Light Infantry

[flippyxtrem]

www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1841764035/102-2902659-7467331?v=glance

Talking about Light Infantry pick that up, its a good book, never a waste to educate yourself

Your Point:

Second, light infantry was absolutely faster than line. In fact, the reason troops were selected to be lights were they were smaller, faster men

This is true for French Light infantry to some extent

Light Infantry had to be quick men because they had to form marching columns to line formation and then into skirmishing formation quickly. Now the real hard part was going from a Skirmishing formation back into a marching/line formation.

There quick speed made it possible to do it just as fas as line infantry, not necessarily quicker, so increasing there speed even higher than what it is now is not right.

however that is not the full picture here.

British Light Infantry were not small men, they had small men, but they had all sizes of men

Russian and Prussian Light Infantry, those were big men who were not slow but not faster than there Line Infantry comrades

So speed say for French Light Infantry can be historically changed and justified, but changing every factions light infantry to now a higher speed? Thats not right.

better accuracy and usually smarter; the generals of the time felt that in order for men to be able to "handle" being light infantry, they definately needed to be smarter than the average man.

Yes they were marksman, but this dident give them magical powers to extend the accurate range of there muskets.

French and British Light Infantry both had muskets same as the line infantry. Except say for some units that had rifles (95th, KGL Lights etc)

British Light Infantry- Brown Bess (good ol' bessy)
British Line Infantry- Brown Bess

Light Infantry range should be the same however in some cases light infantry in NTW already have a bit longer range 4100-4200 and thats all they real need, and I think it simulates there marksmanship skills just fine.

British Light Infantry have a range of 4000 but they reload some 18 seconds faster so I think thats balanced, could go for some testing on that

And they were not really smarter? there tactics of skirmishing were good and smart, but for example British Light Infantry were made up of marksman who were once criminals, not the brightest of men

They seemed smart, but that came with there training and the experience of war.


Unfortunately, when lights are used "properly" in NTW, it is usually only because the player has a sense of historical accuracy and wants to use them in the "proper" way:) For the most part, you can just throw line units into "loose" formation and do basically the exact same thing that the light infantry can do, but cheaper:)The problem when balancing historical desire with gameplay desire is how to do it:) Unfortunately, Hit, the problem is that video game players naturally gravitate to what "works

Well good, let people play the game how they want to, your alternatives are not good historical alternatives and are forcing people to use them the way you want to, that is not good, that is dictating how to play the game.

Look at those votes above 10 say light infantry are good gainst 2 votes

There is no real difference in what "works" between lights and line at the moment. They both move about the same speed, they both have the same basic range, and they can both use loose formation. So you have to figure out a way, in 1s and 0s, to make them PLAY different.

Historically there wanst much difference between Lights and Line except when two major differences, skirmishing formation and there skirmishing duties.

Same basic range? well they all mostly had the same weapons as there line infantry comrades.

Both can go to loose formation? yes they can, read about the British Foot Guards at Hougmount, they went into loose formation

Flip, I didnt get what you were testing there?

did you try reading it first?

Also, I would use the same unit for the friendly unit as the enemy unit; that way you arent testing any of the variables of unit stats,

No, you missed the point, and besides your gonna be facing enemy units that have different unit stats anyway, im not testing light infantry versus light infantry im testing how it can work to use lights and that they are good with those changed stats.

British Line Infantry should of destoryed my Russian Light Infantry, they did not because my Lights were in loose formation and took less hits.



Any projectilestats changes will effect all unit types, so that wont change the inherent way we use lights as opposed to how we use line.

So your saying that it will change, but not change, okay

Yes players can go into loose formation with Line Infantry, but that wont work on a gaming field on mp, nor is it historically accurate, now if a gamer wants to do that, then fine, let people play the game how they want to man, your cutting to deep and making these uncalled for drastic changes.

[[GG] Lord Ashram]

Your tone is poor.

"Never a waste to educate yourself?"

"Try reading it?"

That tone is unacceptable here. You are a high schooler who is trying to talk down to someone with four undergraduate and graduate degrees and who has been taught military history by a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I think your time posting here is at a close.

Of course, I welcome Hitmans and Armans input here, input which is always considerate and thoughtful, so do please keep the debate going.

[arman]

At last reached home to test following. Result of the test is good. Despite figures that I have sujested both current FOB and projectilestats fixed FOB give positive result when using loose formition Light infantry. Flat trajectory projectile those give 10% better performance of light in loose formition.

