Naval and Land Battles

[VOP2288]

Sorry if someone has posted a similar topic or question here before but I don't usually come into the Empire: TW portion of the forum too often these days...

Anyway, I was just thinking...ok, so Empire: TW has the new naval combat bit right? And that's amazingly sweet right? But what will happen with the regular land battles? Have they been improved over the ones of past games? Or will ETW simply be the same (regarding land battles) as M2TW only slightly better in graphics and a few new mechanics?

It would a shame to introduce something as enjoyable, and new to the TW series such as naval warfare but then go skimpy with the next installment land engagements.

[~Beren~]

From what I've read, units can actually garrison buildings on the map. And that cover is an important factor in land battles.

[VOP2288]

True but that would also fall under my bit about "a few new mechanics" are there any real BIG changes to either battlefield AI or structure?

[~Beren~]

At this time, we're not sure yet. We don't have sufficient information regarding any other big improvements/addons.

Although, the AI is said to be better than the previous Total War games...

Let's hope they're right about that.

[Farnan]

True but that would also fall under my bit about "a few new mechanics" are there any real BIG changes to either battlefield AI or structure?

Tactics will heavily emphasize formations, with your ability to choose the right formation at the right time makes the difference between victory and defeat.

[Frost, colonel]

Tactics will heavily emphasize formations, with your ability to choose the right formation at the right time makes the difference between victory and defeat.

Sounds basically like the inf formations are partly the new rock and scissors.
I hope that inf will perphaps have an option for the player to choose auto change formation into a square if enemy cav is about(abit like the retreating option skirmishers have currently). If not then there may have to be alot of careful watching by the player.

The point is to scare the enemy into forming inf squares with your lurking cav, and then unlike the French at Waterloo, bring in inf lines or even better, horse artill firing cannister into massed their targets.

So I am wondering if these new battles will get quite complex regarding the use of combined arms, both from our perspective and the AI's and involving alot of battlefield micro managing? I am basing this on my experiences with the old PC game Waterloo, it was often about looking for a cheeky opertunity.

So all in all, I am interested to see how CA's latest land warfare will shape up.

[Lupu]

I hope for a complex infantry system(like darthmod)
and there formations make huge impact.

[Azog 150]

As people have said, it will be formations that turn the battle.

I have never understood why a square formation would help against cavelry, unless its just to protect the flanks.

[italiano]

involving alot of battlefield micro managing?

I'm hoping they take more of a commander's approach and that we give out general orders but with the unit/group having it's own AI. A bit like Company of Heroes I guess. Give a feeling like you are the top dog and not a god.

I have never understood why a square formation would help against cavelry, unless its just to protect the flanks.

I would think the most important part of it is to give the cavalry channels to run through, a bit like what Scipio did vs the elephants. While they're running through the channels you get a good opportunity to fire back. Just a guess.

[schoenkoenig]

As people have said, it will be formations that turn the battle.

I have never understood why a square formation would help against cavelry, unless its just to protect the flanks.

A square formation works because horses won't charge head-on into a solid, 3-rank wall of bayonets. By forming into a square, infantry negated enemy cavalry the opportunity to flow around to the flanks and rear. Of course, if the men in the square were disordered or wavered, then it wasn't much help. . .

[Samuel Adams]

As people have said, it will be formations that turn the battle.

I have never understood why a square formation would help against cavelry, unless its just to protect the flanks.

Azog-

The British square formation was only one bit of the tool to repel cavalry.

I may be incorrect in the exact details, so if any napoleonic reenactors or historians are here to fix me, go ahead. But here goes:

First the companies would have been ordered into the square (by battalion, if I remember correctly). This makes flanking impossible. howitzers were placed at the corners to fire grape shot into the cavalry (at least at waterloo). The Major in command of the square would have then given the order to fix bayonets. As stated above, horses automatically avoid pointy objects, especially shiny ones. Then as the enemy cavalry approached, the three ranks would fire in volleys. Thus one rank would be firing while one rank reloaded and one primed their flintlocks. Then they'd start reloading, etc...

Hence any horsemen attempting to get in close enough to use saber would be dead before he could close in. The cavalry trying to break the square at the corners (the weakspot of any square) would find a nice batch of grapeshot headed their way.

The result was murderous. However, the square itself was not the only cavalry repellent; at Balaclava in 1854 (?) the Highlanders under Gordon (?) made a thin, thin line and repelled the Russian Cavalry at far range in a single line by firing in volleys.

[Aradiel]

Azog-

The British square formation was only one bit of the tool to repel cavalry.

I may be incorrect in the exact details, so if any napoleonic reenactors or historians are here to fix me, go ahead.

Not quite correct, the square formation was not used by austrians and prussians to my sources. In austrian military a square (usually 3 lines) was not considered strong enough to repell cavalry, so they used the mass formation. The battalion-mass was a closely packed column, one company wide and six companies deep. The mass could manoeuvre, if slowly, either in closed or open order. At Aspern-Essling and at Wagram the battalion-masses withstood repeated charges of Napoleon's heavy cavalry. But these very deep formations were very vulnerable to artillery fire.
Another anti-cavalry formation was division-mass. Two companies broke into 4 half-companies, aligned themselves behind the other, and closed their ranks up to about 3 feet between the half-companies.

The Prussians used a own version of "square" looking like this: (little wider though and closed on the right like the left)

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
ooo ooo
oooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooo
ooo ooo
oooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooo
ooo ooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

[Samuel Adams]

Oh, ok... I was speaking only for the Brits, though. I certainly have knowledge to speak for any other nation's tactics... Thanks for that, though, I didn't know that.

[Farnan]

I hope that instead of the square, Americans will get the option of a looser formation. I don't recall anytime that American troops formed a square (the only battle I can think of that had a significant amount of cavalry was Cowpens, and the American Cavalry trained in the Polish method beat the British) as the terrain did not benefit cavalry.

[Samuel Adams]

It should be a British special ability, really, and maybe Portuguese (as their military in napoleon's time was trained by British officers) later on. Like archers' stakes in MII.

And yes, I hope the Americans get some killer skirmishing ability, since that's what they were good at.

[Aradiel]

It should be a British special ability, really, and maybe Portuguese (as their military in napoleon's time was trained by British officers) later on. Like archers' stakes in MII.

And yes, I hope the Americans get some killer skirmishing ability, since that's what they were good at.

It would be awesome if each faction has its own deployment and special formations, as for skirmishing the austrian could rely on jägers and grenzers, recruited from styrian shooters and mainly croatian settlers, both where experts in unconventional warfare and where the best sharpshooters in the whole army familiar to colonial irregulars.