Empire: Total War

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[Unkn0wn]

Yea, the time spent on waiting for the AI compared to how poor the AI actually performs is quite annoying.

[Malevolence]

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.

The AI is fairly intelligent. It utilizes cavalry on the flanks, sometimes in the center, often attacks the weakest part of the line, and guns for your general and cannons rather than let them be unmolested pounding his ranks with cannonballs and shoring up yours with bonuses. Much better than the "blob 'n charge" in the previous games and indeed in most RTS games. A "giant square formation" would best be formed manually rather than with some "form a giant fucking square" button. If you have just enough groups of soldiers that forming a giant square is advisable, but not so few as to simply be able to use the "form square" formation, you can just position them yourself into a square of the size and shape of your own liking. Personally I don't usually bother with squares, as making sure the cavalry is properly blocked and firing off a volley followed by a charge with bayonets is often enough to beat them off in short order against all but the most veteran and well used units.

I could simply form up huge amounts of line infantry, march on the enemy and win by pure attrition.

Welcome to real life, may I take your order?

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.

Okay, so the unit has cohesion and morale? I don't see what the problem here is - you broke the formation itself, so now it's just a big melee of dudes with bayonets against cavalry while being heavily outnumbered by the horsemen. If it was a unit of militia or something I'd expect them to break, but a fully intact (previously) unit of the line has better morale than to instantly break against a charge.

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.

Three regiments of horsemen is equal in number to one regiment of foot, you have to think numbers. Cavalry's shock is an amazing value, but the unit of line is heavily conditioned, attached to their fellows, attached to their flag, their country, and their general (or such is the assumption of this game for the majority of situations, at any rate). They have IMPECCABLE morale and are resistant against morale shocks - the battle revolves around the line because the line is immobile, it doesn't flee instantly. It will flee sooner rather than later, especially after an event like that, but an instant break and rout of a full strength line regiment is highly unlikely under any circumstances, historically or otherwise. Unless something stupid happened, I'm going to have to assume your cavalry and infantry pincer cut them to ribbons and they routed not even a minute later if they were even somewhat isolated from the rest of the line...

My examples are given above. Superior arms and men should always win, especially against a disorganised unit.

And yet the American revolution still happened. Clearly superior training, or number, or weapons does not account for every variable. Your examples are of charging 120 horsemen at 120 infantrymen who are not entirely in a ready formation (outcome dubious) and of charging 120 horsemen at 120 infantrymen who are engaged at the front and not paying attention to the charge. The latter instance assuredly cut the line unit to ribbons, even if they did not flee, assuming you aren't talking about charging an entire BATTLE LINE from behind with 3 regiments of horse, in which case the effect on hundreds of infantry could very well be negligable...

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.

It's 1700, some countries still don't use the bayonet as a primary weapon in 1700. By "innovating" the bayonet, think of it as having your researchers do, well, research on the bayonet, its use, and how best to implement it to your army. Then they have to actually implement it as desired. Tada, "research".

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.

"Limitations"? You don't clearly see the unit status as "Concerned; flanks unsecure"? They're taking into account exactly what you're doing, and based on balance and historical accuracy the game believes the unit doesn't drop everything and run for their lives, but they are indeed concerned about what is occuring.

My major complaint is that when not actively fighting a battle my time is spent roughly 50/50 between doing stuff and waiting for the cpu to end its turn. I just cba playing a game where I spend so much time hanging around.

You have a slow computer


Honestly I cannot wait until the implementation of multiplayer campaign. That will be quite entertaining.


As for cavalry's usefulness? It will always have a place in my army, if I have the time to recruit some. Often wars, as I said, revolve around the line... and not having a line is somewhat of a liability. If I have time to prepare? Cavalry will be present. If I must push into the field as heavy a concentration of firepower in as short a period of time as possible? I will be infantry-dense. Cavalry are a bit more pricey, and a lot easier to "mess up" using, but the advantages of having a few units around outweigh the costs immensely, especially once specialized cannon shot starts showing up.

[Sach]

My major complaint is that when not actively fighting a battle my time is spent roughly 50/50 between doing stuff and waiting for the cpu to end its turn. I just cba playing a game where I spend so much time hanging around.

