Light vs. Rifle Infantry

[Ashu-Siralis]

Ok, so theoretically there is an advantage to Light infantry over Rifles. Rifles have lower reload and a higher base reload. But does that actually do anything in battle? Is there an actual scenario where four lights + meat shield could defeat four rifles?

[eXistenZ]

You can play a custom battle and try it

[Magno]

If im not mistaken rifles should have longer range

[Lumina]

If im not mistaken rifles should have longer range

That long range doesn't help too much vs light infantry because of the ambush option, which dramatically decreased rifles effectiveness vs other light infantry regiments types, though the detection range for light infantry vs other light infantry trying ot ambush is high, it's well within the 125 range of rifles giving just a short rush with normal lights to get within range to fight back, once the shooting starts a cheaper more experianced vet up unit will deal more hurt, I mean I pushed back US Long Riflemen with basic Prussian Light Infantry in one multiplayer battle by a ambush rush, once their rifles lost their range advantage it was a pretty fair fight.

The only really good rifle regiments which are worth having over normal light infantry are really the high rate of fire ones which give them a rate of fire advantage combined with range advantage. In fact sometimes I'd rather have gurrellas than Rifles because of their ability to stay hidden when moving, great for ambushing.

Give it though, rifles are more idiot proof units, spam them enough nonthing can stop them but perhaps a good melee charge at the right time when someone isn't paying attention, they can't fight if they can't stop running to avoid a melee charge, not like they can shoot while running. Worked once when before Austrian Jaegers were nerfed to 90 range, they were murdering my allies I just waited in the woods fixed plug bayonets until I saw his right flank moving thinking he was focusing over there on his screen then ordered a charge and took out his entire left flank mostly of jaegers and just two line infantry. lol

[Didz]

In multi-player gameplay terms rate of fire is far more important than range, because the game itself is incapable of modelling the use of rifles or skirmishing tactic's correctly, and the unhistorical potential for melee fighting actually overrides everythng anyway.

[Didz]

Ok, so theoretically there is an advantage to Light infantry over Rifles. Rifles have lower reload and a higher base reload. But does that actually do anything in battle? Is there an actual scenario where four lights + meat shield could defeat four rifles?

There is a fundemental flaw in your logic.

First of all a Rifle is only slower to load than a musket if the rifle is being loaded to fire as a rifle. If the light infantry are close enough to engage the riflemen then the riflemen no longer need to load their rifles so the ball takes the rifling and so can fire just as fast as the light infantry.

Secondly, when the riflemen are loading so as to engage the rifling on their wepaons, although it takes longer they have the definate advantage in that the light infantry with their muskets don't stand much chance of hitting them no matter how fast they load.

So, in theory the riflemen should always win, either because they can pick of the light infantry without any risk to themselves or because if the light infantry do manage to get close enough to use their muskets then they should have lost enough men to give the riflemen a numeric advantage and everything is still equal as far as loading speed in concerned.

[daniu]

There is a fundemental flaw in your logic.

First of all a Rifle is only slower to load than a musket if the rifle is being loaded to fire as a rifle. If the light infantry are close enough to engage the riflemen then the riflemen no longer need to load their rifles so the ball takes the rifling and so can fire just as fast as the light infantry.

I'm not sure whether it was possible in history to load a rifle as you did a musket (i.e., without the ball taking the rifling), but I would imagine it would ruin the rifling to fire a rifle if loaded like this (I'm pretty sure you'd ruin your modern 7.65 caliber when firing a 7.62 round with it).

Anyway, even if it was possible, in game there is only one type of weapon loading for each unit type; that means the reload time does not decrease with the enemy closing in.

[Didz]

I'm not sure whether it was possible in history to load a rifle as you did a musket (i.e., without the ball taking the rifling), but I would imagine it would ruin the rifling to fire a rifle if loaded like this (I'm pretty sure you'd ruin your modern 7.65 caliber when firing a 7.62 round with it).

Anyway, even if it was possible, in game there is only one type of weapon loading for each unit type; that means the reload time does not decrease with the enemy closing in.

It certainly was with the Baker Rifle used by the British army, in fact it wa one of the main selling points upon which it was adopted, and I'm informed that it was not alone in having that feature. We also know from the testimony of riflemen in the 95th at the time that the riflemen preferred to load it that way as it reduced the recoil and thus didn't cause as much pain to your shoulder over the course of a long engagement.

