Line Infantry, how do you fight with them and why?

[Fisherking]

Ah, Line Infantry. Everyone's basic unit...

I have not made a thorough study of what works best and why but I am guessing that some one may have.

I have more gone on an intuitive bases and usually try to line up two deep if I am shooting and four deep is it will just be a charge, which I seldom do.

My reasons for two ranks are that they give a wider field of fire and they are less vulnerable to others fires.

With the average unit missing with 60% of their shots, going high, wide, or short, and 40% going into the target area, with a less dense formation there is less of a chance of an actual hit on a man. Also vs. artillery the thin line is less apt to multiple kills.

Its main draw back is that it is easier for the enemy to engage them with multiple units, though I do seem to get a higher kill rate than the enemy under normal conditions.

I don’t usually set them to fixed bayonets going into combat but fix them when melee is imminent, though I know they will continue to fire with them fixed, it would appear that it slows the rate of fire.

As I said, I have not done a careful study and any or all of these perceptions could be wrong.

How about the rest of you?

[Prussian to the Iron]

when i use line infantry, i have between 3-5 deep. 3 deep in early stages, because only the first rank fires, and then when i get platoon fire/fire by rank, i line up in 4-5. of course, by that time i usually have swiss guards anyway.

right now, im fighting a war in india with mainly company infantry, so i'm having a hard time with the elite armies im that are getting thrown at me constantly.

[Skott]

I set my LI up in a three row/rank formation. With Fire By Rank all three ranks will fire as needed. Three ranks also will perform well in melee when the enemy closes in for hand to hand combat. Less chance of a break through. Considering I usually run 13-15 LI units per stack having them in three ranks deep is more than sufficient to cover the battle map adequately from one flank to another. Another reason I prefer three rank formation to two rank formation is that since the three rank formation set up doesnt stretch the unit as wide as the two rank formation so it will condense and form a square faster than the wider spread two rank formation. Two rank formations will fire all their muskets faster but I'm willing to give up some load and fire time to a better defense. It works well for me so I use it.

[lancer63]

My main concern with 2 line formations is unit cohesion. Specially if charged by cavalry. 3 or 4 line units withstand horse charges much better and their morale penalties are much lower. Once I had an english 2 chevron LI unit break after the first charge of uhlans. Never before has happened to thicker formations, but of course there might be other factors contributing to that. Unit was at least at 85% strength, to the far left of the army formation and already engaged to a similar Prussian unit.
No real generals were present that I can recall.
Cheers

[Fisherking]

I have never noticed it being a problem, and they actually take fewer casualties than denser unit formations. And now that the square is a magician device that makes infantry invulnerable to cavalry just by hitting the button...why even before they are in the square they begin to kill cavalry and take no more casualties....

[Prussian to the Iron]

yeah, square is a bit overpowered (a bit meaning a ton). one time, my men were literaly already fighting cavalry, and losing. i form them up into a square, with about half the cavalry unit inside the square, and they rout the cavalry. its quite stupid really.

[Didz]

I fight my infantry in three ranks, simply because to do otherwise is to lose a third of its firepower along a given frontage when using 'fire by rank'.

As far as squares are concerned. I consider it entirely correct that infantry in square should be able to kill cavalry with virtual impunity. The problems that arise with squares are entirely the result of the badly programme 'BAI'.

Firstly cavalry should NOT charge into a formed square, and therefore, should not get themselves massacred by doing so.

Secondly, cavalry should impose a major morale hit on any unit it threatens that is disorganised, more so than if that infantry had remained in steady and in line.

This would force players to make a much earlier decision on whether or not to form square and recreate more accurately the dilemma faced by real life commanders when threatened by cavalry. As things stand you can actually wait for the cavalry to charge, or even make contact before tapping the 'square' button which in practice ought to be effective suicide for your infantry.

Hitting 'Form Square' when cavalry are already in contact ought to be the virtual equivalent of 'Run for the hills' and result in an almost instant and guarantee'd rout.

[Skott]

I agree with Didz here. If the square is formed before the cavalry arrive then its accurate that the cavalry should get the short end of the stick but if the cavalry get into the ranks before a square is formed then the infantry should suffer. One of the things the AI does wrong is that it will stop a cavalry unit extremely close to a formed square and just sit there and be picked off. Reality is that the cavalry wouldnt get that close and just sit there and be allowed to be killed. They would stay back a few hundred yards at least and be ready to exploit a breakthrough. They wouldnt willingly want to charge a square.

