I like the way they're handling the minimap now, no more of that ugly old look where you could see the lines defining an areas boundary. Now its that nice smooth look most of the mods use. Yay!
Also I remember reading somewhere on the Total War site that they were delaying it to March Specifically to add Online campaign. Though the beta is only supposed to be 1v1 or somthing like that. Ah yes it was around the ol' fourm.
Its part of the gentlemen code, before guns war had always been a matter of lining up two armies and engaging in honorable combat. Concepts of taking cover and using hit and run tactics were thought of as dishonorable by the distinguished officer elite.
If the enemy captured an officer they would still pay him his wage.
No.
You line up because it gives you firepower and morale, and easy communication. Your troops are less likely to run away when they are grouped together, and having many men firing at once puts out alot of shot. They did have guerrilla tactics, the Spanish used them against Napoleon, but they were a nuisance. Same with the Americans in the revolution. They were merely an annoyance until they got European officers to come over and train them into a European style army, fighting and winning pitched battles.
Tactics were what they were because it was the best for their level of technology.
Also, concepts of "honor" were obviously for officers (almost always noblemen), not common soldiers, and definitely not non whites. Looking too much into that is like having fairy tales about the honorable samurai. Honor isn't stupidity.
Its part of the gentlemen code, before guns war had always been a matter of lining up two armies and engaging in honorable combat. Concepts of taking cover and using hit and run tactics were thought of as dishonorable by the distinguished officer elite.
If the enemy captured an officer they would still pay him his wage.
Honor isn't stupidity.
tell that to the french in the 100 years war. at least in the beginning
Field Marshall 'Bloody Stupid' Montgomery Haig was still using cavalry charges in WWI.
It took so many deaths to make people realise that 1 bunkered man with a machine gun = 20 with rifles.
You'd be astonished how long it took people to adapt.
There were many reasons for the slow march across no-mans land.
Chief among which was the primitive technology meant that creeping barrage artillery could only be timed with marching pace, because satellite imagery or even aerial photography was non existent.
Not to mention other than the big battles, Somme, Passendalle etc the tactic proved not that ineffective.
As far as WW1 goes the restrictions on artillery and the chain of command contributed equally to mass deaths as the slow march tactic.
Its part of the gentlemen code, before guns war had always been a matter of lining up two armies and engaging in honorable combat. Concepts of taking cover and using hit and run tactics were thought of as dishonorable by the distinguished officer elite.
If the enemy captured an officer they would still pay him his wage.
Honor isn't stupidity.
tell that to the french in the 100 years war. at least in the beginning
Oh snap. They really did embarass themselves there.
In any event though, pitched battles of the 18th century have little to do with honor.
In fact the entire notion that armies just stood up in a line and fired at eachother over and over with muskets is a lie.
The only time one army would line up and fire over and over is if they were in entrenched position like a fort which is *gasp* amazing cover. The thing is, muskets aren't very accurate, or quick to reload. Most infantry combat was decided by the press of bayonets. It wouldn't be unusual for a regiment or whatever to fire only one volley before closing for bayonets or maybe not even firing at all. Sometimes a regiment would hold off on firing till they were very close for the demoralizing effect it would have right before a bayonet charge. A musket isn't really something you can reload while running.
There was another reason why soldiers stayed in nice blocks of infantry those days and that was the fact that cavalry still worked very well. They weren't the heavily armored knights of the past but they were still amazingly effective, and gun technology wasn't to a point yet that it made cavalry obsolete. A bunch of spread out, scattered soldiers would get torn apart by some cavalry.
Still, despite what many people have been told there were skirmishing units in armies that would take cover behind trees, rocks, lay prone in fields, took inidividual aimed shots. But this functioned much more like the skirmisher units of the past, due to accuracy and low rate of fire. They can be a nuisance, thin the enemy some, bait the enemy into traps but they'd never rout an army themselves.
So yeah, tons of misconceptions and lies get thrown around about warfare in this time period.
So yeah, tons of misconceptions and lies get thrown around about warfare in this time period.
