Are bayonet techs critical in early game?

[Slaists]

I've seen it mentioned frequently that bayonet techs are one of the first things one should research in the game. I disagree. Probably the most critical early game military tech is square formation. The way it is built in the game, square formation's bonuses allow line infantry to hold their own against cavalry even without any bayonets (try it out). So, after the square formation, my early research shifts to either the industrial or enlightenment side of the tree.

For bayonets: I either buy or steal them from the AI or just wait until their research time is down to 1 to 2 turns (as you develop your university up, put more gentlemen in).

[FactionHeir]

Critical not really for the infantry, but for developing your military infrastructure. Getting them early means you build your higher level barracks earlier and get to recruit units like grenadiers and heavy cavalry earlier.

Square is also only useful against cavalry in melee, but not against cavalry charges. Once you charge and immediately withdraw and recharge, the infantry is pretty much gone after a few repeats. They don't really shoot much in square formation. What I dislike about cavalry in ETW is that they tire ridiculously quickly in melee and are weak there (and weak in cahrges too). Also, they seem rather invulnerable to infantry melee attacks while moving now, which also is bad (I liked the M2TW system)

[Slaists]

Critical not really for the infantry, but for developing your military infrastructure. Getting them early means you build your higher level barracks earlier and get to recruit units like grenadiers and heavy cavalry earlier.

True, that's part of the point I had in mind. I find it more fun to fight the early game out with low military techs (making good use of irregular units, etc.) and then switch into higher gear as my economy allows it. I find it allows for a more varied game-play rather than just bee-lining for the higher military techs.

[A Very Super Market]

I find the square formation without bayonets managing to hold off cavalry to be completely ahistorical. Thus, I always research bayonets before square formation.

[Slaists]

I find the square formation without bayonets managing to hold off cavalry to be completely ahistorical. Thus, I always research bayonets before square formation.

I guess, they should have made bayonets a prerequisite for the square formation.

[FactionHeir]

The only reason you get square is for fire by rank anyway

[Fisherking]

Critical not really for the infantry, but for developing your military infrastructure. Getting them early means you build your higher level barracks earlier and get to recruit units like grenadiers and heavy cavalry earlier.

Square is also only useful against cavalry in melee, but not against cavalry charges. Once you charge and immediately withdraw and recharge, the infantry is pretty much gone after a few repeats. They don't really shoot much in square formation. What I dislike about cavalry in ETW is that they tire ridiculously quickly in melee and are weak there (and weak in cahrges too). Also, they seem rather invulnerable to infantry melee attacks while moving now, which also is bad (I liked the M2TW system)

I would agree.

Building up your unit selection is more important and the square is not that useful.

If cavalry is a problem you expect, then bring along some cannon.

I am never in much of a rush to get the square but to build up my barracks.

Bayonets usually take two or three turns and the next level usually adds one turn. The square is also two or three turns but I leave it until after I build the second barracks.

[Marquis of Roland]

IMO bayonets are more important. Early game cav is weak and unlikely to get taken out by cav (unless the cav gets a good charge on it, which, as long as you're paying attention, shouldn't happen), whereas bayonet-armed infantry just murders non-bayonet infantry. And most units in the beginning are infantry.

[Prussian to the Iron]

i dont think that bayonets are a necessity in the early game, but they certainly help.

in my campaign as the knights of st.john, i have only recently acquired schools. unable to buy techs from other countries (damned a.i. morals!) i have no techs yet. in hand-to-hand with militia vs militia, with their side having bayonets, i actually won after softening them up. you can win without bayonets, but prepare to take heavy losses early on

[Slaists]

Critical not really for the infantry, but for developing your military infrastructure. Getting them early means you build your higher level barracks earlier and get to recruit units like grenadiers and heavy cavalry earlier.

Square is also only useful against cavalry in melee, but not against cavalry charges. Once you charge and immediately withdraw and recharge, the infantry is pretty much gone after a few repeats. They don't really shoot much in square formation. What I dislike about cavalry in ETW is that they tire ridiculously quickly in melee and are weak there (and weak in cahrges too). Also, they seem rather invulnerable to infantry melee attacks while moving now, which also is bad (I liked the M2TW system)

Hmm, my experience actually went contrary to that (what you have in bold above). I have had Cossack infantry (they do not get bayonets) in squares losing just a few men against repeated cavalry charges.

[FactionHeir]

The AI charged my xp2 line infantry with socket bayonets in square mode repeatedly with a single unit of 0xp provincials. I let them be and lost about 37 line before routing the provincials who had 6 men left... Battle Difficulty of M.

Similarly, I lost a lot of Household Cavalry against AI regiment of horse and provincials, which shouldn't be the case especially when they are already more tired to start with and I get the charge in.

[Slaists]

The AI charged my xp2 line infantry with socket bayonets in square mode repeatedly with a single unit of 0xp provincials. I let them be and lost about 37 line before routing the provincials who had 6 men left... Battle Difficulty of M.

