PDA

View Full Version : Why do squared infantry repulse other infantry?



LondonCalling
6th Apr 2005, 20:06
Horses arent stupid, they will not charge head long into a wall of bayonets, but what about people? Why do my charging infantry flee at the sight of an infantry square? It is really annoying to see a horde of charging infantry all suicide charge my artillery, while in the meantime all my cavalry are tied up in combat, and have to use my infantry against infantry. The computer, as Im about to infantry charge, squares and effectivley repulses any type of counter charge. While, then, my infantry flee leaving the squared infantry the chance to unsquare and rape my artillery.

This has to be one of my biggest gripes so far. Squared infantry defend well verse cavalry, but should not recieve a bonus from another infantry unit base charging. For the love of god fix this for release.

LondonCalling
7th Apr 2005, 20:19
No one finds this a major issue?

Guevara
7th Apr 2005, 21:02
been discussed a lot

langmann
7th Apr 2005, 21:03
Horses arent stupid, they will not charge head long into a wall of bayonets, but what about people? Why do my charging infantry flee at the sight of an infantry square? It is really annoying to see a horde of charging infantry all suicide charge my artillery, while in the meantime all my cavalry are tied up in combat, and have to use my infantry against infantry. The computer, as Im about to infantry charge, squares and effectivley repulses any type of counter charge. While, then, my infantry flee leaving the squared infantry the chance to unsquare and rape my artillery.

This has to be one of my biggest gripes so far. Squared infantry defend well verse cavalry, but should not recieve a bonus from another infantry unit base charging. For the love of god fix this for release.

Glad to see you're seeing some of the same things I have a major problem with.

HellAngel_666
7th Apr 2005, 21:32
ya this is really annonying but EXTREAMLY useful. this allows you to feint charge the enemy which will stop reload to form square. then when it is half way though this you stop fire and retreat. then it will stay squared allowing you to pulverize it into oblivium. this allows you to use up like 15 men in advance to have 40 killed. otehr wise ya it's stupid beond belife that bayonet men would retreat at the sign of squares, hell squares would limit the defenders defence abillity in melee's and allow the attacking infantry BONUS melee attack points!

oh well the games coming out in a wee bit

Psycho Pigeon
7th Apr 2005, 22:17
Heres an example :

I thought, for fun, i would just send in my whole army(that includes cav and inf) against a few battalions of british infantry. My cav went in first and took the blow of the first shots then the enemy went into a square formation, my cav then fleed but soon after my inf came running in(atleast 7 battalions) ALL running in on 2 squared formation british troops and all my men FLED!!!. Couldn't believe it.

HellAngel_666
7th Apr 2005, 23:12
get pic for us :p that way i can see it

LondonCalling
8th Apr 2005, 17:08
Well if this isnt fixed or patched by release, I hope we can get a group together to fix this and several other annoying non realistic issues.

sdreamer98
10th Apr 2005, 20:39
Hmm....i wonder historically, do infantries with bayonets really gain a melee bonus charging into a square of bayonets? :confused:

pawnsacrifice
11th Apr 2005, 19:59
Hmm....i wonder historically, do infantries with bayonets really gain a melee bonus charging into a square of bayonets? :confused:
Yes, although firing into a square is more effective. Since only 1/4 of the infantry are facing you, it would be much easier to punch a whole and attack the other three sides from the back. Cav are weak because they can't find an already made opening to plung through.

HellAngel_666
11th Apr 2005, 20:29
the back of a square is REALLY undefended. only three people as to the other 5-6 on the front and side flanks. i don't know why people don't exploit this as this is where i make my cal charges if i do make any

BANANAMAN
11th Apr 2005, 20:49
People people, the Napoleonic square formation could stand against cavalry and infantry attacks, except... except against artilery fire. Man... the square formation is helpless against artilery fire because for the simple fact that the square formation cannot move itself by retreating or attacking. :D

Khornish
12th Apr 2005, 10:31
<<Man... the square formation is helpless against artilery fire because for the simple fact that the square formation cannot move itself by retreating or attacking. >>

The reason a square was helpless against artillery was that it presented a much more dense target than did a line. A line would usually be 3 deep, unless attrition caused the company to drop the 3rd rank in order to maintain company frontage.

A square, on the other hand, would present no less than 6 ranks within the line of fire as the two opposite sides of the square would both be in that same line. Some square formations used would be even more dense.

Additionally, a square would present more opportunities for enfilade fire to the opposing artillery as it had more angles within its structure. So, an artillery piece could be positioned more easily to strike a potential 30 to 60 or more men within the path of a single ball.

Also, there are multiple recorded instances of a square moving under fire. It wasn't all that difficult to pull off, especially with experienced troops.

Doh! This reply turned into a lecture. :o

Villaret-Joyeuse
12th Apr 2005, 13:31
Another problem is that you are squaring basically small companys. You need larger squares, like a command where your seperate batallion units form up into one large square.