[Maleficus]

I tend to use my infantry 3 ranks deep, as was usual practice in the 18th century. I have also tried 2 ranks, 4 ranks, and 5 ranks, and found that being 3 deep really does seem to be the most effective way, especially after you get fire-by-rank.

As for squares, if they didn't work, Napoleon wouldn't have bothered, right? But I agree that there should be harsher penalties for forming a square too late. Perhaps not an instant rout, but certainly more losses and less kills. Maybe it shouldn't actually be possible to form a square while engaged...

[Fisherking]

The AI uses squares as an exploit. I have watched them on several occasions charge into cavalry and form squares...

I have had the magic square annihilate several cavalry units attacking from different angles and the attack started before the square was formed. But who knows, maybe the diamond is as magic as the square...I just never us it...

[Ethelred Unread]

Just wondered if anyone had used LI to attack in column? Is there any standard LI that's any better at h2h than the others?

I keep meaning to try it as France, but haven't got around to it yet.

[FactionHeir]

The AI is pretty stupid with line. It just lines them up nicely and then you can start to envelop it and rout it within a minute.

Before you get fire by rank, just use 2 ranks. Afterwards go for 3-4 depending on space available. Once engaged, envelop from both side (don't charge). The AI routs fairly quickly.

[antisocialmunky]

It would be better if they just removed it and the player can form his own square.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Definitely don't use Austrian LI in melee before you research bayonets. I attacked a Polish Pike unit with 2 Austrian LI in melee and the Pikes were slaughtering them. I had to charge my General into the rear of the Pike formation several times to break them and save my infantry. I lost over 120 men & risked losing my General.

[Servius]

I also primarily use LI. I keep 12-16 units per stack. I always keep them 3 ranks deep for reasons others have said (staying power, fire-by-rank, can turn faster, can form box faster, etc.).

I tend to neglect the bayonet research line until I'm about to face Native Americans, as they have many melee units. When that time comes, I usually try to fly past plug bayonets and get to the real deal 3-4 techs down the path.

Also, when taking the field, I break my LIs up into groups of 2 or 3 units. I rarely bother to issue individual orders to each unit. I move them in a line until they're a bit beyond firing range, then I start using the 2-unit groups on the wings to envelop the enemy flanks and send my dragoons around behind the enemy line. Usually I'm able to completly surround the enemy formation in a hexagon- or octagon-like formation.

[Fisherking]

The French, Russians, & late Turks have the best melee. The Prussians and next the British have the best rates of fire other than Elite Units.

The Austrian Line is the all round worst. Lowest accuracy, reload, melee, and morale. Extra numbers do no offset their inferiority.

It would seem to me that the low morale is not justified in the game. Their infantry was known to be much more resolute than the officers who commanded them.

It was more the Spanish Infantry that was brittle in combat.

[Hermann the Lombard]

The AI uses squares as an exploit. I have watched them on several occasions charge into cavalry and form squares...

Yes, but they also sometimes form square when threatened by infantry, causing them to get shot to pieces. [Total agreement that trying to change to square while in contact with the enemy (or coming into contact before the square forms) should be an instant rout.]

[Dreadnought2]

It's sometimes possible to move a cavalry unit towards (but still out of range of) an AI infantry unit and have them form into a square. I've done that just as they came into canister range of my 24lber guns.....heh heh heh...

Guns 56 - Infantry 0
Guns moves through to meet Cavalry in the final...

Cheers,
Dreadnought2

[Didz]

Cavalry should not charge squares, end of story. The current AI is flawed in that respect. The actual purpose of cavalry (certainly on the Napoleonic battlefield) was to force the infantry into square, after that their part of the job was over and it was up to the horse artillery to finish the job.

[Dreadnought2]

What actually happens on the battlefield (like what happens in the throne room) is not always logical, especially when the 'blood is up'...

I don't think cav in ETW does the 'may charge without orders' but in the earlier TWs it did. At least the ETW human player can order them off.

It's a bit like the AI not accepting peace/surrender offers/demands. Hitler and Stalin weren't keen on the peace/surrender thing either, so why should 18th century absolute monarchs not do the same.

