how to use advance and fire?

[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.

[Marquis of Roland]

Before any sensible bayonet charge was mounted, the section of line to be attacked should have been weakened and/or disoriented by artillery and musket volleys. If you're charging into a solid line of muskets, of course you are going to lose.

[Didz]

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.

I would not say it was common, it became more prevalent as the Napoleonic Wars progressed. However, even in 1815 there were regiments formed four deep on the Waterloo ridge and bayonet charges were rare during that battle simply because the French were to well organised and supported. One Battalion of the Kings German Legion did attempt it near La Haye Sainte and were promptly cut to ribbons by supporting cavalry.

As I said earlier in the debate the romantic ideal of 'cold steel' appealled to everyone except the soldiers who were being asked to put it into practice. In 1794 Carnot ordered the French Army to seek 'action with the bayonet on every occassion', and Napoleon had a festish for the idea of cold steel. One French officer commented wryly to another that if asked 'one must be killed by a bayonet, as the Emperor has a fondness for those who die in this manner.' Official French Army doctrine, as expounded by the Ecole Polytechnique, claimed that only the first volley of musketry was effective, 'after which the bayonet and the sword may charge without sustaining great loss.'

Austrian and Prussian regulations also stressed the role of the bayonet in the attack, and Archdukle Chalres considered it the best weapon for use in close combat. In Russia the 'Precepts for Infantry Officers on the Day of Battle', issued in 1812, still advocated the bayonet charge delivered in deep column formation as the preferred tactic.

Yet, in practice very few soldiers actually fought each other with cold steel.

At Austerlitz the Russian Guards made a classic 300 yard bayonet charge, but were so exhausted after breaking through the first French line that they were easily driven off by musketry fire from the second. Generally, it was the threat of the bayonet, rather than its actual use that decided an issue. General Larry, of the Grand Army noted that in all his years of service with the French Army he had only ever seen five bayonet wounds, and concluded that the effect of the weapon was largely psychological.

Whilst Guthrie a senior medical officer in the British Army noted that 'troops charging with the bayonet never actually meet and struggle hand to hand and foot to foot; and this for the best possible reason, that one side turns and runs away as soon as the other comes close enough to do mischief.'

General Lejeune supports these views stating that in his expereince it is 'very rare, for as a rule one of the the corps is demoralised to begin with by the firing, and draws back before the enemy is close enough to cross muzzles.'

Jomini declares on the same subject 'I never saw such a thing on a regular field of battle.'

Extracts from 'The Art of Warfare in the Age of Napoleon' by Rothenberg

The only occassion when bayonets were used in the Peninsula Campaign was at the battle of Roncesvalles on 25 July 1813 as described by Captain Tovey of the 2oth Foot.

'The division had been expecting an attack that morning and the twentieth were lying in column by their arms. It was daylight however, when a german Sergeant form the Brunswick Corps, who had been out in front, came in haste to tell us that the French had made the Spainish piquet prisoner without firing a shot. The left wing of the Twentieth were moved instantly to form on some strong ground in the direction they were coming, and while doing so the enemy light troops opened so galling a fire that Major Ross, who was on the spot called for a company to go in front and drive them off. Without waiting for further orders, I pushed out with mine, and in close order and double quick march cleared away the skirmishers from a sort of plateau to our front. They did not wait for us, and, on reaching the opposite side, we came so suddenly on the head of the enemy's infantry column, who had just gained a footing on the summit of the hill , that the men of my comany absolutely paused in astonishment, for we were face to face with them, and the French officers called on us 'to disarm; I repeated 'Bayonet Away!', and rushing headlong among them, we fairly turned them back into the descent of the hill; and such was the panic and confusion occassioned amongst them by our sudden onset that our small party, for such it was compared to the French had time to regain the regiment. The enemy had many killed and their leading officer fell at my feet with two others, all bayonetted. The company, with which I was the only officer present on this occasison, did not amount to more than seventy or eighty men, and we had eleven killed and fourteen wounded....a powerful man by the name of Budworth returned with only the blood-soiled socket of his bayonet on his piece; and he declared that he had killed away until his bayonet broke; I am confident, from the reckless and intrepid nature of the man, that he had done so.

Extract from 'Wellington's Army' by Glover.

[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.