Poll: Do you think Napoleonic Tactics used in-game would work?

Such as deploying line regiments in lines 2 ranks deep, using massed artillery and combined arms, usng "brigades"(groups of line units), etc?

well im fairly sure my tactics would work in real life.

Yes for sure.

I know the British at least would group several companies to act together. They would call them grand divisons and would be under the command of an Officer who would probably have specific objectives during the battle. The Brits would also use 2 ranks, with the 2nd rank firing over the shoulders of the front.

No I don't think they do.

France typically deployed its infantry in column, particularly later in the wars, when making an attack. This was often successful because of the sheer shock it created. Opponents, seeing a dense mass of French marching towards them with bayonet’s fixed, would require a high level of discipline to hold their ground. In NTW attacking in column does little other than reduce the number of soldiers who can shoot back at your opponents and will almost always end in tragedy. Also, there is a common misconception that British infantry would simply stand their ground and shoot volley after volley until the enemy crumbled, in fact they would usually fire about 4 or 5 volleys in quick succession and then follow up with a bayonet charge into demoralised opponents usually resulting in a routed enemy.

These tactics are almost impossible to reproduce in NTW because of a major flaw, units on a Napoleonic battlefield very rarely fought bayonet to bayonet as one side would nearly always rout before hand to hand combat was joined in the field.

Originally Posted by calicheSCOT

No I don't think they do.

France typically deployed its infantry in column, particularly later in the wars, when making an attack. This was often successful because of the sheer shock it created. Opponents, seeing a dense mass of French marching towards them with bayonet’s fixed, would require a high level of discipline to hold their ground. In NTW attacking in column does little other than reduce the number of soldiers who can shoot back at your opponents and will almost always end in tragedy. Also, there is a common misconception that British infantry would simply stand their ground and shoot volley after volley until the enemy crumbled, in fact they would usually fire about 4 or 5 volleys in quick succession and then follow up with a bayonet charge into demoralised opponents usually resulting in a routed enemy.

These tactics are almost impossible to reproduce in NTW because of a major flaw, units on a Napoleonic battlefield very rarely fought bayonet to bayonet as one side would nearly always rout before hand to hand combat was joined in the field.

The French didn't use the columns for directly meleeing with the enemy. Also the columns in NTW are different from the ones in real life. The Napoleonic column was basically made up of several companies in line formation stucking together with gaps between each units.
And the companies will advance slowly, firing one volley after another (sort of fire and advance) before finally charging.
Also the misconception that melee was rare in the Napoleonic wars are false. Cavalry actions were frequent and infantry vs. infantry brutal melee were also often, such as Borodino and Waterloo (fight for La Haye Sainte).

Melee was quite rare. Borodino and La Haye saint were both entrenched positions, and in such situations mele was unavoidable. In the open one side usually broke or withdrawed before contact.

Originally Posted by FilipVonZietek

Melee was quite rare. Borodino and La Haye saint were both entrenched positions, and in such situations mele was unavoidable. In the open one side usually broke or withdrawed before contact.

Melee quite was frequent. Napoleon tactics was based on the elan of the french foot soldier, a vigorous advance to take the enemies positions.

Other examples by heart :

Austerlitz : on the Pratzen hill, the french used melee to take it, with horse artillery support and musket fire of course. Later the russians guards charged in melee trying to retake it.
Ligny : In the afternoon, a bloody bayonet duel between the french and prussians in the town itself.
Eylau : The charge of Murat with all the available cavalry.

LEARN TO READ

Ofcourse cav was fighting in mele but!
We are talking about inf vs inf mele.
I said mele very rarely in the open like at austerlitz most unit break before contact. Biritsh line was pushed back by french columns many times, also regiment is more than 1000 men so deploying whole. regiment into 1 thin line when enemy cavalry is nearby is very risky afair also it preform well only when you stand still.
When enemy was entrnched or defending intown like Aspern Essling, Saragossa or Placenoit mele alwayes occured.

Napoleon woudl get his ass kicked as this game is parody of Napoleonic wars, he would rage and kick this garbage out of the window.

Originally Posted by Prince of Darkness

The French didn't use the columns for directly meleeing with the enemy. Also the columns in NTW are different from the ones in real life. The Napoleonic column was basically made up of several companies in line formation stucking together with gaps between each units.
And the companies will advance slowly, firing one volley after another (sort of fire and advance) before finally charging.
Also the misconception that melee was rare in the Napoleonic wars are false. Cavalry actions were frequent and infantry vs. infantry brutal melee were also often, such as Borodino and Waterloo (fight for La Haye Sainte).

Sorry but I disagree Prince. On paper the columns were primarily a formation for moving the troops into musket range then form into line, however in practice this was a very complex maneuver which was almost impossible with conscripts, so French generals often maintained the formation when approaching the enemy lines with bayonets at the ready. They relied on the formation to break the moral of the defenders before they even reached them, and often this was the case.

As you can see in my post I was referring to infantry on infantry melee combat in the open field. This was a very rare occurrence as one side would almost always withdraw. However you are right that infantry melee was common in defensive positions such as fortifications and redoubts, perhaps I should have been clearer.

Moved to Gameplay and Strategy Discussion.

I voted yes assuming that either both sides were somehow limited to the movement and fire tactics NTW gives us or - conversely - that neither were and you know enough to modify your tactics accordingly.
I would love it if the enemy reinforcements were forced to enter the field as they do now though, and would hate it if mine had to - lol

Cheers

Lucius

Whole regiment formed 2 ranks deep, hooo thats way to thin if there are no reserves behind.
Forming a square from such long line would take a lot of time.

