PDA

View Full Version : Bayonet charging... all the time?



Inferior Being
20th Jun 2005, 16:38
Well; I'm not an expert in Napoleonic warfare, I'll gladly admit that. Still; the overwhelming amount of bayonet-charging the enemy AI enjoys throwing at you never cease to puzzle and frighten me.

From what I've allways thought; sudden assaults with bayonets were somewhat of a rarity during the Napoleonic period and out. I'd assume that most of the time when bayonets were attatched there would either be some desperate situation, an ambush, the assault of a fortification by swarming the defences, in order to defend themselves upon a cavalry charge, or some unique occation like for example having a commander with a really cunning plan.

From what I've heard through (Mostly) believable sources; most sudden, meaningless assaults would often end in tragedy for the attackers as the defenders would either skirmish away from them or cut down so many of them in the advance they'd break and flee, or be so weakened and confused upon clashing with the enemy, (If they hadn't skirmished off already!), that they would be cut down or routed then.

So how is it then, that in IG, the AI bayonet-charges you arguably more than they bother shooting you? Sure enough, I enjoy nothing more than a desperate, dust/smoke-filled, swirling, brutal melee, and to be fair, the soldiers in IG seems to fight much harder in melee than their Somewhat-Lazily-Strafing-From-Left-To-Right-Before-Attacking-Every-Eight-Seconds-Or-So, ("SLSLRBAEESS"), Rome:Total War cousins, but this isn't Shogun, Medieval, or Rome-Glory; this is Imperial Glory! Now; am I wrong, or is the shear number of melees in IG a bit to the... extreme? Just for once I'd like to see two good, honest lines of men in ridicolous clothing firing at each other before finally breaking and fleeing instead of a huge, chaotic mob. The fact that you can't break out of melees only adds to my headache. I've tried increasing the difficuilty, but no. Anything I can do? Any AI mods coming out? Thanks.

*EDIT*: ****! Just came back from another Quickgame right now and it totally ruined the experience for me yet again! Why?! Those aren't Goddamn spears you're toting; those are Goddamn GUNS!! USE them, damnit!! :mad: :confused:

Seriously, I can't remember seeing those bastards actually shooting once! WTF?! Is this a bug?

*EDIT 2* Well, to be fair; right at the end, two enemy battallions fired once each. Before litterally bayonet-assaulting my CAVALRY! WTF?!

diablus
20th Jun 2005, 22:22
they only really charge you if your using artillery, they charge at them all the time. Unless they have a melle unit only, like militia or any calvalry besides dragoons.

Sithaka
20th Jun 2005, 22:41
*EDIT 2* Well, to be fair; right at the end, two enemy battallions fired once each. Before litterally bayonet-assaulting my CAVALRY! WTF?!
uhm if the battallions cant form a square and have no militia or cavalry of their own, charging the cavalry after the first volley might actually be smart. Seeing as otherwise the cavalry would probably charge them and that would be worse than charging the cavalry.

And remember if you play a quick game you need to buy the technology to be able to form squares (and probably the same goes for all research that improves your troops).


And I have seen infantry charge and stop to fire and keep on firing till they got wiped out (allthough it was later in the game meaning they got double line firing and square to protect themselves against charges).

Queeg
21st Jun 2005, 01:59
And I have seen infantry charge and stop to fire and keep on firing till they got wiped out (allthough it was later in the game meaning they got double line firing and square to protect themselves against charges).

I've seen it plenty of times myself. You are right. The later-game battles do tend to be the best.

I think giving Militia a limited ranged-fire capability and reducing its mellee value would help. The early battles really are mostly melee slugfests because that's all Militia can do.

erico87
21st Jun 2005, 03:37
i was under the impression that they took 1-3 shots then charged

there would be no point in just standing there keeping shooting when they couldjust rush the defenders

Inferior Being
21st Jun 2005, 07:19
Interesting. Well, true enough I was using artillery. :) But bayonet charge them trough a whole wall of defenders? Same with cavalry. Standing behind five musketeer units, doing nothing in particular at the moment.

Element-UK
21st Jun 2005, 09:20
I would have thought that it was sometimes a One volley then charge is an excellent tactic if the charging troops are Professional soldiers vs Non-Trained. Pro's would welcome the chance to stick em and make them retreat causing ranks all around them to start a general panic and flee. That how the smaller pro army wiped out armies much larger. Arty exception. Good Battle accounts in the Bernard Cornwell Books especially fighting the Sultans armies.