Whether the TW games have got this aspect of the rifles performance right is difficult to determine as the whole process of determining loading speed and accuracy is so abstract as to be impossible to judge. I do know that with the TROM mod trained musket armed troops seem to manage three rounds a minute, but from experience the performance of rifle armed troops seems to vary widely for no obvious reason other than perhaps national bigotry on the part of the designers.

[Ashu-Siralis]

How is melee fighting unhistorical for the 18th century?

[Wilhelm Ritter]

How is melee fighting unhistorical for the 18th century?

Perhaps he referancing the fact that riflemen would likely carry a long knife, sword or hatchet for close fighting instead of using their rifles as clubs? That's what I think anyway...

[Didz]

How is melee fighting unhistorical for the 18th century?

Because even as early as 1727 there are documents expressing the reluctance of men armed with a musket to close with an enemy that is not already in flight.

Frederick the Great attempted to get his infantry to advance into contact with the enemy without firing at all, but found that this was simply asking too much of his men. Other accounts note that if not given permission to fire men frequently took their weapons from their shoulder and fired anyway, often at far too great a range to be useful. The challenge therefore was to try and delay the point at which your troops opened fire for as long as possible, and the risk was that having fired, if the result was not to throw the enemy into disarray then the morale effect of being left with empty muskets and a resolute enemy advancing on you was to create panic amongst your own men and provoke a bayonet charge which would put them to flight instead.

What rarely happened was that two opposing forces met, fought and decided the issue with the bayonet as depicted in TW games. That period of history had past with the decline of armour and shield walls

[Schu]

Because even as early as 1727 there are documents expressing the reluctance of men armed with a musket to close with an enemy that is not already in flight.

Frederick the Great attempted to get his infantry to advance into contact with the enemy without firing at all, but found that this was simply asking too much of his men. Other accounts note that if not given permission to fire men frequently took their weapons from their shoulder and fired anyway, often at far too great a range to be useful. The challenge therefore was to try and delay the point at which your troops opened fire for as long as possible, and the risk was that having fired, if the result was not to throw the enemy into disarray then the morale effect of being left with empty muskets and a resolute enemy advancing on you was to create panic amongst your own men and provoke a bayonet charge which would put them to flight instead.

What rarely happened was that two opposing forces met, fought and decided the issue with the bayonet as depicted in TW games. That period of history had past with the decline of armour and shield walls

Napoleon conquered Europe with the bayonet charge (or mostly, the threat of one). The Swedes under King Charles would fire off a single volley before charging the enemy. This worked for them on numerous occasions until Poltava.

Even in the American Civil War, it was the bayonet charge (again, the threat of one) that often decided the battle. The sight of Confederate soldiers charging with the bayonet and the Rebel Yell sent many Union armies fleeing.

The standing toe to toe and blasting away at each other view of warfare in this period is frankly wrong.

[Didz]

Napoleon conquered Europe with the bayonet charge (or mostly, the threat of one). The Swedes under King Charles would fire off a single volley before charging the enemy. This worked for them on numerous occasions until Poltava.

Even in the American Civil War, it was the bayonet charge (again, the threat of one) that often decided the battle. The sight of Confederate soldiers charging with the bayonet and the Rebel Yell sent many Union armies fleeing.

The standing toe to toe and blasting away at each other view of warfare in this period is frankly wrong.

Yes! I think the key point is the phrase 'the threatof one'. There are only three known occassions when Napoloenic troops are known to have actually crossed bayonets in the entire Napoleonic period and one of those was an accident.

And thats the key point really, the bayonet charge was largely a matter of morale, determination and willpower not physical contact. The two side rarely if ever crossed bayonets as one side or the other always 'blinked'. The French won battles by being experts at making the other side blinck first and simply herding them off the battlefield with their columns.

Unfortunately, the poor understanding of these mechanic's results instead in prolonged and unhistorical melee's in TW.

The standing toe to toe and blasting away at each other view of warfare in this period is frankly wrong.

I don't think thats an accurate statement either.

Standing toe to toe and blasting away at each other was exactly what happened when neither side were able to gain the morale advantage through shock necessary to make a successful bayonet charge. There are two quite clear examples of this in the most famous battles of the period you mention.