I had someone tell me that the American revolution was won because the Americans used guerrilla tactics against the silly English, who stood in lines and thus were crushed by the quick moving and smarter American troops. My head hurt quite alot after that comment.
Field Marshall 'Bloody Stupid' Montgomery Haig was still using cavalry charges in WWI.
It took so many deaths to make people realise that 1 bunkered man with a machine gun = 20 with rifles.
You'd be astonished how long it took people to adapt.
There were many reasons for the slow march across no-mans land.
Chief among which was the primitive technology meant that creeping barrage artillery could only be timed with marching pace, because satellite imagery or even aerial photography was non existent.
Not to mention other than the big battles, Somme, Passendalle etc the tactic proved not that ineffective.
As far as WW1 goes the restrictions on artillery and the chain of command contributed equally to mass deaths as the slow march tactic.
This is true, the lack of any kind of portable radios was especially crucial. But add in to there the fact that defensive reserves could be brought up by train, i.e. quickly and rested was also important.
It wasn't that hard to gain a tactical victory e.g. take the first few trench lines, but the lack of ability to follow up quickly and exploit those victories robbed them of their strategic point.
lowlylowlycook on
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
So yeah, tons of misconceptions and lies get thrown around about warfare in this time period.
I had someone tell me that the American revolution was won because the Americans used guerrilla tactics against the silly English, who stood in lines and thus were crushed by the quick moving and smarter American troops. My head hurt quite alot after that comment.
I still like the story of the british officer who was shot 6 times trying to get on his horse by a small group of American Frontier millita - most of which hunted for a living - equiped with Longbarreled rifles (not muskets) at about 150 yards - 3 times the effective range of the standard british musket.
To top it all off, the fact that firing a flinklock weapon, you had to shut your eyes before firing so you wouldn't be blinded makes that pretty fucking impressive.
but yeah, the Americans didn't win by guerrilla tactics, so much as they weren't stupid enough to fight the British untill they had enough men to fight a pitched battle... and after at least 2 other nations (France and Spain) had declared war on the British as well.
So yeah, tons of misconceptions and lies get thrown around about warfare in this time period.
I had someone tell me that the American revolution was won because the Americans used guerrilla tactics against the silly English, who stood in lines and thus were crushed by the quick moving and smarter American troops. My head hurt quite alot after that comment.
I still like the story of the british officer who was shot 6 times trying to get on his horse by a small group of American Frontier millita - most of which hunted for a living - equiped with Longbarreled rifles (not muskets) at about 150 yards - 3 times the effective range of the standard british musket.
To top it all off, the fact that firing a flinklock weapon, you had to shut your eyes before firing so you wouldn't be blinded makes that pretty fucking impressive.
but yeah, the Americans didn't win by guerrilla tactics, so much as they weren't stupid enough to fight the British untill they had enough men to fight a pitched battle... and after at least 2 other nations (France and Spain) had declared war on the British as well.
I know nothing about the American war of Independence, (Blame the British 'Oh, we lost, it didn't happen' mentality of our schools) so France and Spain? I had no idea they were involved
So yeah, tons of misconceptions and lies get thrown around about warfare in this time period.
I had someone tell me that the American revolution was won because the Americans used guerrilla tactics against the silly English, who stood in lines and thus were crushed by the quick moving and smarter American troops. My head hurt quite alot after that comment.
I still like the story of the british officer who was shot 6 times trying to get on his horse by a small group of American Frontier millita - most of which hunted for a living - equiped with Longbarreled rifles (not muskets) at about 150 yards - 3 times the effective range of the standard british musket.
To top it all off, the fact that firing a flinklock weapon, you had to shut your eyes before firing so you wouldn't be blinded makes that pretty fucking impressive.
but yeah, the Americans didn't win by guerrilla tactics, so much as they weren't stupid enough to fight the British untill they had enough men to fight a pitched battle... and after at least 2 other nations (France and Spain) had declared war on the British as well.
I know nothing about the American war of Independence, (Blame the British 'Oh, we lost, it didn't happen' mentality of our schools) so France and Spain? I had no idea they were involved
Thinking about the sheer discipline required of the soldiers of that age to do stuff like that, to simply just keep WALKING FORWARD into enemy fire until the commander gives order otherwise...
