I use plenty of historical strategy that becomes very apparent as gameplay goes on.
The problem is the AI don't. I would cite the infantry square for a point of contention more than anything else because... an infantry square doesn't necessarily need to be formed up by only a company of men. It can be several companies formed up together to make a big square. That's the problem with implementing that in game and if you get this done right, you change the gameplay very drastically.
I could simply form up huge amounts of line infantry, march on the enemy and win by pure attrition.
Actually the bonuses lessen significantly as the square loses cohesion, and half the bonus is the fact that it is, indeed, a square. Cavalry don't do particularly well in prolonged fighting against bayoneted infantrymen, but then again they do well before bayonets, and in fact they do well after the "advent" of heavier cavalry to counter bayonets - the charge itself does most of the damage, however...
I charged the square before it could form up at 3 corners with 3 regiments of horse, the corners were always the weakest point of the square. The charge went in, "squashed" and completely broke the square. Surprisingly they are still together! Take note that I'm fighting at 1710-1720.
You'll note a man with a giant pointy stick is usually a match for a guy on a horse with a shorter, but also very pointy, stick throughout much of history. The one on foot is cheaper to employ, but a lot less mobile than his equestrian equivalent.
With the exception of the most hardened and well drilled armies, most men do not stand and get trampled by a horse, much less 3 companies charging at them before the square was even formed up! Even when the line infantry get hit in the rear completely by a cavalry unit with a line infantry pressing against them in the front, one would think they break easily.
Your version of "tactical depth" appears to involve "WHAY CAV BLOB NO WORK?!" unless you can come up with any more specific instances that aren't related to cavalry being poor at charging people with giant pointy death cannons, which is kind of a given.
My examples are given above. Superior arms and men should always win, especially against a disorganised unit.
To NevyenSo at 1700 while you could argue that the bayonet was in use its effective use is null until military theorists start to develop efective drill. given that we see evidence since 1640 that the bayonet was in use it was not universally accepted as a standard form until 1703.
If you put it that way, fine. If you're talking about researching bayonet drills, thats a good argument but innovating a bayonet? Please. That's just uncreative. Imperial Glory did it much better.
As to tactics, key thing here is that a well executed charge against a square would not usually happen and was fraught with danger.
Thanks for the educational details you have posted. Its a good read. As mentioned above, my charge occurred against an infantry square which was yet to form and the charge smashed the entire ranks completely and the unit was disorganised.
The charge would usually only be effected at full gallop from about 150 paces, the remainder was at trot or canter. If you micro you can reflect that but the engine does lack there.
Therein lies the critical issue I would think. The difference between the size of the cavalry unit at 45 to a line infantry at 120 is devastating, but the limitations of the engine are such that, even flanking with a cavalry isn't worth the military upkeep, the limitations of use (against the versatility) and costs.
So a Captain in the Royal Navy or any nation was not equvilent to a captain in the army, they would be more close to a Colonel or Brigadier General. A commodore would be General and Admiral would be C-in-C. Liutenants in the navy would be close to a captain in an infantry battalion as they would command gun companies in the firing decks while the captiain was concerned with the management and command of the ships movements in battle.
...
So you can see the nature of warfare is very different. Also use the wind and understand the term weather guage when fighting, having the wind and understanding how a ship reacts and how to navigate to place your ships in the right postion is important. There is allot of tactical depth and nuance here that actually reflects naval combat.
I don't exactly agree that its all historical and I think there are things lacking as placing restrictions on players that actual commanders faced, but sir your arguments are not well founded to begin with here.
Thank you for correcting me on the more appropriate comparison between the Navy and the Army. My fault for using a poor comparison. The point I would like to raise, is that the amount of "micro" actually required to command a ship is infinitely more than commanding an Army. Based on your explanation, going on a naval battle in Empire's Total War is like having to command multiple armies of units!
I disagree that my arguments are not well founded, but rather, not properly phrased out in detail.