HellAngel_666
12th Apr 2005, 19:16
ya good point. also squares arn't 40 men apeice lol the game needs more men or it needs to have that type of feature to truly prform squares....noticer how squares DON'T move and other units do?! TALK ABOUT HARD PROGRAMMING! lol to much cod my @$$!

Khornish
13th Apr 2005, 00:55
<<also squares arn't 40 men apeice >>

Actually, that was a fairly common thing to see too, as the supports of a skirmisher line would form square when cavalry threatened.

I would really like to see larger organizational formations. 2 Battalions forming a square wasn't all that uncommon and would be cool to see within the game.

Yes, the isn't really a historical wargame, it's a conflict game with strategic and tactical elements in the dressing of the Napoleonic Era.

However, if I could easily throw 4 battalions into a column, that would be great, as it is, I have to do em all individually and either hope they sort themselves our properly or I have to micromanage them while I should be focusing elsewhere.

Also, it would be terrific if the game would incorporate proper unit spacing when moving a multi-unit formation. I dont want a mob of battalions together, I want em spaced where they can each form into line and not overlap or leave gaps.

<sigh>

Lindkvist
16th Apr 2005, 07:51
This is how a square should look like:
http://www.histwar.com/images/screens/grognards/750/050201-06.jpg

/Lars L.

Khornish
16th Apr 2005, 10:07
LOL!


Nice to see you here Lars, the other boards have been somewhat quiet, at least in the English section.

That square is "nearly" correct, as you well know. The artillery piece isn't where it should be, but it does look a bit better in many ways that what I've seen recently in another game that is yet to be released.

FWIW, that screen shot is from a Napoleonic "wargame" that is in the works by a talented, but small crew. I'm quite looking forward to it, in fact.

Also, that graphic is not the final version of what is viewed. The standards will have the proper unit designations, which I believe can be edited, appearing within the white portion. Several bits of the uniforms can be changed by the player as well, cuffs, collars, facings, turnbacks, and more I believe. Also note the unit musicians and command staff.

Lindkvist
16th Apr 2005, 10:27
You must be "Lord of Khorne", right?

What do you think about the IG so far? It sure looks nice but there are so many things that needs to be addressed and I seriously don't think they ever will be. :(

/Lars L.

Khornish
16th Apr 2005, 19:33
Yup, that would be my handle on the other boards.


I've been looking forward to IG for a while now, but post demo, I'm not so sure I will spend my money on it.

The strategic/operational level of this game had better be top notice, because if the tactical level doesn't improve, this game is over before it begins. Virtually everything that can hinder a player controlling his units quickly and efficiently is in the game.

Apparently the developers want to appeal to the RTS crowd. Okay, fine, it's their game and they can develop it the way they want. However, the RTS portion of the game is buggy, lacks a good multi-unit control feature, is woefully out of balance regarding unit vs formation, and melee units fight to the death instead of breaking and running. That's a portion of the problems I see with the game.

Sure, they may get some of the bugs out. Bugs are in every game and tend to get quashed over time as paying customers play the game. However, where is the official response from the developers telling us they recognize this issue and it is being addressed?

Multi-unit controls. Okay, RTS has been around for a long time as a style of computer game. One would think this style would evolve for the better instead of devolve. Something that would help this game stand out in a year of potential blockbusters is giving the players the ability to quickly and conveniently control their units via the point and click interface _for multiple units_. Without the ability to reposition units while the action is paused, the game then requires something along the same lines for while the action is on going. Without it, the game is simply a click fest and I have about 50 gigs of that type of game already, why would I spend money on another?

An infantry square repulsing an infantry charge happens all to often. I'd say there's a slight chance of this happening, instead of nearly 100% of the time. Artillery is apparently unable to keep its immediate front clear and it lacks canister at close range. Fine, they went for the easy option, to make the game playable for the RTS clickfest. Funny, I play historical turn based games and RTS games both, but somehow I feel the developers are missing even their target audience...at least a good portion of them.

Melee units fighting to the death is crap. Very few units in any war ever fought to the death in combat, most would break and run at some point. During the period of time this game gets its theme from, melee combat was extremely rare in the way they portray it as happening. I feel the developers have been watching way too many Hollywood movies. I would be more happy if instead of fighting to the death, the losing unit would break and run with the victors following them up and cutting them down. Same end result, better overall presentation.

Additionally, being able to place 3 units, in line, one behind the other, and all being able to fire on the same target to the front is just plain silly. RTS must rule out, I suppose, but RTS is quickly becoming the "Hollywood" of computer gaming, where everything is glitz and style over content and accuracy.

Even with a nice shiny bow on top, horse dung is still horse dung.


Don't get me wrong though. I really do want to like this game. I like to see game companies attempt to do games of this type and wish them luck with it. Yet, the lack of official responses on this board doesn't sit well with me.

Sure, they don't want to feed the trolls. Yes, they don't have an obligation to answer any post or every post. However, they _do_ seem to want my money in return for the product they deliver and in that case I'd expect at least an appearance by them, from time to time.