Yeesh. o_O
Yeah, that's insane.
Is there are reason why they weren't firing back...?
Cause they weren't ordered to yet.
Close till you can see the whites of their eyes. Unleash a deadly accurate volley that would just shock the enemy and then charge with bayonets. Only an incredibly brave group of soldiers would stand their ground and get into close combat. Considering it was a rearguard the French probably ran once the British charged.
I find that one of the most terrifying things I could possibly imagine
That and WWI warfare
It seems such a waste of resources, you would lose a lot of men even if you won a battle.
The one thing Britain had in abundance back then were poor people willing to join the ranks and cheap red dye for their uniforms. Infantry were completely disposable.
Didn't they also sell the revolution some naval vessels to help fill in it's fledgling navy? Or am I mentally making that up.
Your not, though they were mostly in crappy vessels that French didn't want to use anymore.
One of the US's first naval victories was in such a ship. They were losing for most of it, untill their mast was destroyed. Since striking you colors (how you surrendered) required a mast, the British ship stopped firing, and asked if they surrendered, and got no responce. After the third time, the American captain (whose name I can't remember) shouted out the now-famous words "I have yet begun to fight!" and ordered the firing of the full broadside the Americans were loading while the British were asking if they surrendered. Americans won, but they had to take the British ship for themselves after thier own sunk.
I know nothing about the American war of Independence, (Blame the British 'Oh, we lost, it didn't happen' mentality of our schools) so France and Spain? I had no idea they were involved
France was the only one that directly helped the Americans with troops and naval support (ironicly, the only time the French had any major success against the Royal Navy), Spain was more "lets take advatage of this and try to take over some English colonies elsewhere!!"
Thinking about the sheer discipline required of the soldiers of that age to do stuff like that, to simply just keep WALKING FORWARD into enemy fire until the commander gives order otherwise...
Yeesh. o_O
Yeah, that's insane.
Is there are reason why they weren't firing back...?
Cause they weren't ordered to yet.
Close till you can see the whites of their eyes. Unleash a deadly accurate volley that would just shock the enemy and then charge with bayonets. Only an incredibly brave group of soldiers would stand their ground and get into close combat. Considering it was a rearguard the French probably ran once the British charged.
I find that one of the most terrifying things I could possibly imagine
That and WWI warfare
It seems such a waste of resources, you would lose a lot of men even if you won a battle.
Yeah, I am still amazed that no one who lived then considered the possibilities of modern warfare. I mean, the concept of taking cover is not that difficult to think up.
Because it didn't work. There were numerous skirmishers and independent forces who operated along more modern lines with camouflage etc, but to do this requires a rifle. Your gun was loud, produced an enormous puff of smoke and took ages to reload. It was also innacurate and had a huge barrel. As a skirmisher you could take one shot, which would likely miss, then everyone would know where you were and come kill you.
Line infantry tactics conversely did work. Don't view them as individual guys. View them as a unit. By operating together morale was improved, and the volley of fire delivered was far more terrifying. In most battles the key wasn't to slaughter all the eneamy, but to break their morale and send them running. Only with the introduction of american civil war weaponry, and gatling guns by the UK, did these tactics begin to break down since it became more and more 1 shot, 1 kill.
Didn't they also sell the revolution some naval vessels to help fill in it's fledgling navy? Or am I mentally making that up.
Your not, though they were mostly in crappy vessels that French didn't want to use anymore.
One of the US's first naval victories was in such a ship. They were losing for most of it, untill their mast was destroyed. Since striking you colors (how you surrendered) required a mast, the British ship stopped firing, and asked if they surrendered, and got no responce. After the third time, the American captain (whose name I can't remember) shouted out the now-famous words "I have yet begun to fight!" and ordered the firing of the full broadside the Americans were loading while the British were asking if they surrendered. Americans won, but they had to take the British ship for themselves after thier own sunk.
I was under the impression that french weapons and training helped the revolutionaries much more than any direct support. Since we're on the topic, am I horribly wrong or close to right?