Here are average results of multiple test, where two Russian Light were skimishing with each other on slightly closer than maximum distance. I was loosing formition of my light from begin, while AI were loosing formition when after significant casaulties of him. In average AI were loosing formition after 6-10 voleys, I think it does it when enemy become numerically superior more than 30% percent or something like that.
So results:

My avg kills with arched trejectory :

53 kills 33 lost

My avg kills with flat trajectory :

60 kills 30 lost (quite round numbers for some reason)

Conclusion :
1. Light infantry can be used like light by those who wants to use them as light.
2. Loosing formition if favourable decisions for those that know how to use it.
3. Flat projectory makes loose formition 10% more effective for all units. (shorter bullet path, as result smaller shift from initally targeted object, irregardles of accuracty)

About lights. Despites it's beleaved that light infantry were faster, I simply can't find any reason for that. Taking into account following factors :

1. Light infantry man carrying similar payload to line.
2. He him self is lighter and weaker.
3. He is shorter and have short legs.

Taking into account this 3 factors I can't see how shorter and weaker man can run faster than stronger and taller, while have the same load or slightly lighter.

But there are also factor in defence of this theory.

1. The British line was constantly lining up their formition, practically stopping completelly even under heavy artilery fire (Crimean war). While light could run in any messy shapes it likes and don't really care for lining up.

But this applies only to infantry fighting mostly in lines. It's know it was common for line tactics prefering British to move very slow. But French operating in narrower collumns were moving much faster. Because column is easier to keep in shape.
The whole idea of light was to make them fast and not carring for formition but in practice light still cared, for it.
It's really hard to say whitch light was indeed faster than line. I think diference is speed was anyway small. Probably most of Light was much faster then British line, but not really much faster than French column. When they were running way the spead of run was always adjusted to the slowest running men in company, taking into account presense of back pack, they probably just run slightly faster then French column can run on full speed but much faster than British line moving and adjusting it's formition.
So if you think you can implement it, it would be ok. But we should not expect Light to run much faster that Line.

When I served in army we was teached basic maneuring skills, those skills are not required in modern warfare but command beleave it improves discipline and common sense. So we were marching in line, column and running in formition so I know aproximatly how it looks like.
When column runs it runs under count, when sergant hears that steps are asynchronous he starts giving count again so that soldiers adjust their steps and this usually returns formition in good shape, since everybody starts making steps in the same rithm and same size. I can say that aproximate speed running in column while preserving shape of formition is 1.5 time faster than double pace normal step, running in line is imposible, it starts bowing, breaking and fast become mess.
I will explain why Light cannot run on full speed. Simply because formition will collapse. Such type of command usually given only when chanrging on close range. Otherwise all companies and platoons getting completelly mixed together, so no one can find it commander and his place in formition.
From my expirience to form the battalion per company column from completelly disordered men would take something like 5 mins. So letting Light to run as fast as it can simply means loosing control over it completelly, soldiers don't see officers and they simply do not know what to do. Collenell would scream olders but the mass of people would only become even more messy.
:-)

For that reason Light always care to preserve companies and battalions in good and practically simply maches slightly than Line, may be even not faster at all. Running in formition have nothing to do to simply running, it doesn't mater how good runner you are you run at the the same speed and you do the same rithm and size of steps as others do.

[[GG] Lord Ashram]

Hm, having marched a million times myself, both in line and column and wheeling from one to the other, as well as having operated as a skirmisher myself, again I have to say that infantry moving in loose formation would be noticeably faster.

Military formations that are shoulder to shoulder, line or column or whatever, still moves at a certain beat and in a certain time. The front of the line stays straight (if the NCOs are doing their jobs) and columns stay straight.

Lights, however, didn't have to worry about marching in step, or in time, or keeping time, or anything; instead, they fight in a daisy-chain loose formation, getting behind trees and such as they want.

If you simply try crossing a field in ranks and then crossing solo, you will find you are quicker, especially once you take into consideration that when a line formation stops to fire, it takes a few seconds to fire a volley and then reload. Skirmishers, however, can reload on the move.

Okay as far as ingame: Lemme try this, some excerpts from an excellent book I just read, along with some in-game implications.

From "The Battle," an account of Waterloo by Dr. Alessandro Barbero:

"By the time of Waterloo, all European armies had so thoroughly integrated light infantry that their use was virtually automatic. Every line battalion presnet on the battlefield had a company of men, known as the light company, trained to perform this role. In the case of the German armies, each battalion had at least one squad of selected marksmen, the Scharfschutzen, or sharpshooters. Agility and quickness were the chief physical qualities required of such soldiers; they were usually chosen from among those who happened to be both short in stature and crack shots.

*Okay; they should be quick, and good shots. That would be reflected in movement and accuracy.