Firstly, at Waterloo when D'Erlons first column attack reached the allied line several brigades report attempting to perform the 'one volley and charge bayonet' approach to break them. However, only one battalion claims any success and as far as we can tell that was only against a small column detached to protect the flank of the assault on La Haye Sainte, and according to other accounts this column was also being attacked in the flank by a squadron from the Life Guards. Along the rest of the front the Anglo-Hanoverian Brigades tried to advance but were met with a withering fire from the men in D'Erlons columns that shredded their ranks and stopped them in their tracks. The men simply refused to move forward after that and the whole front degenrated into a one side musketry duel at point blank range with the Anglo-Hannoverians getting the worst of the exchange. Pictons attempt to get Packs brigade to stand its ground ended when he was shot through the forehead and died instantly.

The entire of Packs brigade began to disintergrate and fallback down the reverse slope of the ridge, the 92nd Foot began to fragment completely and and the French column seeing that their enemy had no real fight left in them began to advance again pushing forward through the hedge intent on finishing the job. Only to be met by the Scots Greys just as their lead battlaion was trying to reform.

Likewise, at Gettysburg Pickets charge sufferred the opposite fate, met by withering fire from the Union Brigades on Cemetary Ridge the Conferate soldiers simply could not close with the enemy above them and ended up in a protracted and hopeless musketry duel on the forward slopes of cemetary ridge where they were totally exposed to the fire of the Union riflemen and artillery whilst trying to out shoot an enemy behind hard cover.

Only two gaps opened up in the Union line. The first occurred when the commander of the of the 71st Pennsylvania ordered his men to retreat because 'the Confederates were getting too close' to the Angle, and the second when the men of the 59th New York (Hall's brigade) suddenly panicked and ran for the rear.

In the latter case, this left Captain Andrew Cowan and his 1st New York Independent artillery battery to face the oncoming infantry alone and he only just managed to hold the gap by firing a massive volley of double shotted cannister into the daces of the advancing Confederates which blew away the entire force trying to charge into the gap.

The gap vacated by most of the 71st Pennsylvania, however, was more serious, leaving only a handful of the 71st, and the 268 men of the 69th Pennsylvania, and Cushing's two guns to hold the line against the 2,500 to 3,000 men of Garnett's and Armistead's brigades as they began to cross the stone fence.

With so few men opposing them the Confederates flooded forward and overrun the position, and there is some evidence that many of the defenders left were killed with bayonets rather than rifle fire, and this is being dramatised into a 'fierce melee' by the American myth makers especailly as some of the Union soldiers were Irish. In fact. with over 2,000 men flooding over a wall defended by only just over 200 it was probably more of a massacre than a melee.

In any event, it was over quickly as the 72nd quickly moved forward and stablised the Union line firing repeated volleys into the Confederates that had crossed the wall. The Confederates eventually being forced to retreat as they had run out of ammunition and could no longer make an effective reply to the Union fire. As more Union regiments dropped into line with the 72nd and joined the fire fight they eventually fell back down the slope and the attack ended.

[Schu]

Yes! I think the key point is the phrase 'the threatof one'. There are only three known occassions when Napoloenic troops are known to have actually crossed bayonets in the entire Napoleonic period and one of those was an accident.

And thats the key point really, the bayonet charge was largely a matter of morale, determination and willpower not physical contact. The two side rarely if ever crossed bayonets as one side or the other always 'blinked'. The French won battles by being experts at making the other side blinck first and simply herding them off the battlefield with their columns.

Unfortunately, the poor understanding of these mechanic's results instead in prolonged and unhistorical melee's in TW.

I don't think thats an accurate statement either.

Standing toe to toe and blasting away at each other was exactly what happened when neither side were able to gain the morale advantage through shock necessary to make a successful bayonet charge. There are two quite clear examples of this in the most famous battles of the period you mention.

Firstly, at Waterloo when D'Erlons first column attack reached the allied line several brigades report attempting to perform the 'one volley and charge bayonet' approach to break them. However, only one battalion claims any success and as far as we can tell that was only against a small column detached to protect the flank of the assault on La Haye Sainte, and according to other accounts this column was also being attacked in the flank by a squadron from the Life Guards. Along the rest of the front the Anglo-Hanoverian Brigades tried to advance but were met with a withering fire from the men in D'Erlons columns that shredded their ranks and stopped them in their tracks. The men simply refused to move forward after that and the whole front degenrated into a one side musketry duel at point blank range with the Anglo-Hannoverians getting the worst of the exchange. Pictons attempt to get Packs brigade to stand its ground ended when he was shot through the forehead and died instantly.