I could go on. I could hand them a design for multi-unit control with fully developed features that even RTS addicts would appreciate. But, its not apparent the developers are even bothering to listen and it appears this board is really only here because some clause in a contract somewhere required them to have one.

I hold out faint hope the developers will fix the main issues that many of us have with the game. Beyond that, I hope the released version is mod friendly, so someone else can improve upon the game and make it worth the money spent on it.

Other than that, I have a fairly good idea which Napoleonic wargame will be installed on my computer the moment it becomes available and the words "Imperial" and "Glory" aren't in its title.

It's not to late to fix it, developers. (had to throw that in just in case some birdie is spying for em)

HellAngel_666
16th Apr 2005, 23:18
great pic. yes that is HOW it should look. was even still used by the brits in the zulu war. and that MAJOR defeat because of it..... (forget battle name....and feel so bad becuase of my forgeting to....)

Khornish
16th Apr 2005, 23:39
Actually, the only real defeat the British suffered during the Zulu War was at Isandlwana (sp?) and it wasn't because of the square. The defeat there was due to arrogance on the part of the planners of the campaign, very poor recon, and a few other smaller things that added up to a pretty big thing. Once the poor chaps ran out of ammo on the firing line, it was all over.

If I remember correctly, the British formed square in the following campaign in an attempt to hold off the some impis and it worked, the Brits then camped on that spot, or near to it for a bit. I'll have to break out my copy of "The Washing of the Spears" again.

Berdan
17th Apr 2005, 00:13
Actually, the only real defeat the British suffered during the Zulu War was at Isandlwana (sp?) and it wasn't because of the square. The defeat there was due to arrogance on the part of the planners of the campaign, very poor recon, and a few other smaller things that added up to a pretty big thing. Once the poor chaps ran out of ammo on the firing line, it was all over.

If I remember correctly, the British formed square in the following campaign in an attempt to hold off the some impis and it worked, the Brits then camped on that spot, or near to it for a bit. I'll have to break out my copy of "The Washing of the Spears" again.

it was Ulundi where the entire British army formed a square near King Cetshwayo's royal settlement. Of course that time they upped the fire power by bringing Gattling guns. I always have been fond of the Zulu War this game engine would be a good base for a Zulu War mod :cool:

Lt.Phoenix
17th Apr 2005, 00:21
Washing of the Spears? any other British military history books you might know of? possibly some highlander regiments?

Khornish
17th Apr 2005, 00:21
<<t was Ulundi where the entire British army formed a square near King Cetshwayo's royal settlement.

Yup yup! Thanks, I knew the campaign, just couldn't remember the bloody name of the settlement, should have remembered my city names from the Civ games.

Khornish
17th Apr 2005, 00:37
Lt. Phoenix,


Washing of the Spears is the definative study of the Zulu nation, the settlement of the southern africa, and the wars that went with it. I've not found a better book for this topic.

As far as British military history, well my background is more to the continental forces from 1700's-1900, so I can't say I have a master collection.

However, if you're interested in the Napoleonic Era, I'd say anything by the late, but greatly missed, David Chandler is a must read. I think even he had his own biases, so you can mix in other works. George Nafziger has several good books. Emperor's Press put out some good books as well, under various authors.

You're going to find that British authors have a very different view of the Napoleonic Age as do continental or American authors, so your mileage may vary depending on the nation of origin of the author.

Although, I highly, highly, recommend the well known memoirs of those who fought in the various armies. My personal favorite is that by General Marbot.

I'm sure others here can recommend more detail oriented books on the British Army.

Lt.Phoenix
17th Apr 2005, 00:52
thanks! :)

HellAngel_666
17th Apr 2005, 01:07
yes the brits won.... but at what cost. that was my point. they held off many times. but got slaughterd in the prosses. still one but many didn't live to tell the tale...

Khornish
17th Apr 2005, 01:29
Uh, okay. You changed the subject within your own sentence, so your point was easily lost.

<<yes the brits won.... but at what cost. that was my point. they held off many times. but got slaughterd in the prosses. still one but many didn't live to tell the tale...>>

The names of a few rivers in France come to mind here, but I'm sure you can more clearly tell us how you are applying your words to how the square formation works in the IG demo.

Villaret-Joyeuse
17th Apr 2005, 02:39
Chandler - Great historian that will be missed. Napoleon's Campaigns is a monumental work, however, starting to be outdated.

Nafziger - Be careful. Nafziger is war gamer type who writes detailed books, but not necessarily good reads. (Also errors in his Russian Campaign book.)

Marbot - Wrote a entertaining memoirs, but often very controversial. I believe there are even works pointing out the errors in Marbot's work. Like many memoires, many grudges come out in this work.


As for Highlander regiments, I do not read any books, but a search in our university library turned up this:

Linklater, Eric, The Black Watch : the history of the Royal Highland Regiment, 1977

Prebble, John, Mutiny : Highland regiments in revolt, 1743-1804, 1975