You have a slow computer

Perhaps, but it seems retarded that I can run the game on high settings with large units and have no slowdown yet every turn involves 1-2 minutes staring at the last bit of Prussia  looked at while a bunch of flags scroll along the top of the screen. Seems more like lazy/rushed optimisation to me. But either way it ruins the game.

[Baine]

Few things from my experience.

Cavalry charge may give a shock but having it stay there and fight will get your cavalry killed. 120 Horses vs 120 Line Inf, maybe in favor of horses if the managed to break on a big front. But if the Inf forms to a small square giving the horses less room for a charge and pulling them in hand to hand combat, then Inf will win by far.

Bayonets > cavalry

My major complaint is that when not actively fighting a battle my time is spent roughly 50/50 between doing stuff and waiting for the cpu to end its turn. I just cba playing a game where I spend so much time hanging around.

Try pressing Spacebar.

[|-|Cozmo|-|]

I find having three squads of light dragoons works perfectly with my gren and line inf heavy formations, my inf are set up like this:    / and \ = one inf reg, -- = one inf reg, _ = one inf reg.

/--\__/--\ 

That is the general shape and in the centre there it creates some awesome overlapping fields of fire (the angles are not that extreme but you get the idea), the flank unit can stop cav flank attacks, and if i have arty they go in the bottom of the V and the inf unit goes behind them to to charge through if the cav that are running the gauntlet aren't already dead.

And if i have more units i either repeat that patten, enlarge it (two inf reg's instead of One) or a create a second formations and i encircle the enemy, when they are trapped in TWO fire zones, they are in a world of hurt.     

[Malevolence]

If you tick "ignore AI's moves" in the options it won't try to snap your camera to the AI's units moving around at hyper speed, that often improves the rate at which turns go.

Also you must remember, your turn takes what? 5 minutes or so? Then it cycles through over two dozen AI nations making the same decisions you just did in like 15-30 seconds combined (or it does for me, anyway ) It's a lot more optimized than you are as a player, at any rate :p

Or, again, your PC just isn't as good as mine, I dunno. I spend less than a minute waiting for the AI every turn...

I mean literally spending two minutes waiting for the AI to do whatever it is it does is quite a long time, what kind of hardware do you have in your PC?

[Sach]

          Processor: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU     E6850  @ 3.00GHz (2 CPUs)
             Memory: 2048MB RAM
          Page File: 654MB used, 3288MB available
        Windows Dir: C:\WINDOWS
    DirectX Version: DirectX 9.0c (4.09.0000.0904)       
Card name: NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS
     Manufacturer: NVIDIA
        Chip type: GeForce 8800 GTS

I can't believe I am the only one that has this issue. 2 minutes might be an exaggeration, I've never actually timed it but for example its probably about 5/6 times the time it takes for the average civ 4 turn.

I have ofc turned off all AI moves. My Pc falls well within the recommended specs and frankly the time waiting doing nothing is unacceptable to me.

[Unkn0wn]

What sach sais is correct to be honest, I'm having the same thing, it takes at least over a minute. This is also something that they mentioned in a review that I recently read.

[Baine]

          Processor: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU     E6850  @ 3.00GHz (2 CPUs)
             Memory: 2048MB RAM
          Page File: 654MB used, 3288MB available
        Windows Dir: C:\WINDOWS
    DirectX Version: DirectX 9.0c (4.09.0000.0904)       
Card name: NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS
     Manufacturer: NVIDIA
        Chip type: GeForce 8800 GTS

I can't believe I am the only one that has this issue. 2 minutes might be an exaggeration, I've never actually timed it but for example its probably about 5/6 times the time it takes for the average civ 4 turn.

I have ofc turned off all AI moves. My Pc falls well within the recommended specs and frankly the time waiting doing nothing is unacceptable to me.

Well it usually takes about ~1min or 2 for me (not many nations left over). That's normal. You probably are used to something else (civ4).

[Malevolence]

Mine takes about 45 seconds, maybe it's able to run four threads?

[|-|Cozmo|-|]

Way less than a min for me.