The entire of Packs brigade began to disintergrate and fallback down the reverse slope of the ridge, the 92nd Foot began to fragment completely and and the French column seeing that their enemy had no real fight left in them began to advance again pushing forward through the hedge intent on finishing the job. Only to be met by the Scots Greys just as their lead battlaion was trying to reform.

Likewise, at Gettysburg Pickets charge sufferred the opposite fate, met by withering fire from the Union Brigades on Cemetary Ridge the Conferate soldiers simply could not close with the enemy above them and ended up in a protracted and hopeless musketry duel on the forward slopes of cemetary ridge where they were totally exposed to the fire of the Union riflemen and artillery whilst trying to out shoot an enemy behind hard cover.

Only two gaps opened up in the Union line. The first occurred when the commander of the of the 71st Pennsylvania ordered his men to retreat because 'the Confederates were getting too close' to the Angle, and the second when the men of the 59th New York (Hall's brigade) suddenly panicked and ran for the rear.

In the latter case, this left Captain Andrew Cowan and his 1st New York Independent artillery battery to face the oncoming infantry alone and he only just managed to hold the gap by firing a massive volley of double shotted cannister into the daces of the advancing Confederates which blew away the entire force trying to charge into the gap.

The gap vacated by most of the 71st Pennsylvania, however, was more serious, leaving only a handful of the 71st, and the 268 men of the 69th Pennsylvania, and Cushing's two guns to hold the line against the 2,500 to 3,000 men of Garnett's and Armistead's brigades as they began to cross the stone fence.

With so few men opposing them the Confederates flooded forward and overrun the position, and there is some evidence that many of the defenders left were killed with bayonets rather than rifle fire, and this is being dramatised into a 'fierce melee' by the American myth makers especailly as some of the Union soldiers were Irish. In fact. with over 2,000 men flooding over a wall defended by only just over 200 it was probably more of a massacre than a melee.

In any event, it was over quickly as the 72nd quickly moved forward and stablised the Union line firing repeated volleys into the Confederates that had crossed the wall. The Confederates eventually being forced to retreat as they had run out of ammunition and could no longer make an effective reply to the Union fire. As more Union regiments dropped into line with the 72nd and joined the fire fight they eventually fell back down the slope and the attack ended.

Either way, if the game was to be historically accurate, most combat would end with a bayonet charge and the receivers of the charge fleeing before it landed. Throughout history people have commented on the remarkably small number of bayonet wounds inflicted in any conflict in comparison to the number of actual bayonet charges and the numbers involved. There's just something about the idea of getting impaled by a three foot long piece of steel that makes even the staunchest defenders flee.

Anyway, the morale shock for melee charges needs to be upped significantly in game to be accurate. The range for ranged weapons would need to be upped to historic levels to counter this though.

[War lord]

I blame using the TW engine for a totally different kind of warfare for the problem.

[Didz]

I blame using the TW engine for a totally different kind of warfare for the problem.

Well yes, thats the root of the problem, but more specifically it was a lack of research not just into the nature of warfare in the period, but also into the way tabletop wargaming rules handled the tactical interactions to reproduce the warfare of the period. Most of the popular wargaming rules are the product of decades of evolution based on careful research and really just needed to be codified into the TW battle engine in order to reproduce the same effects electronically.

[Ashu-Siralis]

When the Brits finally went to war with India, the order of the day was one volley and bayonets. One can't take a few documents and create a historical reality out of it. Even as late as the civil war, bayonet charges were not uncommon. Hell, the Rebs were known for them.

[Didz]

When the Brits finally went to war with India, the order of the day was one volley and bayonets. One can't take a few documents and create a historical reality out of it. Even as late as the civil war, bayonet charges were not uncommon. Hell, the Rebs were known for them.

I'm not taking a few documents, this is really the summations of a lot of eyewitness testimony over a long period of time and underlines the often overlooked difference between the theory and the practice of warfare over the period.

The idea of 'one volley followed by a bayonet charge' is certainly part of the 'English Myth' surrounding the British Redcoat and it was a tactic that was heavily promoted at the time, much like the Russian myth of the bayonet.

