how to use advance and fire?

[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.

[Prussian to the Iron]

You sir are correct.

i can haz cookie?

@disruptor:

in my experience, if you fire 2 or 3 volleys and then charge, you can easily win.

one of my strategies when using an army with some cavalry is that i have my main line, then it fires a couple volleys, and have my cavalry flank both extremeties. then i have my remaining cavalry units go around behind and charge. at this point i order my infantry to fix bayonets, and they easily win.

if i feel like i need more of an edge for any reason, i stretch out some of my infantry to envelop the flanks, and pull my cavalry behind. this way, it is impossible to escape, but i also have cavalry behind just in case.

the reason behind the second part is that no one ever routs to the sides. if i stretch my line out a little more to envelop the flanks, then i free up entire cavalry units and kill just as many men. then if any of them escape the back i can use my cavalry to run them down, or redirect them right back into my other men.

that reminds me, i have this hilarious glitch where i get the enemy ot run back and forth. once the enemy is all routing, i bring a cavalry unit straight ahead of a prefereably small routing unit. it will then go to the side or back where it came from. i then move up other cavalry to form an inward facing square around the routing unit. it will continually go one way, find its path blocked, go another way, find its path blocked, until eventually th battle is over. mighty good fun

[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?

[Prussian to the Iron]

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?

that in fact is a very good point. i agree 100%

[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.

[Fwapper]

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.

It was more a defensive tactic really - the problem was that crazy Scottish people would charge screaming down a hill wielding eight foot swords and hack the redcoats to pieces... the rather counter-intuitive solution was for a soldier to completely ignore the crazy Scot running towards them and instead focus on the one running towards the man on his right. As the Scot lifted up the giant sword he would leave his right chest particuarly exposed to a well timed bayonet stab.

The English won

[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.

[al Roumi]

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.

Don't mean to undermine you at all here Didz, but surely the introduction and adoption of iron ramrods wasn't the only reason why Frederick's army was so great and successful.

[Mystiqblackcat]

I am making my way through a book about warfare in the Napoleonic age and it cites that a common British tactic was to from up two ranks deep for increased fire power and fire off two volleys at close range followed immediately by a bayonet charge for shock value. Apparently it worked fairly well, I don't have the book with me otherwise I would quote soem specifics.

I tend to save bayonet charges until the enemy unit is about to break. If not I seem to take too many casualties in addition to having to worry about friendly fire.

[Didz]

Don't mean to undermine you at all here Didz, but surely the introduction and adoption of iron ramrods wasn't the only reason why Frederick's army was so great and successful.

Obviously, not. The Prussian Army at this period was at the peak of its efficiency as a fighting force. Frederick introduced a whole new drill system based upon a standard cadence that ensured perfect precision, discipline and speed of movement, he also introduced a new battlefield strategy based upon a rapid oblique march which allowed his army to place pressure on a single point of the enemy line whilst still pinning the rest of the enemy force in place. This coupled with the overwhelming firepower afforded by his iron ramrods mean't that his army could literally blast a hole through any point of the enemy line he choose to direct it against.

...the iron ramrod, increasing Prussian firepower, and the slow march, or goose-step. The new king trained and drilled the army relentlessly, focusing on the firing speed of their flintlock muskets and formation maneuverability. The changes gave the army flexibility, precision, and a rate of fire that was largely unequaled for the time period.[15] Through drilling and the iron ramrod, each soldier was expected to fire six times in a minute, three times as fast as most armies.

[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.