I was under the impression that french weapons and training helped the revolutionaries much more than any direct support. Since we're on the topic, am I horribly wrong or close to right?
I was under the impression that french weapons and training helped the revolutionaries much more than any direct support. Since we're on the topic, am I horribly wrong or close to right?
Thanks for that. I vaguely knew who Lafayette was since there's a shit load of places and streets named after him around these parts, but it's nice to know the whole story. Funny how my US history teachers didn't mention him once.
Didn't they also sell the revolution some naval vessels to help fill in it's fledgling navy? Or am I mentally making that up.
Your not, though they were mostly in crappy vessels that French didn't want to use anymore.
One of the US's first naval victories was in such a ship. They were losing for most of it, untill their mast was destroyed. Since striking you colors (how you surrendered) required a mast, the British ship stopped firing, and asked if they surrendered, and got no responce. After the third time, the American captain (whose name I can't remember) shouted out the now-famous words "I have yet begun to fight!" and ordered the firing of the full broadside the Americans were loading while the British were asking if they surrendered. Americans won, but they had to take the British ship for themselves after thier own sunk.
Didn't they also sell the revolution some naval vessels to help fill in it's fledgling navy? Or am I mentally making that up.
Your not, though they were mostly in crappy vessels that French didn't want to use anymore.
One of the US's first naval victories was in such a ship. They were losing for most of it, untill their mast was destroyed. Since striking you colors (how you surrendered) required a mast, the British ship stopped firing, and asked if they surrendered, and got no responce. After the third time, the American captain (whose name I can't remember) shouted out the now-famous words "I have yet begun to fight!" and ordered the firing of the full broadside the Americans were loading while the British were asking if they surrendered. Americans won, but they had to take the British ship for themselves after thier own sunk.
What's the news on the multiplayer campaign? On the one hand, that sounds completely fantastic. On the other hand, it would take several months to finish. Bit of and at the same time for me, frankly.
I was under the impression that french weapons and training helped the revolutionaries much more than any direct support. Since we're on the topic, am I horribly wrong or close to right?
Thanks for that. I vaguely knew who Lafayette was since there's a shit load of places and streets named after him around these parts, but it's nice to know the whole story. Funny how my US history teachers didn't mention him once.
My US history teacher was drunk most days but I'm pretty sure Lafayette was mentioned. He's pretty famous along with that German that trained up the troops.
lowlylowlycook on
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
I was under the impression that french weapons and training helped the revolutionaries much more than any direct support. Since we're on the topic, am I horribly wrong or close to right?
Thanks for that. I vaguely knew who Lafayette was since there's a shit load of places and streets named after him around these parts, but it's nice to know the whole story. Funny how my US history teachers didn't mention him once.
My US history teacher was drunk most days but I'm pretty sure Lafayette was mentioned. He's pretty famous along with that German that trained up the troops.
Looks amazing but I just hope they get the AI right this time. The siege AI in rome and med2 was questionable.
There won't be any sieges in this game thankfully. My enemies will take one look upon my gleaming visage as I approach their keep at the head of my unstoppable wave of troops and kill themselves to save me the trouble.
No sieges?
Any reason for this? While the AI was questionable, I always enjoyed city battles.
Looks amazing but I just hope they get the AI right this time. The siege AI in rome and med2 was questionable.
There won't be any sieges in this game thankfully. My enemies will take one look upon my gleaming visage as I approach their keep at the head of my unstoppable wave of troops and kill themselves to save me the trouble.
No sieges?
Any reason for this? While the AI was questionable, I always enjoyed city battles.
I'm pretty sure Scarab was joking that his army would be so intimidating, nobody would bother to stand and fight him.
Looks amazing but I just hope they get the AI right this time. The siege AI in rome and med2 was questionable.
There won't be any sieges in this game thankfully. My enemies will take one look upon my gleaming visage as I approach their keep at the head of my unstoppable wave of troops and kill themselves to save me the trouble.
No sieges?
Any reason for this? While the AI was questionable, I always enjoyed city battles.
