Russian line infantry VERY weak

[Love, America]

Why do both Russian Cossacks and line infantry have 35 accuracy? That is terrible...I fought an army from Dagastan (a minor faction) and their line infantry had 45 accuracy. I mean seriously. Its embarrassing.

Why can't Mother Russia train her sons to aim before she gives them little hats and marches them off into the horizon?

If they are going to be that poor at aiming, they should have a massive unit number bonus, or be dirt cheap.

[Chevalier IX]

Russia was notorious all throughout this era right through to the Crimea and beyond for not being very good shots,which mattered little to their generals,who still very much prescribed to the cult of the bayonet,or the doctrines of cold steel.they as a whole felt that the shot itself was of the same value as the roman pila,a good way to soften up the enemy before coming to grips with the charge.You did not really see them all that interesed in prolonged musketry duels

[Kolaris8472]

As Ikusa says, but I also agree that Russia should share the + sized Line Infantry bonus with Austria.

[IndoPruss]

Marshall Suvorov said that bullet is a fool while bayonet is a friend. So that answered why the Russian got poor accuracy.

[Ahiga]

Good points, but I'd hope then that the Russians received a melee bonus, which I don't know if it exists but my expectation is that it wouldn't.

[Ataraxie]

There's also the issue that Russian armies have always been, and still mostly are, peasant conscripts. These aren't the trained 'volunteers' of Britain and other assorted major powers, these are peasants, levied en masse, given the boomstick and a funny hat and sent forth to die in the name of the Czar.

I agree though, in game terms, some sort of noticeable size bonus would be appropriate for realism, as a General's enthusiasm for getting up close with the stabbing end of the musket often didn't filter down to his infantry.

That aside - doesn't it make it more challenging for the player if your infantry is ultra-accurate (see:rubbish) ?
I'm also presuming (since I've not played them yet), that the Russians get the same expensive guards units as the rest of the Major factions ?

[Aleksei Raukov]

There's also the issue that Russian armies have always been, and still mostly are, peasant conscripts. These aren't the trained 'volunteers' of Britain and other assorted major powers, these are peasants, levied en masse, given the boomstick and a funny hat and sent forth to die in the name of the Czar.

I agree though, in game terms, some sort of noticeable size bonus would be appropriate for realism, as a General's enthusiasm for getting up close with the stabbing end of the musket often didn't filter down to his infantry.

That aside - doesn't it make it more challenging for the player if your infantry is ultra-accurate (see:rubbish) ?
I'm also presuming (since I've not played them yet), that the Russians get the same expensive guards units as the rest of the Major factions ?

Actually did you know life in army lasted 25 years for russian soldier that time. They were not just some levied peasant that were send back to tend fields between wars. They were drilled and trained just good as in other european armies (after reforms of Peter the Great ofc). Russian doctorine in time thou put much more emphasize on bayonet charge and cold steel. Which is why their performance in shooting was not above average. Their emphazise on bayonets also payed off many times. Example Battle of Gross-Jägersdorf in Seven Years' War demonstrated that the Prussians were not capable of prolonged bayonet fighting againts Russians. Which the Russians would exploit to great advantage in battles to come. So I could really like to see some minor melee and morale bonus for russian line infantry on cost of their accuracy. Also if I remember correct France example had greater population than Russia. Russians not always had some numeriacal superior zerg army that some believe. Napoleons Grand Armee was much larger than any Russian armies at start of his invasion.

The russian streczly have to be some of the best loooking trops. too bad they really suck.

Streltsy actually used muskets along side their berdiche axes. Its strange that they dont have them in game. Even their name means shooters.

[Love, America]

Marshall Suvorov said that bullet is a fool while bayonet is a friend. So that answered why the Russian got poor accuracy.

Great quote. Where did you find that?

Russia was notorious all throughout this era right through to the Crimea and beyond for not being very good shots,which mattered little to their generals,who still very much prescribed to the cult of the bayonet,or the doctrines of cold steel.they as a whole felt that the shot itself was of the same value as the roman pila,a good way to soften up the enemy before coming to grips with the charge.You did not really see them all that interesed in prolonged musketry duels

If thats true then why are they not better at melee? Cossacks have 6 melee attack and 7 or 8 defense. That is absolutely horrible. I thought Cossacks were supposed to be tough-as-nails steppe folk.

[Bocah_Bali]

Great quote. Where did you find that?

Ingame loading screen will display random quotes. That was one of them

[IndoPruss]

Ingame loading screen will display random quotes. That was one of them

In fact I haven't read the full game quotes yet. I just found the quote when I read Marshall Suvorov article in Wikipedia.

Reading your username I suspect you're Indonesian like me.

[Xugaa]

If thats true then why are they not better at melee? Cossacks have 6 melee attack and 7 or 8 defense. That is absolutely horrible. I thought Cossacks were supposed to be tough-as-nails steppe folk.

Russia's peasants still make for awful soldiers, they just rely on melee more - but that doesn't make them any good at it

[Praetor_Navalis]

I think this poor stats for russian regular infantry is ok, but only for early period (1700~1710 maybe). In this time russian army just born, gain expierience and fight hard. Interesting that Peter I calling the Swedes "Teachers" for Russian army.

[Yojimbo]

Marshall Suvorov said that bullet is a fool while bayonet is a friend. So that answered why the Russian got poor accuracy.

"the bullet is a fool, the bayonet is our comrade!"