"These skirmishers were armed with the same smoothbore muskets as the line soldiers used, except that the skirmishers were trained to use them better... If skirmishers got the upper hand and advanced so far that the defensive battalions were in range, they began peppering the serried ranks with isolated, well aimed shots designed to fray the nerves of men stanind in a packed and unmoving mass, and if possible pick one of their higher officers off his horse... "

* Hm... this is where the increase in range (again, not by much, maybe 10% at most) would come in useful. The idea is that light infantry could fire and harass a line unit without a line unit effectively being able to fire a volley in return. Since we cannot count on "loose formation" to do that (since any commander worth his salt will simply put his or her line units into loose formation and THEN trade fire with skirmishers) we need to come up with another way to allow skirmishers to harass line units without being in too much direct danger except by considerable effort by the line or by enemy skirmishers (who would have range on them)

"Considering the effectiveness of the light, one could ask why the whole infantry was not used in this way, and why instead most of the men were kept in closed order and maneuvered mechanically... Not every soldier had the intelligence necessary for operating with a degree of individual autonomy; most troopers were kept under much better control if they were marching shoulder to shoulder and responding to their officers rote commands. Furthermore, given that it took twice as long to train a good skirmisher as a regular infantryman, there was not enough time to prepare all the recuits for open order combat. Not coincidentally, perhaps the most significant difference betwen regular troops and militia was that the latter, preceisely because it was insufficiently trained, was nearly or completely useless as light infantry."

* This is tricky; how do we simulate this? We could consider making light infantry units smaller, to represent them being more rare? I am afraid that if we simply make them more expensive but the same size, they wont act like skirmishers but will instead become an option like line infantry.

"For their part, the light infantry units, accustomed to individual initiative and much more thoroughly trained in marksmanship than the line infantry, were the troops best adapted to defending or attacking fortified positions, where it wasnt possible to deploy the men in formations recommended by the manual. As we shall see, the fights around Hougoumont and La Haye Sainte essentially involved light infantry, engaged in furious hand to hand combat..."

* AHHH! Light infantry in close combat?! Argh, okay, now it gets messy. If we could simply make light infantry ALWAYS in loose formation, and line ALWAYS in tight, this problem would be solved. But if you make the lights decent in close combat, then they become TOO effective; shooting, keep them loose, close combat, tighten it up. Also, this is important as the light companys DIDNT need to stay close to their commanders for orders; they operated individually and thus had far more freedom of movement; usually it was a bugle or something that they got their orders from.

I think what we need to think about is how to make light units behave more like skirmishers. I still dont see how a change in velocity in projectiles changes anything; all the line commander needs to do to effectively "skirmish" is put his men in loose formation, and then he has a unit that costs half as much and can fire just as effectively at the exact same range, which will result in line units being more effective at skirmishing than light units!

Maybe a slight increase in range and a slight DECREASE in reload time, to make the incoming fire more a "harrassment" and less a viable full on firefight option?

Remember, what matters is that the numbers support the way the units fight. If lights and line have the same basic stats, they will be used the same basic way. I think that is what we want to avoid?

Ash

I am reluctant to consider bumping close combat, as then the units will simply be used in column as a close combat monster, which is exactly i think what we should avoid.

[arman]

"line or column or whatever"
I think you would agree that column is slightly very much easier to line up than 3km wide Line :-)
company wide collumn practically doesn't need to stop to got lined up, and do not really brakes when running while achiving the same with long line or even two lines one after another is much more dificult. That's way many prefered maneuvering in columns.


"I think what we need to think about is how to make light units behave more like skirmishers. I still dont see how a change in velocity in projectiles changes anything; all the line commander needs to do to effectively "skirmish" is put his men in loose formation, and then he has a unit that costs half as much and can fire just as effectively at the exact same range, which will result in line units being more effective at skirmishing than light units!"

Yes but this is speific for every light, for example as I mentioned Russian light might be were not that fast moving but were quite good in melee. Frech were fast and good in skirmish, while British were not that fast but also very good in skirmish.. so those specifics should be taken into account.
If I rember well Lights are already slightly faster though in FOB...
I personally don't have any problem using them as light, I indeed send them forwards to skirmish enemy before my line and guards enclose or while they are maneuring.
and If I smell danger I simply run back to my line. it always worked for me, why do people have problem with that? I have never had my Light catched by any enemy unit :-) well I didn't played for years but still I think that only cavanry is treat for my Light.

[falkon]

Gentlemen,

I have to admit to being saddened. I have followed this debate with interest. It initially appears to be centered around the views of two individuals. I have no particular bias towards one or the other. I find myself agreeing and disagreeing with points made by all parties to the debate. I have made a modest contribution myself. What I do find disturbing is that one should be excluded from putting his case forward on reasons of 'tone' and 'talking down'. If we are to consider Flippy's remarks justified in banning him from an open forum for discussion then how do we consider an accusation of ' paranoia' against him? Debate is by it's very nature contentious and heated. As the last post from Flippy seems to have been removed I cannot quote word for word what he concluded by saying. I seem to remember something about everyone has the right to agree or disagree. I concur with that. I also support the principle that everyone has the right to be heard.