I'm pretty sure Scarab was joking that his army would be so intimidating, nobody would bother to stand and fight him.
Actually it's a little bit of both.
While you can besiege settlements, it's not like Rome Total war or even medieval because you have gunpowder from the start and there are no castles.
Yes they are in. You can build them around your resources on the map to give them a little bit of protection in case your province is invaded and you don't want your gold mine destroyed.
Regarding tactics of the time and why they lined up like that, tbloxham said it right when he mentioned the importance of morale. Officers had a hard time keeping morale steady if they were spread out and the troops would most likely run away if their formation broke. Keeping the men close together and marching as a unit really improves morale and also means that cavalry is less of a threat. Unfortunately it does make you a beautiful target for artillery.
As far as skirmishing goes, the American riflemen were told to "aim for the epaulets" at Saratoga. So sniping officers and sergeants would help as it would mean cohesion would break down in a unit but apart from that skirmishing had limited uses particularly because they were so vulnerable to cavalry.
There's one night battle fought during the American War of Independence that I find particularly enlightening. Regular British forces engaged Rebellious Americans who had bee freshly trained in the whole effective foramtions, volley fire etc. Some experience regular British units, while advancing on the American positions, threw themselves to the ground every time they heard the "Ready, Fire" command being given by the Americans and made it to melee with minimal casualties.
Reading the reports of various officers for the ACW is very interesting, especially when you know that their unit was even directly involved in the fighting yet it came under friendly fire, broke and reformed 2 times edpoyed skirmishers, lost cohesion, changed formation etc, etc all while never even seeing the enemy.
It basically shows that anyone who wants a 'historically accurate' game is asking for a game where they don't control anything.
There's one night battle fought during the American War of Independence that I find particularly enlightening. Regular British forces engaged Rebellious Americans who had bee freshly trained in the whole effective foramtions, volley fire etc. Some experience regular British units, while advancing on the American positions, threw themselves to the ground every time they heard the "Ready, Fire" command being given by the Americans and made it to melee with minimal casualties.
Reading the reports of various officers for the ACW is very interesting, especially when you know that their unit was even directly involved in the fighting yet it came under friendly fire, broke and reformed 2 times edpoyed skirmishers, lost cohesion, changed formation etc, etc all while never even seeing the enemy.
It basically shows that anyone who wants a 'historically accurate' game is asking for a game where they don't control anything.
Yeah but CA have said that their games, while historical, do not have complete realism as a goal. I mean, look at elephant artillery, burning pigs and screaming women.
I hope that the difference between a well trained regular unit changing formation and a militia unit changing formation is represented in the game somehow. Even if the militia unit just took a morale hit when moving under fire would be enough. After all, regulars drilled frequently and trained hard so that when they had to change combat on the battlefield it was like a nervous reaction.
Looks amazing but I just hope they get the AI right this time. The siege AI in rome and med2 was questionable.
There won't be any sieges in this game thankfully. My enemies will take one look upon my gleaming visage as I approach their keep at the head of my unstoppable wave of troops and kill themselves to save me the trouble.
No sieges?
Any reason for this? While the AI was questionable, I always enjoyed city battles.
I hope you were the only one. Siege battles in previous TWs were always tedious, drawn out and played out almost identically irregardless of other factors. The AI also made them impossibly simple to cheese. The reason I refuse to install 'realism' mods for Rome/medieval is the huge number of additional provinces turns the game into a never ending series of sieges. Any move to encourage more pitched battles in Empire can only be a good thing.
Yeah but CA have said that their games, while historical, do not have complete realism as a goal. I mean, look at elephant artillery, burning pigs and screaming women.
Absolutely, that's why I laughed so hard when people complained about the Egyptians and their hats.
So yeah, tons of misconceptions and lies get thrown around about warfare in this time period.
I had someone tell me that the American revolution was won because the Americans used guerrilla tactics against the silly English, who stood in lines and thus were crushed by the quick moving and smarter American troops. My head hurt quite alot after that comment.
It didn't help that a lot of modern media (e.g. The Patriot) spread this misconception around. That and we still love "lol british" comments.