And i just checked they have worse melee attack than most so russian troops just suck but training would have been nonexistant so its no suprise. They should be cheaper tho and they arent. Then you coudl use the classic russian tatic of just sending in waves of useless troops to die for the motherland.

[MrMT]

"the bullet is a fool, the bayonet is our comrade!"

And i just checked they have worse melee attack than most so russian troops just suck but training would have been nonexistant so its no suprise. They should be cheaper tho and they arent. Then you coudl use the classic russian tatic of just sending in waves of useless troops to die for the motherland.

What they have instead is a sea of territory. Geography was mother russia's great advantage.

[eatme]

"the bullet is a fool, the bayonet is our comrade!"

And i just checked they have worse melee attack than most so russian troops just suck but training would have been nonexistant so its no suprise. They should be cheaper tho and they arent. Then you coudl use the classic russian tatic of just sending in waves of useless troops to die for the motherland.

May be it is true from historical accuracy perspective, but in terms of unit balancing I don't understand this. One of major power line infantry is made suckass, and what compensates for this ?

[underworld965]

"the bullet is a fool, the bayonet is our comrade!"

And i just checked they have worse melee attack than most so russian troops just suck but training would have been nonexistant so its no suprise. They should be cheaper tho and they arent. Then you coudl use the classic russian tatic of just sending in waves of useless troops to die for the motherland.

The bullet is a fool, the bayonet is a fine chap

[InfUA]

Marshall Suvorov said that bullet is a fool while bayonet is a friend. So that answered why the Russian got poor accuracy.

He also said that before shoot a soldier had to aim correctly.
Most armies didnt aim at all, they mass shoot in a direction of a enemy.
So not accuracy, time to shoot should be lower then by prussians, but melee stronger. Thats only for Suvorovs troops.
So argument with accuracy and Suvorov is very wrong.


And if you compare a existed russian line infantry and non existed dagestan line infantry how could you come to conclusion that existed troops should have worser accuracy? Line infantry in 18 century means standing army, dagestan never had.

There's also the issue that Russian armies have always been, and still mostly are, peasant conscripts. These aren't the trained 'volunteers' of Britain and other assorted major powers, these are peasants, levied en masse, given the boomstick and a funny hat and sent forth to die in the name of the Czar.

In 18 century all european real major powers had a standing army, russia too.
Also prussians and english didnt use volunteers in the line infantry. Prussia and also in Britain (all britisch sailors were hunted that way) often forced soldiers to join the army with violence, army commandos hunted people in cities.
On the other hand Britain used german mercenaries, that were not personally interested in british wars, thats way they never could fight as americans but only in line forced by lash, so british lost the colonies.

I'm also presuming (since I've not played them yet), that the Russians get the same expensive guards units as the rest of the Major factions ?

In this century most battles and wars were won by russia.

[BlackAkula]

Marshall Suvorov said that bullet is a fool while bayonet is a friend. So that answered why the Russian got poor accuracy.

Well, don't just say it like that.

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/a...g.html#menning

... Less well understood than outright emphasis on cold steel was the degree to which Suvorov also viewed a disciplined resort to fire as an imposition of will. Withholding fire could be more unnerving to the adversary than firing a volley without appreciable effect, which he found only "emboldened the barbarians" who then closed for the kill while Russian soldiers were reloading. When Suvorov's soldiers resorted to bullets, the fire of individuals and formations had to be mutually reinforcing. It also had to be accurate: there was no discharging of weapons with the vague peasant hope that "the bullets would find the guilty ones."23 Suvorov trained each small unit to designate several sharpshooters, whose task it was to fire at will on advancing enemy horsemen and officers. Lest anyone think that Suvorov failed to emphasize the importance of firepower, he ordered his soldiers to carry 100 cartridges each into their engagements in the south steppe. For the eighteenth century, this was a high basic load of ammunition. It was also Suvorov—the commander usually credited with emphasizing the bayonet over the bullet—who said, "Infantry fire leads to victory."24 ...

It's not that the bayonet was promoted, and therofore automaticly the accuracy in shooting neglected , in the case of Suvorov.

[persianfan247]

Russia was notorious all throughout this era right through to the Crimea and beyond for not being very good shots,which mattered little to their generals,who still very much prescribed to the cult of the bayonet,or the doctrines of cold steel.they as a whole felt that the shot itself was of the same value as the roman pila,a good way to soften up the enemy before coming to grips with the charge.You did not really see them all that interesed in prolonged musketry duels

This book I read on Russian Military history says otherwise.

[Ataraxie]

Napoleons Grand Armee was much larger than any Russian armies at start of his invasion

....They were conscripts mostly aswel.
Not a lot of people realise that the French army has also been a mostly conscripty-composed force for most of it's history. Had generally better officers than their foes though, which helped, especially Post-Revolution.

Actually did you know life in army lasted 25 years for russian soldier that time. They were not just some levied peasant that were send back to tend fields between wars.

The entire Russian army wasn't, and isn't, [they use modern fixed-term conscription now], they'd have gone out of business in six months. If I remember correctly, there were Guards and some 'core' line regiments that served fixed terms, and then an officer cadre that would form the hardcore of the peasant-levies in the event of a proper war. It's a sensible system, but as Napoleon, and well, everyone who has invaded Russia has shown, it's no good when your opponent has a proper standing army.

This book I read on Russian Military history says otherwise.

Battles agree with the theory of "the cult of cold steel". Even against machine guns in later wars, the main aim of the Russian general was to get his men in close with something sharp and vaguely pointed.