There were certainly occassions when it worked and it and there is evidence from both the perpetrators and the victims to support this. However, there were also occassions when it went horribly wrong and definately didn't work, and when it was never even attempted.

More worryingly like the charge of the 15th Hussars it became the subject of boasting and after dinner speeches by those who claimed to have witnessed its success and that in turn helped to create the myth of 'They don't like it up 'em' as constantly referenced by Corporal Jones, which encouraged other regiments to try and emulate the tactic even where and when it was inappropriate, often with disasterious results. A Sergeant in the 15th even wrote a song about their famous charge, which led to numerous British Light cavalry regiments destroying themsleves trying to re-produce their success.

Having read numerous eyewiness accounts from both sides the deciding factor in whether it was a success, or a disaster seems to hinge upon the morale effect of the units 'volley' (although it should be noted that British units rarely actually fired a volley, but its a convenient shorthand for a brief period of firing.)

The trick to success seems to have been that this 'volley' had to be withheld until the approaching enemy were very close in order mximise its effect. This remained true whether the British were advancing or defending and so we get accounts such as the confrontation between Lord Hay and the British Guards and the French and Swiss Guard at Fontenoy where the range had been closed to well within the effective distance but both sides had been successful in withholding their fire and now were not willing to close any further until one or other took a gamble of firing. In that event the British fired first and with it being the first volley they had fired in the battle it had a devasting effect allowing a follow through with the bayonet that drove the French from the field.

Other examples were less successful, and some claims for success are dubious. At Waterloo for example attempts to drive off D'Erlons Corps using this method backfired badly on the British line resulting in disorder and chaos along most of the British front. The French columns simply stood their ground and the British found themselves being shot to pieces as soon as they left cover to try and close and were forced to retire in disorder back behind the hedgerows and banks they were defending. The whole thing then degenerating into a prolonged and one sided musketry duel which the British would have lost had the Union and Household Brigades not saved them.

Nevertheless, some claims to success persist even on this occassion and if one believes the reports the mystery column on the extreme French left of the attack was first routed by a bayonet charge, then routed by the Household Cavalry, and finally all 1,500 men surrendered having been trapped in square, only to be saved later by their own cavalry. So, either this column had a charmed life, or there were three of them, though the French accounts don't mention this column at all. According to their accounts their left most column skirted the area in question and met the Britsh line further to the east. But that is just one of the mysteries of Waterloo that remains unresolved.

The basic premise remains true that soldiers rarely closed with the bayonet against a resolute and ready opponent. As one officer put it bluntly 'Nothing can persuade a soldier to cross bayonets with an enemy that is ready and prepared to face him, however, let that man see any sign of any enemy backpack and nothing can keep him from rushing forward.' The job of the close range 'volley' was to secure the sight of the enemies backpacks, after which a bayonet charge usually finished the job. Though rarely it seems with any particular slaughter even then, unless the enemy we unable to escape. A British observer at Austerlitz noted that whilst the Russians were more willing than most infantry to close with the bayonet the results were rarely effective as hampered by their equipment they could rarely catch a fleeing Frenchman, and had to content themsleves with killing the wounded.

[skyfaller]

the british had a line infantry tactic for repelling bayonet charges.. very effective during the napoleonic wars. when the enemy line was rushing in with bayonets, the first 2 rows of the brit line would kneel and the 3rd and 4th row would take turns firing/reloading (acting as a regular 1st and 2nd row using fire by rank).

This let the line kill some of the charging french troops from range. When the french got close, the first 2 rows would stand up, level their guns at the french and HOLD their fire until the enemy was 10 or 20 meters away. the effect was devastating. many times the french would break their charge and ROUT before they got to trade bayonets with the british.

why? because every single man in the first row of the charging french WOULD DIE guaranteed. at 10m-20m range it was impossible to miss. When the first row of french died the men behind them would be the next row to die (to the 2nd brit row). the third row of french chargers, seeing their line decimated in less than 10 seconds would usually stop in their tracks and flee (and all those behind them).

At that point the brits would either charge and chase or the 1st and 2nd row would kneel to reload while the 3rd and 4th row fired at the backs of the french.


btw lumina.. what anime is your sig from?

[YD23]

Moved to Gameplay and Strategy Discussion.