Didn't they also sell the revolution some naval vessels to help fill in it's fledgling navy? Or am I mentally making that up.
Your not, though they were mostly in crappy vessels that French didn't want to use anymore.
One of the US's first naval victories was in such a ship. They were losing for most of it, untill their mast was destroyed. Since striking you colors (how you surrendered) required a mast, the British ship stopped firing, and asked if they surrendered, and got no responce. After the third time, the American captain (whose name I can't remember) shouted out the now-famous words "I have yet begun to fight!" and ordered the firing of the full broadside the Americans were loading while the British were asking if they surrendered. Americans won, but they had to take the British ship for themselves after thier own sunk.
Basically, we were fairly retarded and it's amazing we survived for this long.
Thanks for that. I vaguely knew who Lafayette was since there's a shit load of places and streets named after him around these parts, but it's nice to know the whole story. Funny how my US history teachers didn't mention him once.
Primary history education here is pretty much "America, fuck yeah!" It gets better in the universities and at the military academies, but it's still pretty much like we "let them" help us out.
I was under the impression that french weapons and training helped the revolutionaries much more than any direct support. Since we're on the topic, am I horribly wrong or close to right?
Thanks for that. I vaguely knew who Lafayette was since there's a shit load of places and streets named after him around these parts, but it's nice to know the whole story. Funny how my US history teachers didn't mention him once.
My US history teacher was drunk most days but I'm pretty sure Lafayette was mentioned. He's pretty famous along with that German that trained up the troops.
Steuben
Don't forget the Polish engineer who turned around and almost freed Poland from Russia.
But really, the Revolution ended because the Americans made it cost too much to keep fighting 1000s of miles from England. Once the Revolution became a credible drain on Britain, the French had an incentive to pick at England and help build up the rebels who had the defensive and supply advantages. It had been apparent from almost the start to King George he couldn't hold New England and probably not Pennsylvania but he might be able to hold the South and New York/Jersey and hurt the Independent colonies through non-recognition and economic attacks until they asked to return to the Empire.
In New England, popular sentiment made the British position untenable. When the war shifted to NY and the mid-Atlantic, the British started winning over-and-over until it got to the South when the Continental Army began a war of attrition. As Nathaniel Greene put it, "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." With an incredibly long and increasingly endangered supply line and momentum changing after 2nd Saratoga, they were eventually surrounded at Yorktown and their exit strategy was defeated by a French fleet.
Posts
Also I remember reading somewhere on the Total War site that they were delaying it to March Specifically to add Online campaign. Though the beta is only supposed to be 1v1 or somthing like that. Ah yes it was around the ol' fourm.
http://shoguntotalwar.yuku.com/topic/40020/t/Empire-Total-War-Release-Date.html
No.
You line up because it gives you firepower and morale, and easy communication. Your troops are less likely to run away when they are grouped together, and having many men firing at once puts out alot of shot. They did have guerrilla tactics, the Spanish used them against Napoleon, but they were a nuisance. Same with the Americans in the revolution. They were merely an annoyance until they got European officers to come over and train them into a European style army, fighting and winning pitched battles.
Tactics were what they were because it was the best for their level of technology.
Also, concepts of "honor" were obviously for officers (almost always noblemen), not common soldiers, and definitely not non whites. Looking too much into that is like having fairy tales about the honorable samurai. Honor isn't stupidity.
There were many reasons for the slow march across no-mans land.
Chief among which was the primitive technology meant that creeping barrage artillery could only be timed with marching pace, because satellite imagery or even aerial photography was non existent.
Not to mention other than the big battles, Somme, Passendalle etc the tactic proved not that ineffective.
As far as WW1 goes the restrictions on artillery and the chain of command contributed equally to mass deaths as the slow march tactic.
Oh snap. They really did embarass themselves there.
In any event though, pitched battles of the 18th century have little to do with honor.