Originally Posted by FilipVonZietek

Whole regiment formed 2 ranks deep, hooo thats way to thin if there are no reserves behind.
Forming a square from such long line would take a lot of time.

not neccessarily, thats how the British army often defeated French colums in the Peninsular campaign/Battle of Waterloo

as a previous poster said they would often fire several volleys then "give them the cold steel" [to quote Corporal Jones]. The French being mostly conscripts at that time would often rout at the sight of hardened criminals/thugs in red coats running and screaming out of the smoke caused by musketry

Napoleon himself said "we advanced in the old style and were beaten back in the old style" or something along those lines

and the lines would consist of multiple companies/battalions/regiments who would form induvidual squares, the whole line would not form a single sqaure

Ofc YES!

Please take it easy FilipVonZietek, no need to flame anyone or the game itself. It's only a game. I think i know how to read and frankly it's misplaced to call this game garbage. If this is what you think of it, just stop playing it that's all.

I always form my lines in 2 ranks, and I usually form them in brigades of 3-4 regiments. It allows for a very large line that is very flexible and quickly surrounds an enemy force. It also means that I have a more effective initial fire from my line.

I also mass my artillery in a single grand battery (usually 2 batteries of horse artillery and two of howitzers), which will usually focus on a single unit at the weakest part of their line, or the part of the line I want to break first.

Also, there is a common misconception that British infantry would simply stand their ground and shoot volley after volley until the enemy crumbled, in fact they would usually fire about 4 or 5 volleys in quick succession and then follow up with a bayonet charge into demoralised opponents usually resulting in a routed enemy.

Do you have a source for this? My reading on the British army is mostly concentrated on the 18th century, and that was a period where emphasis on musketry and fire tactics superseded that of bayonet shock tactics. I simply can't recall a point where the British returned to emphasizing the bayonet in Europe.

Originally Posted by 43rdFoot

Do you have a source for this? My reading on the British army is mostly concentrated on the 18th century, and that was a period where emphasis on musketry and fire tactics superseded that of bayonet shock tactics. I simply can't recall a point where the British returned to emphasizing the bayonet in Europe.

Yes your entirely right there was a greater emphasis on musketry in this period, but the damage to moral it inflicted was nearly always taken advantage of by closing with the bayonet after a sustained period of fire to ensure the enemy had routed. The number of volleys delivered before the counter-charge of course would have varied due to the situation. This was common practice, but some specific examples of this tactic can be found during Waterloo; when Maitlands Guards charged the Imperial Guard Chasseurs after delivering some point blank volleys to send them into a rout, and the 52nd Light Infantry also saw off another detatchment of Guard Chasseurs by wheeling onto their flank, delivering fire, and charging home their attack. (Parry, D.H. (1900), "Waterloo", Battle of the nineteenth century, 1, London: Cassell and Company - Chesney, Charles C. (1907), Waterloo Lectures: A Study Of The Campaign Of 1815, Longmans,)

I'm tempted to say this tactic is also mentioned at length in the superb book 'Redcoat' by Richard Holmes but by all means I could be mistaken.

It depends on the tactics for me. If you are trying something complicated, it may not always work, but a lot of tactics and strategies do turn out to work though, which is awesome. *I Love the Karoliner tactic!*

Originally Posted by calicheSCOT

was common practice, but some specific examples of this tactic can be found during Waterloo; when Maitlands Guards charged the Imperial Guard Chasseurs after delivering some point blank volleys to send them into a rout, and the 52nd Light Infantry also saw off another detatchment of Guard Chasseurs by wheeling onto their flank, delivering fire, and charging home their attack. (Parry, D.H. (1900), "Waterloo", Battle of the nineteenth century, 1, London: Cassell and Company - Chesney, Charles C. (1907), Waterloo Lectures: A Study Of The Campaign Of 1815, Longmans,)

I'm tempted to say this tactic is also mentioned at length in the superb book 'Redcoat' by Richard Holmes but by all means I could be mistaken.

not forgeting Major Richard Sharpe and sgt Hogan who also got invloved

Originally Posted by calicheSCOT

Yes your entirely right there was a greater emphasis on musketry in this period, but the damage to moral it inflicted was nearly always taken advantage of by closing with the bayonet after a sustained period of fire to ensure the enemy had routed. The number of volleys delivered before the counter-charge of course would have varied due to the situation. This was common practice, but some specific examples of this tactic can be found during Waterloo; when Maitlands Guards charged the Imperial Guard Chasseurs after delivering some point blank volleys to send them into a rout, and the 52nd Light Infantry also saw off another detatchment of Guard Chasseurs by wheeling onto their flank, delivering fire, and charging home their attack. (Parry, D.H. (1900), "Waterloo", Battle of the nineteenth century, 1, London: Cassell and Company - Chesney, Charles C. (1907), Waterloo Lectures: A Study Of The Campaign Of 1815, Longmans,)

I'm tempted to say this tactic is also mentioned at length in the superb book 'Redcoat' by Richard Holmes but by all means I could be mistaken.

It still seems like a stretch to me to say it was doctrine for the British to charge after an initial period of fire. I think it might be more accurate to say that British officers were very conscious about the effectiveness of bayonets, and understood the opportunities in which to use it, but I wouldn't go so far as to say they would always turn to it. The evidence, to me, just doesn't support the conclusion that the British relied on the bayonet.

British army officers were much more adaptable and in general much better than they often get credit for. I think this is one of those cases.