantry. Attacking a full strength unit head on with a bayonet charge in ETW results in heavy casualties for both sides.

[Skunker4455]

Somewhat off topic, but does this tech seem somewhat worthless to anyone else?

You get partial shots at intervals and move like a turtle. It seems better to just close to within range halt and fire, or just go ahead and charge.

Yeah, very useless tech. It would be much much better if your troops actually did advance, though. Instead they fire a volley, move about two steps and fire another. I would prefer they fired a volley, hustled a fair distance, and had then had the other group fire another volley and do the same. I envisioned a kind of "bounding overwatch" when i first read the description of the tech but when I used it i started laughing and immediately turned it off.

To use it, just hit the button or use the hotkeys and click to attack the unit you want to fire and advance towards. Watch as your guys are outgunned horribly.

[Prussian to the Iron]

oh, ok. thankx. requesting close/lock

[Fiddling_nero]

It can be useful for elite troops or those with experience.(for when reload skill increases) And when they are deployed in blocks after all you are not using breachloaders so you need to have a much larger pool of men to draw from to advance.

[Warhammer3025]

I think someone said before that the only reason this tech exists is so that we can recreate that scene in Zulu where the redcoats were advance and firing on the charging natives.

Otherwise yea, this tech is pretty much useless and will get you killed by anyone who can return missile fire.

[Fisherking]

Look, you want to close with the enemy a bit before a charge. Also it should keep up pretty much a steady fire with each rank advancing to fire. The steady fire is the thing.

Trouble is about the only guys who get it are the grenadiers. It doesn’t work so well with light troop you know.

[Husar]

Look, you want to close with the enemy a bit before a charge. Also it should keep up pretty much a steady fire with each rank advancing to fire. The steady fire is the thing.

Trouble is about the only guys who get it are the grenadiers. It doesn’t work so well with light troop you know.

No, the problem is if you lose some guys, after the last rank has moved to the front the game will make the formation reform and pull guys from behind to the new first line and make them start a completely new reload cycle which means once the last rank is in front the steady fire stops and you have to wait for a complete reload cycle before anyone will fire again.
That's a broken game mechanic that already somewhat ruined the musket fire in older games, when the games makes musket formations reform and refill their ranks it should put only men who have finished reloading into the rank that fires next but it doesn't, so the whole first rank has to wait for "new guy" to reload before they can fire.

[DisruptorX]

I think someone said before that the only reason this tech exists is so that we can recreate that scene in Zulu where the redcoats were advance and firing on the charging natives.

Been a while since I last saw that one, didn't they have bolt actions?

[nafod]

Been a while since I last saw that one, didn't they have bolt actions?

Probably not, as the first bolt action used by the british was the Lee Enfield (Unless one considers the Martini a bolt action). Nice gun if you can get your hands on one. Not sure when the Zulu wars occured, but I believe the Lee Enfield made it's first war appearance in the Boer Wars. It's a fine rifle, especially considering a British soldier carrying it into war in North Africa or Farnce in WWII was essentially fighting with the same rifle his father faught with in WWI and his grandfather in the Boer Wars.

Mine came from the Longbranch Arsenal in 1943.

[Didz]

Been a while since I last saw that one, didn't they have bolt actions?

No they were armed with the Martini-Henry Rifle. Which was notorious for jamming when it was fired too rapidly and became hot.

Whilst the writer of the following article dismisses this claim battlefield archeologists did find a significant number of discarded rifles on the battlefield of islandwana with cartridges jammed in their breechblocks.
http://www.martinihenry.com/zulu-wars.htm