The only time one army would line up and fire over and over is if they were in entrenched position like a fort which is *gasp* amazing cover. The thing is, muskets aren't very accurate, or quick to reload. Most infantry combat was decided by the press of bayonets. It wouldn't be unusual for a regiment or whatever to fire only one volley before closing for bayonets or maybe not even firing at all. Sometimes a regiment would hold off on firing till they were very close for the demoralizing effect it would have right before a bayonet charge. A musket isn't really something you can reload while running.
There was another reason why soldiers stayed in nice blocks of infantry those days and that was the fact that cavalry still worked very well. They weren't the heavily armored knights of the past but they were still amazingly effective, and gun technology wasn't to a point yet that it made cavalry obsolete. A bunch of spread out, scattered soldiers would get torn apart by some cavalry.
Still, despite what many people have been told there were skirmishing units in armies that would take cover behind trees, rocks, lay prone in fields, took inidividual aimed shots. But this functioned much more like the skirmisher units of the past, due to accuracy and low rate of fire. They can be a nuisance, thin the enemy some, bait the enemy into traps but they'd never rout an army themselves.
So yeah, tons of misconceptions and lies get thrown around about warfare in this time period.
I had someone tell me that the American revolution was won because the Americans used guerrilla tactics against the silly English, who stood in lines and thus were crushed by the quick moving and smarter American troops. My head hurt quite alot after that comment.
This is true, the lack of any kind of portable radios was especially crucial. But add in to there the fact that defensive reserves could be brought up by train, i.e. quickly and rested was also important.
It wasn't that hard to gain a tactical victory e.g. take the first few trench lines, but the lack of ability to follow up quickly and exploit those victories robbed them of their strategic point.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
I still like the story of the british officer who was shot 6 times trying to get on his horse by a small group of American Frontier millita - most of which hunted for a living - equiped with Longbarreled rifles (not muskets) at about 150 yards - 3 times the effective range of the standard british musket.
To top it all off, the fact that firing a flinklock weapon, you had to shut your eyes before firing so you wouldn't be blinded makes that pretty fucking impressive.
but yeah, the Americans didn't win by guerrilla tactics, so much as they weren't stupid enough to fight the British untill they had enough men to fight a pitched battle... and after at least 2 other nations (France and Spain) had declared war on the British as well.
I know nothing about the American war of Independence, (Blame the British 'Oh, we lost, it didn't happen' mentality of our schools) so France and Spain? I had no idea they were involved
Yeah well you suck.
Alternative post:
JOIN WITH ME MY ENGLISH BROTHER, TOGETHER WE WILL CRUSH THESE REBELLIOUS DOGS - AN INDEPENDENT AMERICA, OVER MY DEAD BODY
French sent troops and supplies to aid the American revolution. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Yorktown as an example.
The one thing Britain had in abundance back then were poor people willing to join the ranks and cheap red dye for their uniforms. Infantry were completely disposable.
england is a maget
Your not, though they were mostly in crappy vessels that French didn't want to use anymore.
One of the US's first naval victories was in such a ship. They were losing for most of it, untill their mast was destroyed. Since striking you colors (how you surrendered) required a mast, the British ship stopped firing, and asked if they surrendered, and got no responce. After the third time, the American captain (whose name I can't remember) shouted out the now-famous words "I have yet begun to fight!" and ordered the firing of the full broadside the Americans were loading while the British were asking if they surrendered. Americans won, but they had to take the British ship for themselves after thier own sunk.
France was the only one that directly helped the Americans with troops and naval support (ironicly, the only time the French had any major success against the Royal Navy), Spain was more "lets take advatage of this and try to take over some English colonies elsewhere!!"
Because it didn't work. There were numerous skirmishers and independent forces who operated along more modern lines with camouflage etc, but to do this requires a rifle. Your gun was loud, produced an enormous puff of smoke and took ages to reload. It was also innacurate and had a huge barrel. As a skirmisher you could take one shot, which would likely miss, then everyone would know where you were and come kill you.