[Lionel-Richie]

My turns take quite a while too. Not over a minute, but it feels like an eternity. I don't think Empire can use four processor cores though...or even two properly right now.

I do hope they optimize it and speed up turns more, cause some nations that shouldn't take long do. I had Sweden take an entire 7 seconds or so when they had only one city left. It makes me cringe every time I move towards the End Turn button.

[stumpster]

I usually just click end-turn and alt-tab.  Doesn't seem to take too long when you're browsing forums in the meantime and have the 'watch AI move' thing clicked off anyways.

[Unkn0wn]

I can't even tab out properly

[31stPzGren]

The AI is fairly intelligent. It utilizes cavalry on the flanks, sometimes in the center, often attacks the weakest part of the line, and guns for your general and cannons rather than let them be unmolested pounding his ranks with cannonballs and shoring up yours with bonuses.

The thing about strategy in these "line" battles is that you cannot think about simply attacking the weakest part of the line. The computer did that several times and simply got flanked all over! The point of a wide frontage, is to prevent flanking counter attacks.

The AI simply isn't smart enough to do that. They also move forward, leaving their artillery totally unguarded! Short of playing humans, you can't get a challenge from the AI.

A "giant square formation" would best be formed manually rather than with some "form a giant fucking square" button. If you have just enough groups of soldiers that forming a giant square is advisable, but not so few as to simply be able to use the "form square" formation, you can just position them yourself into a square of the size and shape of your own liking.

The point about using a "square" formation or even a prepared line, is that it can repulse cavalry charges. This is sadly done in game by applying bonuses once you activate a certain formation. In reality, you can form a line with 3 men deep (minimum requirement I think), well drilled, they can repulse any cavalry charge. This gives valuable tactical options for fighting when outnumbered or when awaiting reinforcements.

Personally I don't usually bother with squares, as making sure the cavalry is properly blocked and firing off a volley followed by a charge with bayonets is often enough to beat them off in short order against all but the most veteran and well used units.

...

Welcome to real life, may I take your order?

In that case, why bother with cavalry?

Okay, so the unit has cohesion and morale? I don't see what the problem here is - you broke the formation itself, so now it's just a big melee of dudes with bayonets against cavalry while being heavily outnumbered by the horsemen. If it was a unit of militia or something I'd expect them to break, but a fully intact (previously) unit of the line has better morale than to instantly break against a charge.

The thing is, the main reason why forming a square is so crucial is that the gives an all-round defence. The strength of the initial charge allows my cavalry to break into the centre of the infantry square, which means the troops are exposed and will collapse easily.

The reason cavalry is still so effective even up til the 18th century is because of the fear, of a large towering man on horseback charging at you.

Formation is the key and principle of winning battles during that era. Seeing that the entire unit is broken up, I find it hard to believe that any unit will be able to hold up against the sheer weight and shock.

Cavalry's shock is an amazing value, but the unit of line is heavily conditioned, attached to their fellows, attached to their flag, their country, and their general (or such is the assumption of this game for the majority of situations, at any rate). They have IMPECCABLE morale and are resistant against morale shocks - the battle revolves around the line because the line is immobile, it doesn't flee instantly.

They're not... its just that the fate of being a deserter is far more horrible than standing their ground and dying.

I'm going to have to assume your cavalry and infantry pincer cut them to ribbons and they routed not even a minute later if they were even somewhat isolated from the rest of the line...

No I had to pull the cavalry out as they were doing almost no damage.

And yet the American revolution still happened.

The americans won because of logistical & communication issues on the british side as well as being involved in the european wars. The americans had their asses kicked by the british most of the time when they engaged in conventional warfare. Conventional by the standards of that era.

"Limitations"? You don't clearly see the unit status as "Concerned; flanks unsecure"? They're taking into account exactly what you're doing, and based on balance and historical accuracy the game believes the unit doesn't drop everything and run for their lives, but they are indeed concerned about what is occuring.

I would prefer historical accuracy. Balance wise, it still makes cavalry an unviable unit, apart from being "fluffy" and fun to play with.

[Malevolence]

The thing about strategy in these "line" battles is that you cannot think about simply attacking the weakest part of the line. The computer did that several times and simply got flanked all over! The point of a wide frontage, is to prevent flanking counter attacks.