Cheers,
Dreadnought2

[Didz]

Badly trained cavalry certainly lost their heads and did dumb things.

Wellington was disgusted with the stupidity of the British light cavalry on several occassions stating the British cavalry seem incapable of performing even the most simple of tasks, except to gallop full tilt at everything, and then to gallop just as fast off the field never to reappear. Wellington sent the 23rd Light Dragoons home in disgrace when they lost their heads and performed a wild headlong charge into a hidden ravine at Talavera, losing 102 killed and 105 captured before they managed to escape.

Thus there is certainly a valid excuse for British light cavalry to be given a special penalty for such headstrong behaviour, unfortunately, the AI does this as standard with every cavalry unit under its control regardless of its quality or nationality.

[Unhinged_Loon]

I don't think any of the TW games has managed to properly implement "refuses order" or "charges without orders". It's a slightly vain hope to get the cavalry to refuse to charge the squares

...still, it would be wonderful if they managed to implement some "interpretation" of orders...

[Didz]

I don't think any of the TW games has managed to properly implement "refuses order" or "charges without orders". It's a slightly vain hope to get the cavalry to refuse to charge the squares

I don't think its an issue of having cavalry refuse to charge squares, if the player wants to be a prat and order his cavalry to charge a square then thats his problem and he deserves to end up with a pile of dead horse flesh in return for his stupidity.

The issue is that the AI should not be consistently that stupid. It seems they managed to programme a rather contrived routine that causes units targetted by cannister on the edge of the target zone to vere away and march off, so we know they have a routne that can react to a tactically situation even if they wouldn't actually have that information in reality (I mean I doubt staff officers could actually tell what type of ammunition a gunner was stuffing into a cannon from 300 yards away), so in theory that same routine could be programmed to perform the check

'Is target enemy in square?', if yes Halt, retire to 100 yards call up artillery support. Not exactly rocket science.

[antisocialmunky]

"charges without orders"

I've seen 2-3 times in MTW my chivalric knight Leroy Jenkins themselves into some spears.

[Fisherking]

What is the difference?

Historical reality has little to do with the units or tactics in this game. We have France without their masses of Dragoons but equipped with rifle units and Austria devoid of rifles just to name two.

As to the AI not being dumb, when did you ever see a TW game with smart AI?

[Didz]

I've seen 2-3 times in MTW my chivalric knight Leroy Jenkins themselves into some spears.

In MTW2 units could have the the unit triat 'Impulsive' which meant that they occassionally lose their heads and attack without orders. However, like the 'Fire at will' command, skirmishing and artillery crew behaviour this aspect of the battlefield AI has been screwed up completely in ETW.

Historical reality has little to do with the units or tactics in this game.

Well I think thats the point. And its why ETW is turning into nothing but a pile of rubbish with each successive patch, and why Napoleon Totalwar is probably going to be an equally dissapointing pile of crap.

[antisocialmunky]

As to the AI not being dumb, when did you ever see a TW game with smart AI?

-STW was quite adequate.
-MTW was less good but still surprisingly intellegent by what we have come to expect(formed up in a line, didn't bug out and refuse to move if you had missiles, flanked with cavalry without doing some retarded cannon snipe). It had the occasional suicide FM except those were usually Jedis that took down or routed through whole armies.
-RTW - Was underwhelming with suicidal FMs and no naval invasions.
-BI - Add suicidal naval invasions.
-ALEX - Actually reasonable naval invasions/troop ferring, retraining, better diplomatic AI(I played a game where the AI rewarded my friendship with MONEY in EB ALEX and we became happy neighbors. Never seen thsi replicated every again though :()
-MIITW - Completely Broken. Terrible city pathing, aforementioned missile bug, attacked in a blob, more suicide FMs

I think what people want is just a reasonable AI, not some ridiculous "The Black Knight always wins! Let's fight! Come on then." thing.

A) !dumb <> smart;
B) dumb U smart == AI - average

[Peasant Phill]

I want the AI to keep their unit's together with some exeptions. Why keep 1 unit (general) in reserve if you only have 2 units? Why send only 1 unit forward at a time, one after the other?

[Lucius Verenus]

Continuing the rather off-topic issue of cavalry behaviour....

It's annoying when they charge into a Chevaux De Frieze or a square - and saying if you want to order them to do it they should is missing the issue.