Line infantry tactics conversely did work. Don't view them as individual guys. View them as a unit. By operating together morale was improved, and the volley of fire delivered was far more terrifying. In most battles the key wasn't to slaughter all the eneamy, but to break their morale and send them running. Only with the introduction of american civil war weaponry, and gatling guns by the UK, did these tactics begin to break down since it became more and more 1 shot, 1 kill.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Paul_Jones
Kicking ass and taking names
3ds friend code: 2981-6032-4118
I think that this Gentleman agrees with you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marquis_de_Lafayette
Thanks for that. I vaguely knew who Lafayette was since there's a shit load of places and streets named after him around these parts, but it's nice to know the whole story. Funny how my US history teachers didn't mention him once.
How the hell do you think we won?
My US history teacher was drunk most days but I'm pretty sure Lafayette was mentioned. He's pretty famous along with that German that trained up the troops.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
Steuben
No sieges?
Any reason for this? While the AI was questionable, I always enjoyed city battles.
I'm pretty sure Scarab was joking that his army would be so intimidating, nobody would bother to stand and fight him.
While you can besiege settlements, it's not like Rome Total war or even medieval because you have gunpowder from the start and there are no castles.
Yes they are in. You can build them around your resources on the map to give them a little bit of protection in case your province is invaded and you don't want your gold mine destroyed.
Also that Setuben guy is cool. He was able to teach the Americans drill even though he couldn't speak any English. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Wilhelm_von_Steuben
Regarding tactics of the time and why they lined up like that, tbloxham said it right when he mentioned the importance of morale. Officers had a hard time keeping morale steady if they were spread out and the troops would most likely run away if their formation broke. Keeping the men close together and marching as a unit really improves morale and also means that cavalry is less of a threat. Unfortunately it does make you a beautiful target for artillery.
As far as skirmishing goes, the American riflemen were told to "aim for the epaulets" at Saratoga. So sniping officers and sergeants would help as it would mean cohesion would break down in a unit but apart from that skirmishing had limited uses particularly because they were so vulnerable to cavalry.
It was a stick.
Reading the reports of various officers for the ACW is very interesting, especially when you know that their unit was even directly involved in the fighting yet it came under friendly fire, broke and reformed 2 times edpoyed skirmishers, lost cohesion, changed formation etc, etc all while never even seeing the enemy.
It basically shows that anyone who wants a 'historically accurate' game is asking for a game where they don't control anything.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
Yeah but CA have said that their games, while historical, do not have complete realism as a goal. I mean, look at elephant artillery, burning pigs and screaming women.
I hope that the difference between a well trained regular unit changing formation and a militia unit changing formation is represented in the game somehow. Even if the militia unit just took a morale hit when moving under fire would be enough. After all, regulars drilled frequently and trained hard so that when they had to change combat on the battlefield it was like a nervous reaction.
It was a stick.
I hope you were the only one. Siege battles in previous TWs were always tedious, drawn out and played out almost identically irregardless of other factors. The AI also made them impossibly simple to cheese. The reason I refuse to install 'realism' mods for Rome/medieval is the huge number of additional provinces turns the game into a never ending series of sieges. Any move to encourage more pitched battles in Empire can only be a good thing.
Absolutely, that's why I laughed so hard when people complained about the Egyptians and their hats.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
Basically, we were fairly retarded and it's amazing we survived for this long.
Primary history education here is pretty much "America, fuck yeah!" It gets better in the universities and at the military academies, but it's still pretty much like we "let them" help us out.
But really, the Revolution ended because the Americans made it cost too much to keep fighting 1000s of miles from England. Once the Revolution became a credible drain on Britain, the French had an incentive to pick at England and help build up the rebels who had the defensive and supply advantages. It had been apparent from almost the start to King George he couldn't hold New England and probably not Pennsylvania but he might be able to hold the South and New York/Jersey and hurt the Independent colonies through non-recognition and economic attacks until they asked to return to the Empire.
In New England, popular sentiment made the British position untenable. When the war shifted to NY and the mid-Atlantic, the British started winning over-and-over until it got to the South when the Continental Army began a war of attrition. As Nathaniel Greene put it, "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." With an incredibly long and increasingly endangered supply line and momentum changing after 2nd Saratoga, they were eventually surrounded at Yorktown and their exit strategy was defeated by a French fleet.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+