How to use all Gunpowder army?

[Chipp]

I've thought about using all gunpowder armies. Ie. Canons, Muskets..etc.. but I could never think of how to use them effectively. How do you do it?

[Roshak]

All gunpowder I do not believe would work because of one thing: cavalry

You need to have at least some cavalry of your own and probably some units to fend off the melee fighters of the enemy. Essentially you can't really go all gunpowder unless you have a really good general.

[UhOhIt'sAnArrow]

What I would do... hm...

Ok men! . . . Fire! (no one dies) Ah screw it! CHHHARRGE!

*1 Minute Later*


RREEEETTTREEEAAAT

[Confederate Soldier]

I would think that the Holy Roman Empire's gunpowder cavalry (cant remember the name) would be able to take out the melee army of your foe by shooting, and then running away, and when need be they are able to charge in. Or just play as Portugal, there special musket man seem to be able to handle there own in close quarter combat. In the end though you will still find it hard to win. (If I remember correctly) The armor being made was bullet proof, and once a bullet was made that could penetrate the armor, a new armor was made that could withstand the shot. Eventually though they gave up, and gave in to the power of the gun.

[cincybearsfan]

(If I remember correctly) The armor being made was bullet proof, and once a bullet was made that could penetrate the armor, a new armor was made that could withstand the shot. Eventually though they gave up, and gave in to the power of the gun.

You are correct. The English Civil war was a good example of this. Heavy plate armour could resist gunfire, but it was very hot, expensive, and limited a person's range of motion (particularly if you fell off your horse). The armour became lighter as the war(s) progressed as pikemen trumped cavalry and musketeers crushed pikemen. This was 100yrs after the end of M2TW.

Further, these problems became even greater when one considers that you would need to be on a horse to use such heavy armour, and the horse could be shot out from underneath you if it was not similarly protected.

There are limitations on how much armour a person can wear, while the price goes up, and eventually gun technology exceeded what was possible for blacksmiths to compete with.

In short, an all gunpowder army should not be a good thing in the game as the technology was not mature enough to be that dominant until after the Battle of Wien 1683.

[trench]

What I would do... hm...

Ok men! . . . Fire! (no one dies) Ah screw it! CHHHARRGE!

*1 Minute Later*


RREEEETTTREEEAAAT

ROFL!

[Town Watch]

those goddam camel musketeers...

[Lumberjack]

pure gunpowder would be more expensive and not nearly effective as a good mix.

A gunpowder based army could consist of mostly muskets and pikemen, 2 units of heavy infantry to protect the flanks, some cavalry, and 1-2 cannons.

[Request a new user name]

For the Moors three cannons set to grazing shots, that is normal fire.

Four Camel Gunners, two on each flank.

Equal number of Hand Gunners and Sudanese Gunners.

Have the Sudanese gunners in front of the Hand Gunners on skirmish mode in three lines.

Hand Gunners in four lines with Skirmish off.

Cannons engage from long range and hopefully kills the General. As the enemy advances, they are engaged by Sudanese gunners who either get two volleys if facing cavalry or six volleys if Infantry. They retreat behind the Hand Gunners who volley once or twice and then engage in melee.

Your Camels then work around to the rear and the Sudanese to the flanks with your cannons working the middle if you can stomach some friendly fire.

Enemy panics and dies.

[Seleucus I Nicator]

The Turkish Janisarry muskeeters are great. They can fight in well in melee aswell. So you could have an army full of those. But when it comes to the average faction, an all gunpowder army is not a good idea. You simply need some decent melee cavalry and/or melee units to fend off enemy cavalry.

[hungry_hungary]

i think corssack muskets and janissary muskets are decent in mellee
or a full stack of reiters or camel gunners should work
corssack muskets are really useful for the russian meat wall tatic
although expensive to train they are cheapish to upkeep

[Oploc]

Cannons with a spearwall in frount, cav to flank. i don't use muskets much.

[Grey Bahamut]

Well, the thing is, no-one in history really used all gunpowder armies. You've got to have at least some cavalry, if only to counter enemy cavalry, because a charge from dedicated melee troops will go right through a line of musketeers and cannon. Probably the best thing to to would be to take some pikemen to support your muskets in the centre, and a strong cavalry force on each flank. Good luck!

[captainbloodloss]

Produce armies with a 1 to 1 ratio of melee troops to musket troops. Then, place them in a checkerboard pattern so that the muskteers are directly in front of the spaces in the melee line. This way they can easily retreat when the enemy gets close.

Note: One can change the ratio to whatever is available/desired but the pattern remains the same.

Note No.2: Also, do not get discouraged when you do not cause many casualties. Gunpowder units traditionally did not cause heavy losses until even the rifle. Most deaths until the Civil War were the result of bayonet or cannon attack. The musket of the period was intimidating and that is what mattered, the effect on morale.

[Kahn]

Produce armies with a 1 to 1 ratio of melee troops to musket troops. Then, place them in a checkerboard pattern so that the muskteers are directly in front of the spaces in the melee line. This way they can easily retreat when the enemy gets close.

I'm having trouble picturing this formation. Could somebody maybe put up a drawing or a screenshot to better illustrate?

[General_Genocide]

I'm having trouble picturing this formation. Could somebody maybe put up a drawing or a screenshot to better illustrate?

I think he means something like this:

- = infantry
_ = musket

-_-_-_-_-_-_-

or reverse the - and the _ roles

I think having:

3 of the best cannons you can produce

10 units of muskets

7 of your best calvary or spearmen would maybe work.

but like others said you're better off getting a mixed army

[Metellus]

Well you deploy your infantry in squares with gaps in them (imagine the first row on a chessboard but only the black squares are units, the white ones are gaps. Then the second row you deploy your musketeers, but also on the "black squares". Because chessboards alternate black and white squares with every successive row, your musketeers are deployed in front of the gaps in the first row, and your infantry have gaps in front of them (the gaps between the musketeers. Now when you need to get your musketeers out of harms way, they withdraw through the gaps in the infantry line behind them.

[Kahn]

I see.

But then when your musketeers withdraw, you're left with your infantry in square formation and gaps through which the advancing enemy could, in theory, break through and surround your front line men.

Is that just "the way of things" and it's up to the player to try to get them in proper formation as quickly as possible before the enemy gets to them? At this point I can picture the layout, but I can't really see the benefits of the quick musketeer retreat outweighing the cons of the "quick, get in formation" infantry scuffle afterwards.

[Metellus]

Well I must admit I'd see this formation has more use in RTW if you're playing Rome and you are using Legions and missile troops (archers, velites etc) and you are playing against an opponent with phalanxes. There it would work because once the missile troops have retreated, you are saving half of your legions that are not engaged; the other half are engaging the phalanxes but only at specific points. But then again the phalanxes would have to be deployed in a wide formation for that to work.

Anyway in M2TW it may work as well because the enemy is advancing on you and as he hits your men and goes into the gaps, his formations will thin out, and be subjected to penalties because now the units in the gaps have enemies on their flanks. Dunno if that same penalty would apply to you though. It would be a nice theory to test in a custom battle though, comparing the chessboard formation with simply deploying your missile troops in an unbroken line in front, and your infantry in an unbroken line behind.

[DrwHem]

ive taken down 4 regiments of sergeant spear men and 3 catapults with one reiter unit before. you circle the enemy and eventually the firing will cause them to rout pretty soon and you kill the ones that rout and return to the others.