Inferior Being
21st Jun 2005, 09:23
...Of course this was a "Professional" British army VS an eaqually "Professional" French army entirely without milittia at all...

Nial
21st Jun 2005, 15:26
You do really have to seperate the way the AI armies behave into different timeframes or Eras. The early game is all about charge and counter charge. The late game is more about terrain and defensive position.

Queeg
21st Jun 2005, 21:21
You do really have to seperate the way the AI armies behave into different timeframes or Eras. The early game is all about charge and counter charge. The late game is more about terrain and defensive position.

Exactly. And I tend to fight Quick Battles using late-era troops and doctrine, which makes them more volley, less melee.

The question for the patch is whether Militia can be modified in a way to decrease the amount of melee chaos in the early era battles.

Fiddlerpig
22nd Jun 2005, 00:28
I've already debated this in another thread: melee in the Napoleonic era was very rare. Most of the time both sides fire at each other for an amount of time, then one side would withdraw, or one side would charge the other; in almost every documented bayonet charge the attackers were either repulsed by the defenders' fire or the defenders retreated giving their position to the attackers. In fact, there are only a few instances of outright melee between to armies on an open field.

There simply is to much melee in this game.

Queeg
22nd Jun 2005, 04:50
There simply is to much melee in this game.

Early game, yes. Late game, no. With more experience and better doctrine, the battles are more volley, less melee.

Gelatinous Cube
22nd Jun 2005, 06:05
Early game, yes. Late game, no. With more experience and better doctrine, the battles are more volley, less melee.

Eh.. I'm in 1820 or so right now, playing as france, and fighting a huge war with Austria. It's true, they melee less, but they still melee far too often. IIRC, the only battle where there was a significant amount of melee was Austerlitz.

Longstreet63
22nd Jun 2005, 06:15
I should note, from my point of view (as Queeg is aware) that the French primary tactic was the threat of the bayonet in the large column. If that mass of soldiers wasn't stopped, they'd impact the line and overwhelm it with numbers, even though most of the column couldn't shoot. This tactic worked exceptionally well against continental troops, who could damned well see that they weren't going to stop that column and so decamped when it got close rather than face that wall of bayonets. The battalion column was an exceptionally effective was to control conscripts in attack and was visually extremely unnerving to its targets.

The British, on the other hand, were well aware, as long-service volunteers, that nothing the column could do to them was worse that what their sargeants would if they ran away. So they stayed and shot the column to pieces.

Doesn't work that way in IG, though--soldiers too fast, musket range short, no platoon volleys, and above all, no morale. But the IG column is still a great way to melee quickly if you can convince the wonky control system to take the order.

LS

Inferior Being
22nd Jun 2005, 13:07
About the whole subject of early/late era armies; I had chosen "Auto-select" or whatever it's called so that the 'puter would choose the armies. Very few early-era soldiers there, you know. I even removed the millittia.

Nial
22nd Jun 2005, 13:40
Maybe it's just me. But I've had big battles with absolutely no melee at all in them. *shrugs* But I do agree it happens rather too frequently. Especialy in the early game.

Fiddlerpig
22nd Jun 2005, 14:21
Early game, yes. Late game, no. With more experience and better doctrine, the battles are more volley, less melee.

There should be little melee THROUGHOUT the game, not just the late game. This is a game about the NAPOLEONIC Era, not the Medieval Era, in terms of tactics and strategy.

Fiddlerpig
22nd Jun 2005, 14:23
I should note, from my point of view (as Queeg is aware) that the French primary tactic was the threat of the bayonet in the large column. If that mass of soldiers wasn't stopped, they'd impact the line and overwhelm it with numbers, even though most of the column couldn't shoot. This tactic worked exceptionally well against continental troops, who could damned well see that they weren't going to stop that column and so decamped when it got close rather than face that wall of bayonets. The battalion column was an exceptionally effective was to control conscripts in attack and was visually extremely unnerving to its targets.

The British, on the other hand, were well aware, as long-service volunteers, that nothing the column could do to them was worse that what their sargeants would if they ran away. So they stayed and shot the column to pieces.

Doesn't work that way in IG, though--soldiers too fast, musket range short, no platoon volleys, and above all, no morale. But the IG column is still a great way to melee quickly if you can convince the wonky control system to take the order.

LS

Most of the time, either defenders facing the columns fled or the attacker's column was shot to pieces by the defenders fire; very rarely would melee insue.

Fiddlerpig
22nd Jun 2005, 14:29
Maybe it's just me. But I've had big battles with absolutely no melee at all in them. *shrugs* But I do agree it happens rather too frequently. Especialy in the early game.