The AI simply isn't smart enough to do that. They also move forward, leaving their artillery totally unguarded! Short of playing humans, you can't get a challenge from the AI.

The AI is no genius, but it's plenty smart enough that at least you don't USUALLY wonder "...what the hell is going on here"

In that case, why bother with cavalry?

Makes your job easier and less bloody.

The thing is, the main reason why forming a square is so crucial is that the gives an all-round defence. The strength of the initial charge allows my cavalry to break into the centre of the infantry square, which means the troops are exposed and will collapse easily.

The reason cavalry is still so effective even up til the 18th century is because of the fear, of a large towering man on horseback charging at you.

Formation is the key and principle of winning battles during that era. Seeing that the entire unit is broken up, I find it hard to believe that any unit will be able to hold up against the sheer weight and shock.

The problem is your horsemen are now bogged down inside a formation of (mostly alive and pissed off) infantry with impromptu spears. If the charge had done more damage then you wouldn't have that problem. Fighting a dude on a horse when the horse isn't moving means you're roughly on even footing (hah, puns aside...)

They're not... its just that the fate of being a deserter is far more horrible than standing their ground and dying.

Read the unit card. They're representative of well-disciplined good morale line troops, complete with "resistant to morale shocks" as one of the unit's traits. It is assumed that if a unit is given good morale, it is supposed to have it.

No I had to pull the cavalry out as they were doing almost no damage.

Well you fail spectacularly, then, because every time I end up engaging a unit in melee with cavalry and outnumbering them they get slammed pretty badly. Just sitting in melee isn't terribly productive compared to charging, though.

The americans won because of logistical & communication issues on the british side as well as being involved in the european wars. The americans had their asses kicked by the british most of the time when they engaged in conventional warfare. Conventional by the standards of that era.

Actually morale was one of the biggest issues of the entire war. In at least one battle the British taunted the Americans too far - going so far as to sound a hunting horn while chasing retreating US rifle units.

The Americans turned around and beat the shit out of the British where the previous moment they had been retreating from a losing engagement.

Tada, morale/being pissed off, it works wonders.

I would prefer historical accuracy. Balance wise, it still makes cavalry an unviable unit, apart from being "fluffy" and fun to play with.

And in real life men weren't pansies, either. After one or two battles you stop being afraid of cavalry because you realize how utterly worthless they are unless employed *JUST RIGHT* in the real life 1700s. You know what happened to cavalry who charged head on at men with muskets? They were killed HORRIFICALLY by a volley of bullets. Accounts of infantry engaged by cavalry range from "we fired off a volley and killed about a dozen of a hundred, then the rest engaged us and we fought them hand to hand" to "we fired off a volley and all hundred dropped dead as a rock". Melee units tend to fare poorly in the age of gunpowder, even if they do reach hand to hand, as I keep refering to the fact that the musket carrying lads had them double as fucking spears. Horses don't like spears, and if you let your cavalry sit there in a prolonged engagement, there's no purpose to them.

Horses are for war of maneuver, which is even more important now than ever before. They have more mobility on the campaign map, they have a thousand times more mobility on the battlefield, and they are designed with threatening the enemy's line and forcing his maneuvers to be to your advantage. If he ignores you, he gets a cavalry thrust to his rear and an infantry force at the front. Early period cavalry is kind of ehhh at actually just sitting there and fighting. Maybe they should be a bit better at sitting there instead of charging, I don't know exactly, but I do know that horsemen have uses far outside "grr charge go!" that mean they're worth the extra 20% cost.

[Nevyen]

Interesting thing about regimental/briagde sqaures:

(Note regiement is the departmental and organisational term, battalion is the tactical unit ir 1/24th  or 2/54th this being the 1st battalion of the 24th foot regiment)


These are technically not used till the battle of the pyramids by napoloen and then again by the british at waterloo.  

This was where massed cavalry was used.    