In the matter of right to criticise I really find it hard to accept that someone with a lower educational qualification has automatically less knowledge or conviction on a subject. I have learned a lot from people in this community. I have made mistakes and been corrected. I am grateful for it.

falkonsix

BA Medieval and Modern History - Durham University

[[GG] Lord Ashram]

Unfortunately this is a problem that has been dealt with a number of times in the past, and if the "tone of voice" hadnt been so poor so many times, it wouldnt have come to this.

Debate NEVER justifies being rude to someone, something that has happened with this particular person more times than can be counted. Everyone here has been involved in debate plenty of times, but have never told other people to go educate themselves and other such snotty remarks. You may choose to stick your head in the sand over manners, but I think we will not do that here anymore.

No post was removed, except for Brycers "YOU SUCK! COSSACK GUARD FOREVER" nonsense. Falk, it has nothing to do with education level or anything (except of course when told to go educate yourself;) it has to do with being polite, and it is something he has not been, on more occassions than can be pointed out, and so he wont be posting here again.

Thanks so much, and lets get back on topic please. The proper place for discussion of manners and will and wont be tolerated would be The Provost Marshal forums.

LA

[[GG] Lord Ashram]

Hey Arm, can you find any good links about light infantry, specifically Russian or Swedish, and how they functioned?

Also, as far as I know, when skirmishers were sent out they actually left some equipment behind. Am I wrong about this? (I remember reading it in a book but cant remember where.)

Just curious, I am not great with the web searches and my knowledge of Russian warfare probably isnt as good as it could be:)

Thanks,

Ash

Oh, sorry, also; yes, lights CAN be used the way lights should have been. The problem is that ANY unit can be put in loose formation and thus benefit from the decided defensive advantage. We cant change that; it is hard coded. The trick is making lights better than line at that sort of role; at this time, they arent. Try some tests of lights vs line, not against the computer pls but against human beings, both in loose order, and I think you will find that generally for the costs the lights arent totally worthwhile. Remember, the historical aspect is important, but we are limited by the way the MTW engine translates it. So while we may choose to play it they way it should have been fought, we shouldnt pay for that against other players who just use line infantry in loose and beat us up:)

[arman]

Ok, here it is
Read here for general information about Russian infantry
web2.airmail.net/napoleon/Russian_infantry.htm

Here about cavalry
web2.airmail.net/napoleon/Russian_cavalry.htm

Artillery
web2.airmail.net/napoleon/Russian_artillery.htm

Best regiments
web2.airmail.net/napoleon/Russian_best_regiments.htm

Guards :
web2.airmail.net/napoleon/Russian_guard.htm

This battle can show you extream high moral and melee capabitilies of Russian infantry, I would be pleased if you would read it really recomend I beleave you will be amazed how Russians could fight in melee. They were not very good in skirmish, but in melee they were experts. Hope you check that historic accounts.

Borodino
web2.airmail.net/napoleon/Borodino_battle.htm

Lipzig
web2.airmail.net/napoleon/Auenhain_battle.htm

I hope you will read at least battles description while rest could be boring. I would be peased to read your opinion.

:-)

[arman]

The Russian Grenadiers not Firing a Single Shot
Drove the French Back With Bayonets.


"The grenadiers formed themselves in squares and waited. Despite the fact that the Russian cuirassiers were thrown back by Murat and exposed both flanks of the grenadiers, the grenadiers held their ground. Surrounded on all sides like boulders by water they withstood every charge. Victor's infantry moved and attacked them but without any success. Raievski, the Hero of Borodino, had his head bandaged after being wounded some time earlier. Now he ordered the grenadiers to attack. Not firing a single shot these lads joyfully drove the French back with their bayonets. Victor's infantry rapidly fell back towards Wachau and Auenhain. Now the Austrian Grenadier Corps moved in battalion-masses towards Auenhain and replaced the Russian grenadiers. The Russians returned to the reserves."

Russian jaggers fighting YOUNG GUARDS !!! in melee.

"Oudinot's two divisions of Young Guard marched with enthiusiasm. They passed by Wachau, took Auenhain Farm, pushed back Russian and Prussian infantry and advanced toward Gulden Gossa. They were supported by strong artillery and Gulden Gossa was heavily bombarded. Part of village was captured before being lost to Pirch's Prussian brigade and Russian Lifeguard Jager Regiment. The Russians entered the streets in narrow columns and took the village at bayonet point. "

[[GG] Lord Ashram]

Excellent, let me give that stuff a read.

Of course, dont get me wrong; I know the Russians should be really, really nasty up close; that isnt even up for debate:) Lemme look over those links tho, thanks:)