Fire for effect!

[Sir. Cunningham]

One thing that annoys me abit about this game is the extremely nerfed lethality of volley fre compared to real life. In short; when a line of 40 men fire off their muskets at another line of 40 men at 70yards then I expect to see atleast 25-30 casualties on the recieving end, not just 10 to 15. Even at 100y a musket has a 90% reliability of hitting a chest sized target, so at 70y each man should be perfectly capable of hitting his target with a high degree certainty, not taking into account the stress in combat ofcourse. Taking stress in combat into account I'd expect atleast 55 to 65% of the rounds to hit home, which means roughly 25-30 casualties for one volley by 40 muskets.

As described in actual real life accounts, volley fire, even at 150y was devastating to the recieving end. So CA badly needs to fix this IMO.

[The_Dude]

no, its fine the way it is. i dont want my battles to be over in <10min.

[Zyfe]

no, its fine the way it is. i dont want my battles to be over in <10min.

I agree with this.

The reason for the lowered casualties is battle longevity.

I don't want to play battles that are over in seconds.

[centurie]

no, its fine the way it is. i dont want my battles to be over in <10min.

yes you are 100% right..company of heroes haas the same thing ,you shoot for ages untill they die......one shot one kill mods killed the gameplay.....if what this guy suggests did happen then we would see a whole line fall in two or three vollies.....whats the fun in that.

[Frost, colonel]

no, its fine the way it is. i dont want my battles to be over in <10min.

Agreed, the damage my 160 strong units inflict with fire by rank looks fine.
I want to see units plugging away at each other for a while.

I wonder if the game is optimized for a certain unit size?

[MrOsterman]

Alright I'm going to grant something here:

At point blank range, muskets should do more damage to a company then they are for "realism"'s sake.

HOWEVER

If you want me to play a mod that ups the damage to those realisitc levels then you need the following changes:

1) My company captians are to REFUSE to advance past maxium range unless a Colonel or General is standing next to them.

2) All of my men start firing once the enemy moves in past 75% of maximum range. They don't stand in back but they start to cram forward, fire over shoulders and start to pour on the hot lead any way they can.

3) Attacking units have their morale rates plumment every 5% incriment of maximum range they march through. Only during a bayonet Rush is not changed. This is to reflect the serious hit to morale caused by advancing when they should be firing.

4) My line officers are likely make adjustments without my input while on the field.

Realistically speaking these point blank volleys taht decimate the lines just didn't happen in history because officers wanted their men to live. If you want to march your regiments blindly into meat grinders so you can see lots of guys drop, you can deal with the results of that foolhardiness.

Personally? I say leave it all where it is because it does the best job of giving me a fun, realistic battle without me dealing with all the twists that reality has.

Mr O

[MrMud]

Alright I'm going to grant something here:

At point blank range, muskets should do more damage to a company then they are for "realism"'s sake.

HOWEVER

If you want me to play a mod that ups the damage to those realisitc levels then you need the following changes:

1) My company captians are to REFUSE to advance past maxium range unless a Colonel or General is standing next to them.

2) All of my men start firing once the enemy moves in past 75% of maximum range. They don't stand in back but they start to cram forward, fire over shoulders and start to pour on the hot lead any way they can.

3) Attacking units have their morale rates plumment every 5% incriment of maximum range they march through. Only during a bayonet Rush is not changed. This is to reflect the serious hit to morale caused by advancing when they should be firing.

4) My line officers are likely make adjustments without my input while on the field.

Realistically speaking these point blank volleys taht decimate the lines just didn't happen in history because officers wanted their men to live. If you want to march your regiments blindly into meat grinders so you can see lots of guys drop, you can deal with the results of that foolhardiness.

Personally? I say leave it all where it is because it does the best job of giving me a fun, realistic battle without me dealing with all the twists that reality has.

Mr O

Comparatively speaking im not a big history buff but I believe that there is some leeway in how things were done during this time period.
Looking at the swedish army during the early 18th century its method of fighting involved breaking the morale of the enemy by not firing until they were very close. The swedes would advance until they were about 30 meters from the enemy lines, fire and then charge with bayonettes.

The source for this is the swedish national army museum in Stockholm.

[Remo]

One thing that annoys me abit about this game is the extremely nerfed lethality of volley fre compared to real life. In short; when a line of 40 men fire off their muskets at another line of 40 men at 70yards then I expect to see atleast 25-30 casualties on the recieving end, not just 10 to 15. Even at 100y a musket has a 90% reliability of hitting a chest sized target, so at 70y each man should be perfectly capable of hitting his target with a high degree certainty, not taking into account the stress in combat ofcourse. Taking stress in combat into account I'd expect atleast 55 to 65% of the rounds to hit home, which means roughly 25-30 casualties for one volley by 40 muskets.

As described in actual real life accounts, volley fire, even at 150y was devastating to the recieving end. So CA badly needs to fix this IMO.

I think casualties need to be raised SLIGHTLY. Vurrently when like 30 or so fire on another 30 or so men, maybe 8 f them die. It needs to be around 14 or so.

[Feudal Knight]

With the way morale works though, you'd never get units in range to go into melee. I think it is fine the way it is, there needs to be a balance even if it is not historical. Bear in mind our armies can be quite small, so 320 men on each side would be over in about 15 seconds.

[Sir. Cunningham]

I think casualties need to be raised SLIGHTLY. Vurrently when like 30 or so fire on another 30 or so men, maybe 8 f them die. It needs to be around 14 or so.

Actually I can agree with that.