Inferior Being About the whole subject of early/late era armies; I had chosen "Auto-select" or whatever it's called so that the 'puter would choose the armies. Very few early-era soldiers there, you know. I even removed the millittia.

Do you even know what melee is? Obviously not, as you think there is very little melee in this game.

I have no idea what game you guys are playing, but melee is THE most prevelent form of combat in this game; this fact is very sad, considering this is supposed to be a Napoleonic war game.

Queeg
22nd Jun 2005, 18:13
There should be little melee THROUGHOUT the game, not just the late game. This is a game about the NAPOLEONIC Era, not the Medieval Era, in terms of tactics and strategy.

I agree entirely.

Queeg
22nd Jun 2005, 18:15
Do you even know what melee is? Obviously not, as you think there is very little melee in this game.

I have no idea what game you guys are playing, but melee is THE most prevelent form of combat in this game; this fact is very sad, considering this is supposed to be a Napoleonic war game.

Melee is too prevalent. But I do fight many battles that are mostly, if not entirely, volley. I see it. These other guys see it. It happens. I promise.

Depends on experience, doctrine and terrain.

Age of Reason
22nd Jun 2005, 18:37
Melee is too prevalent. But I do fight many battles that are mostly, if not entirely, volley. I see it. These other guys see it. It happens. I promise.

Depends on experience, doctrine and terrain.


I have to agree with you.

While I agree with them that melee is too present in the early stages (militia needs to be armed with guns), as I have progressed, the only melee I get is if I send my cavarly into them.

With my Grenadier Guards, they never get close enough to enemy infantry to melee. Can't remember the last time it happened.

Fiddlerpig
22nd Jun 2005, 19:11
I've finished two campaigns as Britain and France, and melee was prevelent throughout, granted firefights did increase a LITTLE the last 5 or so years.

As I've stated before melee shouldn't be so prevelent in Napoleonic war game; if I'd wanted to play a game with lots of melee in it I would've played Medieval TW or Rome TW.

Age of Reason
22nd Jun 2005, 20:12
I've finished two campaigns as Britain and France, and melee was prevelent throughout, granted firefights did increase a LITTLE the last 5 or so years.

As I've stated before melee shouldn't be so prevelent in Napoleonic war game; if I'd wanted to play a game with lots of melee in it I would've played Medieval TW or Rome TW.

Just out of curiousity, what units do you usually have in your front line? Or basically, what infantry units did you have predominately?

Inferior Being
22nd Jun 2005, 20:37
I know that question wasn't meant for me, but I'd still like to answer. I use Grenadiers, Musketeers and Black Watch a lot, if that helps...

Fiddlerpig
22nd Jun 2005, 21:32
In the late game I mostly used Grenadiers, Blackwatch, Old Guard, 12 pndrs, and Cuirassiers.

Age of Reason
23rd Jun 2005, 01:58
In the late game I mostly used Grenadiers, Blackwatch, Old Guard, 12 pndrs, and Cuirassiers.

Thanks.

I guess I just may be getting very lucky in my games, but I do agree with your basic points about the melee being toned down.

Cheers, everyone.

Queeg
23rd Jun 2005, 02:45
I've finished two campaigns as Britain and France, and melee was prevelent throughout, granted firefights did increase a LITTLE the last 5 or so years.

As I've stated before melee shouldn't be so prevelent in Napoleonic war game; if I'd wanted to play a game with lots of melee in it I would've played Medieval TW or Rome TW.

All of us agree with you wholeheartedly that melee is too prevalent. But we apparently are seeing more volley in the later game than you are.

Queeg
23rd Jun 2005, 02:52
The more I think about it, the more it seems downright silly to have a melee-only foot unit in a Napoleonic era game. So Militia needs to be either modified to have a ranged capability or removed from the game altogether. I'm no expert at modding, but I suspect that one obstacle to adding a ranged value to Militia is making a volley animation for them. It might be easier to remove them altogether and either make Line Infantry the base unit or use a watered-down Line Infantry unit (called Militia, perhaps) as the base. Either way, Militia as we now know it has got to go!

Nial
23rd Jun 2005, 15:24
Do you even know what melee is? Obviously not, as you think there is very little melee in this game.

I have no idea what game you guys are playing, but melee is THE most prevelent form of combat in this game; this fact is very sad, considering this is supposed to be a Napoleonic war game.

Excuse me!! Are you an ass or what? I've been playing this game for a bit. And winning!! I always try to be polite if I can. You should try it some time. Of all posters on this site, You seem to have the biggest problem being civil.