Similarly, I lost a lot of Household Cavalry against AI regiment of horse and provincials, which shouldn't be the case especially when they are already more tired to start with and I get the charge in.

I guess, it depends whether the square gets some volleys off before the cavalry hits them.

[Oaty]

My experience is square rocks cavalry.

On average for me if I have them in square the whole time I usually don't lose much more than 20 men. Even if the AI did double damage (40 men killed) I'd still be winning. Even though we lost the same number of men they lost a whole unit.

What unit size do you use, I use default 120 men most infantry 60 men for specials and cavalry at 45. Sometimes unit size can make a difference.

Now for maximum effect of square (the AI doesnt always charge infantry head on) wait for your infantry to blast a volley at the horses while they are in line and as soon as they do switch to square.

When they outflank you I usually dont get the infantry into position int time to pull this off

[Didz]

I often form my infantry into square when assaulted by enemy melee infantry (Indian or Native American) I find the formation improves the resilience of the defence and if included in part of a double line of battle the enemy warriors attacking the sides of the square become much better targets for the supporting fire form the second line.

[FactionHeir]

Yes, square oddly enough seems to work well against infantry as well. Don't agree with double line though as you'll tend to shoot mostly your own guys.

[Didz]

Yes, square oddly enough seems to work well against infantry as well. Don't agree with double line though as you'll tend to shoot mostly your own guys.

This depends on the circumstances. I stagger the lines anyway so that the units in the second line cover the intervals between units in the first. By forming the first line into square the second line regiments have a pretty clear line of sight into the flanks of the enemy attacking the sides of the square in front.

Alternatively deploying on a forward slope seems to reduce the impact of friendly fire. I agree its not very realistic to do this, but as the AI seems incapable of handling 'fire at will' intelligently I figure you may as well expliot its stupidity to the full.

[crpcarrot]

i guess its al relative. if you are at war with a faction that has high bayonet tech then u definitely need to upgrade yourself. infantry without bayonets suck bad against infantry that do.

[al Roumi]

I use early infantry as musketmen -at least untill I get ring bayonettes. I find it more effective to use Pike units for defensive melee (or agressive positioning to provoke an enemy charge) with wings of musket infantry (line or militia) to flank fire in support of the pikemen.

If you double rank your muskets at 2 rank depth (one unit in front of the other), you can manually advance/retreat the units to ensure more continuous and concetrated fire for greater effect.

Tried to explain it here.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=116913

[Daveybaby]

If youre one of the factions that starts out in the americas it's essential to get at least the first level of bayonet ASAP, otherwise you're going to get slaughtered by the native melee troops you meet early on.

[Slaists]

If youre one of the factions that starts out in the americas it's essential to get at least the first level of bayonet ASAP, otherwise you're going to get slaughtered by the native melee troops you meet early on.

Not really, the British (for example) line infantry's melee stats are superior to any native melee stats post 1.02 even without bayonets. Native Americans have good attack but lack any defense post 1.02...

I use early infantry as musketmen -at least untill I get ring bayonettes. I find it more effective to use Pike units for defensive melee (or agressive positioning to provoke an enemy charge) with wings of musket infantry (line or militia) to flank fire in support of the pikemen.

If you double rank your muskets at 2 rank depth (one unit in front of the other), you can manually advance/retreat the units to ensure more continuous and concetrated fire for greater effect.

Tried to explain it here.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=116913

I've noticed that too: double/single ranked line men (and even militia) are deadly in the early game against the AI; so deadly that I even feel it's an exploit since the AI never uses such thin formation. Think of it this way: 120 men 3 rows deep would fire 40 bullets in a salvo; the same 120 men stretched out to the maximum (the game would not allow 120 men in single file so there is about 1/3 unit 'second line' leftover if a unit is stretched out to the max) fire 80 or so bullets in a salvo. 80 bullets hitting a 120 men AI unit cause almost an instantaneous rout. If not on that salvo, then on the next...

[Monsieur Alphonse]

Does the attack value increase when a unit gets bayonet's?. In M2TW you could get extra 6 attack points if you retrained a unit at a swordsmith guild. I wonder what the effect of bayonet's and the tech bayonet drill is on the mêlée capability.

[Slaists]

Does the attack value increase when a unit gets bayonet's?. In M2TW you could get extra 6 attack points if you retrained a unit at a swordsmith guild. I wonder what the effect of bayonet's and the tech bayonet drill is on the mêlée capability.

You sure it was +6 attack bonus from a swordsmith guild in MTW2? Sure you were not playing a mod? I always thought it was +1 attack in vanilla.

Attack value is supposed to go up +2 once bayonets are fixed. Further bayonet techs increase charge value.