Chevaux de frieze existed so cavalry couldnt approach that way - not so they would pile up dead on them.

The simple fact is that horses are not humans and they will NOT charge at long thick lines of pointy things. hence the Schiltrom formation for example (and like the square, great against cavalry, disastrous if the cavalry keep you in the formation while the longbowmen or successors kill you all)

As an example the (stupid) repeated mass-charges of the French Cavalry ordered by Marshal Ney at Waterloo - they swept up through and around the Allied positions - but for the most part just made good targets for the Infantry formed into squares.

When Napoleon wanted to do the right thing and make a combined attack to have the cavalry force the allied infantry into squares to be smashed by French Infanty columns - he couldn't do it, the horses were 'blown' by the stupid charges.

As for the LI - usually three lines deep, cannons interspersed between units - which brings up another totally nerfy thing - when the enemy got too close to the cannon they fired off their last grape/canister then legged it behind the infantry (or into the squares as at Waterloo) - they didn't engage in melee if they could possibly avoid it.

When the immediate danger passed they went back to their guns and got back on with their job, I have seen them get into melee then among the scrum - assuming any survive - I have to find them and get them to go back to the guns - bah humbug

As for manoeuvre - as has been said where at all possible Envelope the enemy from both flanks till they run away then micromanage your horse till they have killed as many as possible

On the upside, I haven't had CTD's lately - since choosing Shader 2 and turning off all cpu's except CPU1 on my quad-core

Cheers

[Didz]

As an example the (stupid) repeated mass-charges of the French Cavalry ordered by Marshal Ney at Waterloo - they swept up through and around the Allied positions - but for the most part just made good targets for the Infantry formed into squares.

Thats not what really happened at Waterloo, its just part of the 'English Myth' surrounding the battle. Its actually one part of the battle that Barbero appears to have carefully researched and described with reasonable accuracy in his most recent history of the battle.

The French cavalry were certainly not unsupported as eye witnesses from Halketts division testify, nor did they charge 'round', 'through'. 'over' or 'into' the allied squares despite the impression given by the aerial scenes shot for the film. Even Mercer testifies that the French horse advanced with 'the slow and steady determination of men intent on making a point.'

They did not sweep through the allied positions, as such, but to understand the confusion one really needs to walk over the ground and get a first hand feel for the topography. Most of those who swept around behind Hougoumont were following the natural path of least resistance along the line of the farm track that passes behind the farm to join the Nivelles road on the plateau (where the Dutch have since built a motorway). The spur in the centre of the ridge between La Haye Sainte and Hougoumont gives the impression to men approaching the ridge that this track is actually mounting the slope when in fact it passes along the face of the slope and never actually crosses the crest.

Instead it passes along the face of the Allied position in front of the positions occupied by Mitchel and Adams brigades and emerges onto the plateau behind Hougoumont where it joins the Nivelles road. Nevertheless, the French cavalry who took this route did cause problems for the garrision of Hougoumont who became completely isolated by the constant flow of French cavalry between them and their supports on the ridge itself. In the end, the British put a stop to this movement by creating a barrade across the track at head of the valley effectively trapping any French horse trying to use this route and over fifty French cavalry were trapped and slaughtered between the ridge line and the main gate to the chateau before they found an alternative way through further up the slope.

Mercers does attest to the fact that one or two cuirassiers attacking his section of the British line did try to escape by riding through his gun line. However, those troopers were the exception and did so in desperation when their way back down the slope was blocked by their own comrades. The vast majority simply went three's about and retired, or pushed their way back through their own comrades rather than try and penetrate the allied lines.

Elsewhere, several allied squares found themselves pinned in square and subjected to close range cannister fire from French horse artillery acting in close support of the attack, or by musketry from Voltigeurs who took the opportunity to move forward and occupy the sunken lane that runs along most of the Allied front line between La Haye Saint and Hougoumont. And as Barbero says even when artillery or infantry were not on hand the French improvised by sending small parties of horsemen forward to shoot into the squares with their pistols in an attempt to get the infantry to fire back, or to prod at the infantry with lances.

We English have spent years making fun of the French for being stupid in the use of their cavalry at Waterloo, but in fact the attacks were conducted with considerable control and co-ordination unlike the attacks by the Union and Household Brigades earlier in the battle.