Up until that point the square is oft not used and the prepared line is more common.  In game where a few mates of mine where playing the brandywine sceanrio ( AWI table top game) we prevented british and colonial troops from forming square as:

one:
The colonels and generals did not support the idea at that time.  

and Two:

The evolutions and drill required to form a prepared square took time, in most table top games played you have two types of sqaure; a prepared square which gives the full benefit of bonuses to the dice roll and a emergency square which is only half the bonus.  Also the training of men determines if they can form sqaure, regulars usually can but conscripts and below it would be a mess to try and dangerous in battle.

Additionally you would also have rally squares which where when a unit was broken by cavalry men would cluster around the colours and form a thicket of bayonets, classic example of this is at alburea where the 1/31st foot saved itself by an emergency square after french lancers charged colboures brigades which was in line exchanging fire with french.  The briagde lost 1250 men and was rendered usless.


Just an ineresting side note and context for the discussion,  no guessing its my favorite subject


Also Mal is right but bear in mind shock cavalry like Curassiers where only employed to smash a position, shevradino rebout at borodino for example,  Hussars, Chevau-leger and light and medium dragoons where used for scouting, harrassment and persuit, Here refer to Murat's light cav after Austerliz and Jena - Austerdat 1805-1806.

On the battlefield such units where used to support the heavys, here we can look at aspern essling  1809 and the use of Lassalle and Maurlaz's light cav briagdes to support Nansouty and Espanges Curassiers Divisions assault on the 1st day.


The 18th and early 19th century are the death throws of the Cavalry unit, by the franco Prussian War and the american Civil war cavalry are relegated to scouting,  The charge of the light brigade in the crimea being a prime example of the futility of cavalry, by ww1 even though kitchener was impudent in his insistance on having cav formations the cavalry unit was long gone from the annuals of warfare, and leipzig and the war of liberation in 1813 is where the decline of Cavalry begins in truth, the previous hundred years where just the death throws.

[gamesguy1]

Calvary is still fairly useful for me.

This is in multiplayer against humans(no mortars).

Engage his line with my line, typically I'm outnumbered a bit, say 6 line infantry vs 4 or 5.  I move my cavalry reserve from another flank, charge behind the enemy with diamond formation and hit his line from behind.

An army of all infantry isn't fast enough to respond to rapidly repositioning calvary, and when line infantry that are engaged at the front get charged from behind they hit wavering immediately and it breaks their formation, makes them stop firing/reloading.  I pull the calvary 1 second after the charge, run back 10 steps, and charge back.  Usually thats enough to break the line.   After I break one line, all his nearby units get the "concerned, friends routing" modifier which is really really bad for morale.   After this usually one charge is enough to rout them.

This is what happens when you have an army with proper cavalry support vs an army with all infantry.  Cavalry is also good against skirmishers, just becareful and remember to pull them back if the skirmishers deploy stakes.

[Warlight]

Cavalry has its uses.  It a huge change from medieval.

In medeivel the battle consited of: Tie them up in melee, charge cavalry in the back, rinse and repeat.  Same with rome.  But those Knights were alot more hardcore than the Regiments of horse in Empire.  Of course the line infantry are alot more hardcore than most of the basic troops you got in medieval too.  

My armies always consisted of 10-12 Regiments of Foot, 2-4 Units of Grenaders (who are realy good at busting moral),  2-4 units of either Howies or Mortars.  And a General and 2-4 units of horse, or curissars later.  

I hardly used dragoons in battle.  Running down  units that were in motion or fleeing off the battle field.  The occasional ride up dismount and execute a artilery emplacment.  

Dragoons were real usefull in following my army around and enforcing the law after I captured a city.  So my main army could move off to take someplace else.  

The comuter always went through great lengths to bering calvary around my flanks, it it was annoying sometimes theyed hit a line unit, then disengage right into my artillery, that was annoying too.  

So to me Cavalry is for two things, Counter cavalry and being the last straw that breaks the horses (morals) back; after I've wrecked them with a couple of vollies or gone into hand to hand and need a little edge.

Thats all i have for now.

[Lionel-Richie]

I love my light dragoons. I basically use them to quickly fill holes or counter flanking maneuvers in my lines. Sometimes I'll use them to tie up the enemy in a forward position and hold it until my guys arrive (a la the battle of Gettysburg!).