+2 attack is easily achieved through the troops gaining experience (and you gain defense too). It is possible that bayonets bring extra + to attack against cavalry, but that has not been spelled out anywhere by CA. To me it seems, the big counter-cavalry bonus is embedded in the square formation no in bayonets themselves.

[Monsieur Alphonse]

You sure it was +6 attack bonus from a swordsmith guild in MTW2? Sure you were not playing a mod? I always thought it was +1 attack in vanilla.

It showed +1 extra attack but in reallity it was +6.

[Slaists]

It showed +1 extra attack but in reallity it was +6.

Interesting, sounds quite unbalancing to me. But that's off topic here.

[Marquis of Roland]

My experience is square rocks cavalry.

On average for me if I have them in square the whole time I usually don't lose much more than 20 men. Even if the AI did double damage (40 men killed) I'd still be winning. Even though we lost the same number of men they lost a whole unit.

What unit size do you use, I use default 120 men most infantry 60 men for specials and cavalry at 45. Sometimes unit size can make a difference.

Now for maximum effect of square (the AI doesnt always charge infantry head on) wait for your infantry to blast a volley at the horses while they are in line and as soon as they do switch to square.

When they outflank you I usually dont get the infantry into position int time to pull this off

I've found that infantry can form square even while in the process of being charged by cav, and the defense bonus will apply right away. You'll see your men get knocked down, but most of them get back up and any cav trapped inside is toast. They should change this, but I'm afraid it'll bug the game more.

[al Roumi]

I've noticed that too: double/single ranked line men (and even militia) are deadly in the early game against the AI; so deadly that I even feel it's an exploit since the AI never uses such thin formation. Think of it this way: 120 men 3 rows deep would fire 40 bullets in a salvo; the same 120 men stretched out to the maximum (the game would not allow 120 men in single file so there is about 1/3 unit 'second line' leftover if a unit is stretched out to the max) fire 80 or so bullets in a salvo. 80 bullets hitting a 120 men AI unit cause almost an instantaneous rout. If not on that salvo, then on the next...

I've not noticed it routing units in one salvo, but I've only been using 2man depth.

I suppose it is an exploit, but it's not really much more than a maneuvre -sheltering reloading troops behind an advancing firing line. Given the ammount of micro involved in rank rotation(if you have more than 2 groups firing at once) I think it's fair enough. Plus it's like actually calling the fire drill yourself

[Warhammer3025]

Heh that's just like in MTW1 where folks were using the exploitive "stretch a swordsman or feudal men at arms unit out to a single line" so that when they clash with an enemy unit they can encircle it thereby having more men able to fight rather than standing in ranks waiting for their turn to fight. Course in real life that doesnt work cuz a single line of men can be pierced quite easily by a group of men in ranks and countercharging. Talk about old times...

[LuxIrae]

Think the point of cavalry really is just to persuade enemey formations to adopt square so that your troops gain a firepower advantage when engaging in line. Other than hunting down routing units, cavalry is too expensive to replenish and takes too many casualties unless handled really carefully....? Think that was historically accurate for this era?

[Didz]

Think that was historically accurate for this era?

Well the game is actually set in a period of transition. The game starts at the tail end of the with Pike and Musket era, where cavalry were kept off the infantry by stand-of-pike and schiltron. That led to the change in cavalry tactic's and the greater reliance on dragoon's and Reiters. Cavalry tended to focus purley on the enemy cavalry and only after having driven them off did they turn their attention to the infantry. The main objective being to inhibit their movement and force them into 'Stands' so that their own infantry had the freedom to defeat them in detail. Basically, read any Engish Civil War battle report to get the gist of the process. Marston Moor is a classic example.

The development of the bayonet and improvements in musketry saw the fading out of the pike as it was no longer necessary, and for a while infantry gained the upper hand. Being able to drive off cavalry without having to sacrifice mobility, just using firepower alone. e.g. Battle of Minden for example.

Then the cavalry enhanced their own tactic's and dropped the obssession with being a mounted infantry. They developed new organisations and tactic's that enabled them to expliot the extended formations used by the infantry to maximise their firepower. The wheel essential turned full circle and by the end of the period covered by the game we were back to square one. With infantry having to huddle into squares or dense columns to prevent cavalry explioting their formations.

But in between, and for the bulk of the period covered by the game, there is a transition of tactics. By rights, the cavalry in the game ought to start off operating in quite slow mounted columns using horse pistols to deal with pike stands, and gradually evolve the flexible squadron tactic's necessary for delivering shock action to the infantry's flanks and intervals. At the same time the infantry ought to be evolving better firepower (which they do to an extent) and eventually the square formation needed to fend off they new cavalry tactic's.

In between there should be a period of mismatching where some armies will find themselves drilled in the wrong tactic's to deal with those of their opponents. e.g. Pikes faced by shock cavalry, Rieters opposed by platoon volleys etc. What shouldn't be happening of course is the headlong charge into formed infantry, which only actually happened at Universal Studio's remakes.