poll: how cheap/exploitative is your army (or how many rifles do you use)?

[aletoledo]

I've been one of those rare players that refused to use rifles on principle. They weren't really common during the time period and certainly never composed half of a fielded army. I've played the game up until now trying to reproduce historical tactics, most of the time with a majority of line units, with a small showing of light and grenadier/guard units.

I've played hundreds of hours this way and I can give a challenge to just about anything that comes up against me in no rules games. However, I can only rarely beat the 5+ rifle unit armies. If there is an average or new player, I can sometimes pull out a victory against these heavy rifle builds, but it's mostly since these players have never seen my style of playing.

The past week I've joined the dark side. I've started to use 4 rifles in some of my builds and it's like night and day. The game is so much more relaxed for me now with this long range buffer that rifles provide. Even artillery doesn't give this type of protection against other rifle armies. 90 range light infantry can't even compare as well. Yes, there are tactics (e.g. meat shield) to fight and win against rifles, but the coordination required places a handicap on you when facing 5+ rifle armies.

I know that there are a few players that like these alternate tactics and will answer my poll with 0 rifles, but I'm wondering about how many people this really is. Am I wrong for feeling like I'm exploiting the spirit of this game by taking the low road?

[Valkierei]

don't bother with rifles. they reload too slowly. 0!

[average650]

I don't see it as cheap. That's the way the game was made; historical inaccuracy doesn't make it cheap. You could say thatCA should have made it different but if you really think rifles are innaccurate, then you can play early, which provides it's own unique challenges and differences

even something like 8 rifles isn't cheap because it's a lot easier to beat an 8 rifles army than it is a 4 rifle army. It is less fun though

[Spectre11B]

I don't really see it as the dark side. You're adding experience to your game. I've tried hundreds of combinations and each one has its own challenges. However, on average, I win most of my games with balanced builds.

Honestly, I rarely lose to someone who brings an imbalanced army, assuming I didn't bring one myself. The moment that I notice an imbalance in an army, my entire tactic changes to exploit that weakness.

3-5 rifles is generally good enough to counter someone with a range advantage.

[TheAussieDigger]

im usually between 3 and 5
although i often split between rifles and lights especially as someone like spain

[(SS)Yogi]

i used to use like 5-6 rifles at first and now i bring 2 at most i try and only bring light. I am currently trying to use syberian hunters. i mostly just want they to soak up the rifles first volley so i can push up my line

[Venset]

As a Maratha player I never use rifles

However If I ever play a European faction (which I hardly ever do) I might bring a couple or so but that's only because I'm testing out how these armies work, so I can identify what to expect. I will most likely end up with an European army with no rifles anyway.

It may put me at a disadvantage but then the victory tastes ever more sweet, and personally I just don't like rifles for some reason even though I love bolt action rifles on first person shooter games. I think It's because they don't fit my play style. I barely have enough patience waiting for a whole line infantry unit to reload anyway lol.

BTW: Why won't It let me vote on the poll? It says "Voters: 8. You may not vote on this poll"

[Keiichi]

I usually would bring 3 rifles and 1 light inf, but due to price changes since the most recent patch I'm experimenting with 4 rifles and 1 light inf on wide open maps (i.e. grassy flatland). I'm mostly playing Homestead now though, and for that I bring 2 rifles and 2 light inf.

BTW: Why won't It let me vote on the poll? It says "Voters: 8. You may not vote on this poll"

Perhaps you need more posts?

[eleftherios]

On medium funds i play as Austria with the following setup in no rules games:
6x Grengers (90 range)
6x Carabineers
4 x Line Infantry
1 General Bodyguard

I use one of my grengers as a meat shield and then i approach and deal with the foe without significant problems since, even if he withdraw his rifles behind his Line I can charge them with my numerous light cavalry to cause mass rout.

[Yojimbo]

3 Frei Korps 2 guard du corps/2nd hussars 2-3 life guard 1 general and some superior line inf is my ten unit army. Usually no arty as i find it a waste of time.

[Asymmetric]

With NTW release in bound I've been playing as France a lot.

I rarely ever use 125 range units. I wip out a pair of WBJ if I'm playing as Austria, which isn't common, but thats it. It's not that I think they aren't effective, nor do I believe they are too effective either, my playstyle is just to aggressive for me to get much reliable use out of rifles.

In fact the only armies I really ever play where I use any skirmishers is Natives and Austria.

[ccqwert7]

I don't think 6 rifles is explotive

Even on flatlands

[The_Valiant]

I use only about 3-4 rifles. Occasionaly 5. I found this is good enough for basic screening. I try to rely on a more line oriented army, with 5-6 line infantry, 3 guards, and 3-4 rifles, along with some light cav. Thats it. It gives you flexibility to skirmish and ambush or fight a line-volley-melee battle.

[LiN]

I got 20 rifles... PER SOLDIER. In total i have...i dunno... a lot.

[ottomanfan]

i only allow 1 rifle unit or sometimes no rifle units in the games i host.... they turn the game into a boring rifle shootout and totally unhistorical in the way they have so much influence over the game....

[Yojimbo]

i only allow 1 rifle unit or sometimes no rifle units in the games i host.... they turn the game into a boring rifle shootout and totally unhistorical in the way they have so much influence over the game....

If you have to limit a game to the units you can beat you must not be very good.

[average650]

If you have to limit a game to the units you can beat you must not be very good.

He didn't say he couldn't beat them. He said it was unhistorical and boring.

[ottomanfan]

If you have to limit a game to the units you can beat you must not be very good.

dumb comment!

[Haas]

dumb comment!

+1

[The Spaniard]

One guy I played set rules limiting light infantry to 3 maximum, he then proceeds to bring 3 units of ferguson rifle men followed up by two units of rogers rangers and fusiliers. Would this be considered cheating?