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

[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?

[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.

[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.