In a 120 man group lined up to 3 rows (They'll only fire 3 ranks deep) you've got 40 men firing at a time, so I'd like to see atleast 20 casualties then at 70yards for each volley. That means 3 times 40 gun volleys should usually create around 55 to 60 casualties, which sounds pretty realistic.

[Dgirth12]

One thing that annoys me abit about this game is the extremely nerfed lethality of volley fre compared to real life. In short; when a line of 40 men fire off their muskets at another line of 40 men at 70yards then I expect to see atleast 25-30 casualties on the recieving end, not just 10 to 15. Even at 100y a musket has a 90% reliability of hitting a chest sized target, so at 70y each man should be perfectly capable of hitting his target with a high degree certainty, not taking into account the stress in combat ofcourse. Taking stress in combat into account I'd expect atleast 55 to 65% of the rounds to hit home, which means roughly 25-30 casualties for one volley by 40 muskets.

As described in actual real life accounts, volley fire, even at 150y was devastating to the recieving end. So CA badly needs to fix this IMO.

Trouble is, ETW has to be a game before being historicly accurate, Its about balancing.

[Sylver]

CA doesn't need to fix anything. That would make battles way too short. It's down to modders if they want to increase lethality. But hopefully only at short ranges.

[R4nd0M]

I'd actually prefer a greater morale hit from a volley of fire (especially if delivered very rapidly) to a unit. I don't quite like line infantry being shot down to 60 men out of 160 and only then routing.

[Diocletian]

I think musket volleys are devastating enough as it is. The battles are well balanced because of it.

[Sir. Cunningham]

15 secs and its all over ? Come on, talk about overreacting. A battle can easily take up to 30 or 45 min now, and doubling casualties to volley fire wouldn't even halvate that time. It would on the other hand but make the game more interesting, making you think more about map contours and positioning your troops right, and not making your men just charge straight into a line of infantry, just like you wouldnt have them do in real life.

At the current moment you'd but need your 90 strong group of feudal knights from MTW2 to defeat a 120 man line infantry group of ETW. Simply charge them to get in close and slaughter the helpless musketeers. It's ridiculous. Try that in real life and you'd have 90% of the knights killed before they got within 20yards of the line infantry.

Furthermore total war has AFAIK usually been about keeping it as historically correct as possible, it even having been used to demonstrate various historical battles on television documentaries.

I play this game to play a realistic strategy game, not just some other arcade crap.

[Phier]

At the current moment you'd but need your 90 strong group of feudal knights from MTW2 to defeat a 120 man line infantry group of ETW. Simply charge them to get in close and slaughter the helpless musketeers. It's ridiculous. Try that in real life and you'd have 90% of the knights killed before they got within 20yards of the line infantry.

I have the same feeling playing.

'Why are they using guns? They need to use swords and shields, much more effective.'

I'm with you on this, its also why taking a fort is such a joke too.

[Wyrdlight]

One thing that annoys me abit about this game is the extremely nerfed lethality of volley fre compared to real life. In short; when a line of 40 men fire off their muskets at another line of 40 men at 70yards then I expect to see atleast 25-30 casualties on the recieving end, not just 10 to 15. Even at 100y a musket has a 90% reliability of hitting a chest sized target, so at 70y each man should be perfectly capable of hitting his target with a high degree certainty, not taking into account the stress in combat ofcourse. Taking stress in combat into account I'd expect atleast 55 to 65% of the rounds to hit home, which means roughly 25-30 casualties for one volley by 40 muskets.

As described in actual real life accounts, volley fire, even at 150y was devastating to the recieving end. So CA badly needs to fix this IMO.

No.

The hit rate at 70-100 yards from English volley fire in the Pennisnsular war was 10%.

1 in ten shots would hit.

I agree than the fire shouls be better at real close range and not as good at longer ranges, that needs tweaking a bit.

[Sir. Cunningham]

No.

The hit rate at 70-100 yards from English volley fire in the Pennisnsular war was 10%.

1 in ten shots would hit.

I agree than the fire shouls be better at real close range and not as good at longer ranges, that needs tweaking a bit.

Then the Preussians were 5 times as good, achieving 39% hits at 120m. Sounds improbable.

[Wyrdlight]

Then the Preussians were 5 times as good, achieving 39% hits at 120m. Sounds improbable.

the dif between 10% and 39% is not 5 times better.

120 meteres is way way longer than 70 yards, almost 2 times the distence.
I dont see you getting a 39% hit rate at that massive distence.

[Homeros]

Let's make things clear about the muskets during the 18th century. They were basically identical. The most famous one, the Brown Bess (and her continental sisters) were reproduced an estimated 7.8 mln times. To be more precise, every foot soldier in Europe could have taken the Brown Bess into his arms without a significant change in his shooting.
The BB was a sidelock .78 caliber piece. The key to BB's tactical capabilities was found in the .73 caliber lead ball it fired. While the .05-inch space, or 'windage', between ball and barrel was crucial to fast loading (the ball could simply be dropped down the muzzle). It severly limited the gun's accuracy. When Bess was fired, the ball rattled up the barrel, its final direction determined by the last side it hit before emerging. At very short ranges this deflection had only a minor effect. It was possible to hit a foot-square target at 40 yards almost every time. Beyond this range results deteriorated very quickly. Colonel George Hanger, a British officer, wrote in 1814 that "as for firing at a man at 200 yards with a common musket, you might just as well fire at the moon.""In very poor visibility", he might have added, since a force of several thousand men shooting volley after volley was sure to generate a smoke cloud sufficient to obscure most every target. It followed that Brown Bess lacked even the most rudimentary sighting devices, and the rate of hits was therefore accordingly low.