Im sorry my game experience dosn't conform to your idea of what it should. But save the patronizing tone for somewhere else.

You talk alot of absolutes in your posts. I talk generalities. If you had played as many campaigns as I have? You might have a better understanding of the fact that there are battles that happen that have very little melee in them late in the game. But hey! Why let truth get in the way of your mission to be right?

This does not change the fact that I agree melee needs to be toned down. But I don't expect some know it all to tell me what my game experience is or should be.

Fiddlerpig
23rd Jun 2005, 17:39
Excuse me!! Are you an ass or what? I've been playing this game for a bit. And winning!! I always try to be polite if I can. You should try it some time. Of all posters on this site, You seem to have the biggest problem being civil.

I obviously struck a nerve. Good.


Im sorry my game experience dosn't conform to your idea of what it should. But save the patronizing tone for somewhere else.

IG should be a Napoleonic game; unfortunately it's not.


You talk alot of absolutes in your posts. I talk generalities. If you had played as many campaigns as I have? You might have a better understanding of the fact that there are battles that happen that have very little melee in them late in the game. But hey! Why let truth get in the way of your mission to be right?

I've already played two campaigns and have seen enough to know that IG as it is now is not a Napoleonic game; it's a RTW with a Napoleonic theme to it. Sorry, but it's true.


This does not change the fact that I agree melee needs to be toned down. But I don't expect some know it all to tell me what my game experience is or should be.

I'm not trying to tell you what your gaming experience "should be." I'm saying a Napoleonic game should have Napoleonic warfare, not Medieval warfare. If I'd wanted to play a melee game I would've played MTW or RTW.

Nial
23rd Jun 2005, 18:34
I obviously struck a nerve. Good.



IG should be a Napoleonic game; unfortunately it's not.



I've already played two campaigns and have seen enough to know that IG as it is now is not a Napoleonic game; it's a RTW with a Napoleonic theme to it. Sorry, but it's true.



I'm not trying to tell you what your gaming experience "should be." I'm saying a Napoleonic game should have Napoleonic warfare, not Medieval warfare. If I'd wanted to play a melee game I would've played MTW or RTW.

You've played 2 whole campaigns?......oooo. I've finished over 15 campaigns.
So I think I have a little better understanding of how the AI plays. One thing I've learned in all of these campaigns is that the AI does not play them all the same. You will learn this too after you've played a few more.

I have fought battles where the AI had a strong defensive position, and refused to be drawn from it. And I mean refused. No matter what I did, I launched as many as 4 or5 feints at his flanks and still the AI held it's strong postion. So what I'm saying is; speaking in absolutes about what the AI does after 2 campaigns is rather arrogant.

Once again. This is not to say I don't think the amount of melee/ charges the AI launches is overdone. But for you to discount or show disdain for my observations, simply because they don't match yours is rude at the very least.

Fiddlerpig
23rd Jun 2005, 20:29
You've played 2 whole campaigns?......oooo. I've finished over 15 campaigns.
So I think I have a little better understanding of how the AI plays. One thing I've learned in all of these campaigns is that the AI does not play them all the same. You will learn this too after you've played a few more.

Like what? how exactly does the AI act differently in the battles? I've fought many custom battles, and the AI seems to act the same on each different map. Engage, charge into melee, rinse, repeat....


I have fought battles where the AI had a strong defensive position, and refused to be drawn from it. And I mean refused. No matter what I did, I launched as many as 4 or5 feints at his flanks and still the AI held it's strong postion. So what I'm saying is; speaking in absolutes about what the AI does after 2 campaigns is rather arrogant.

oooooo, good for you. So have I. The AI sits there, waits for you, then once you're engaged, charges your lines. Same old, same old...


Once again. This is not to say I don't think the amount of melee/ charges the AI launches is overdone. But for you to discount or show disdain for my observations, simply because they don't match yours is rude at the very least.

Match my own? We're playing the same game for gods sake. Your definition of melee is just different from mine, that's all.

Nial
23rd Jun 2005, 21:28
To Fiddlerpig.
Are you not reading all the posts that say that others are witnessing less melee at later eras? Yet you continue plodding onward to say that because we are playing the same game all our experiences should be the same. *shrugs* Believe what you will. It's up to you. You slamed me so I took you to task. You were wrong. Your view that "this is what I experience, so this is what everyone is experiencing" is tiring if not ridiculous. Different players using different strategies and facing different make ups of adversaries will have different experiences. Saying our deffinitions of melee are different, (implying ignorance on my part to boot) is an easy out. Have a nice Day :)

Queeg
23rd Jun 2005, 23:24
Like what? how exactly does the AI act differently in the battles? I've fought many custom battles, and the AI seems to act the same on each different map. Engage, charge into melee, rinse, repeat....

I don't doubt that's what you're seeing. But please don't doubt the rest of us when we say we're seeing something very different. I've expressed, in other threads, my views on the factors that influence the battles and strategies I've used in the battles I've fought. I'm certainly not the expert on all this, but I can say that I see plenty of volley-only battles.

And the AI does employ a variety of tactics. I have fought several Quick Battles multiple times in succession (usually after losing the first time) and I've seen the AI use very different tactics each time. For example, I fought a battle in the Balkans (I think), a map where the center is dominated by a large hill and the defender's side has a long ridge, flanked on one end by another large hill. In successive battles as the attacker, I saw the AI (1) send cavalry hell-bent to seize the center hill and then bring up its infantry and artillery to establish its main defensive line there, (2) hold its entire force back on the defender-side ridge and await my attack and (3) divide its forces between the defender-side ridge and the flanking hill, using its cavalry and artillery on the hill to flank and enfilade my attack. Battles 1 and 3 were almost entirely volley; battle 2 ended in a melee slugfest as I pushed my guys up the ridge.


oooooo, good for you. So have I. The AI sits there, waits for you, then once you're engaged, charges your lines. Same old, same old...

Sometimes true. Sometimes not. In my experience.


We're playing the same game for gods sake. Your definition of melee is just different from mine, that's all.

I define melee as hand-to-hand (or bayonet-to-bayonet) combat. Volley as stand-off musket fire. I assume we're speaking the same language on that point.

Fiddlerpig
24th Jun 2005, 00:10
You are right, my apologies.

But, I still hold to my statement that there is too much melee in this game, even in the late era battles.

Queeg
24th Jun 2005, 00:14
You are right, my apologies.

But, I still hold to my statement that there is too much melee in this game, even in the late era battles.

Everyone here agrees with you 100% on that point.

Can I get anyone to join my "Change Militia from Melee-Only Units or Remove Them from the Game Altogether" bandwagon?

Fiddlerpig
24th Jun 2005, 00:34
Me, for one. Either give them firearms or remove them entirely frome the game: that's my view.

Age of Reason
24th Jun 2005, 13:33
Can I get anyone to join my "Change Militia from Melee-Only Units or Remove Them from the Game Altogether" bandwagon?

Count me in.

Give them guns, and a high retreat variable to make them more realistic.

Queeg
24th Jun 2005, 14:06
Speaking confidently as one who has no idea what he's talking about, it seems to me that one obstacle to giving militia a ranged capability in a patch is the need to create a firing animation for them. I don't know how difficult that is and whether it's the kind of thing they likely would do in a patch.

For modding purposes, it may be simpler just to remove them from the game altogether and make line infantry the base unit for everyone. I assume it wouldn't be too difficult to change the Officer Training advance so that it makes line infantry available instead of militia.

Inferior Being
25th Jun 2005, 12:17
Well, after trying it out for more than two hours on different maps; I'd say that in a pitched battle in the field, the AI actually doesn't melee that often...

Test 1: Algarve.

I tried it for the huge, clean field in the middle; lots of room for manouvering. and no buildings save for a couple of fences the defender can use to cover one batallion each.

The closest you can come in this game to a volley-only battle! Only one bayonet-assault troughout the whole battle, and that was the enemy rushing one of those fences.

Test 2: Brandenburg.

I decided to try a siege-like map.

Defender:
Worst battle so far! :mad: the AI bayonet-charged me all the time!

Attacker:
Two melees. One for no particular reason, another one was by cavalry so I guess that one doesn't really count. The AI mostly stayed underneath the cover of the palace, and wouldn't budge.

Test 3: Norway.

I tried Norway because it was fairly open, if not as open as Algarve, and separated by a bridge, and had a hill for anyone to use. A bit more complex for the AI, I thought. Well, the only instance of melee occuring there was Fusilliers charging my Musketeers for no apparent reason. At some point I thought the AI were going to bayonet-charge with all they had, but it turned out they were only folding out their five-or-so front battalions a bit thus bringing them very close to my own battalions, hence the misunderstanding on my part.

Make out of this what you want. :)

*EDIT*: Noticed something else... it seems my infantry charges at the enemy automatically whenever they get within a certain proximity of the enemy batallion. In other words, sometimes it might not have been the poor enemy's fault...