Sunday Line Battle

[Plazek]

Point out to me what rule our advancing onto the ridge, firing, and retreating back to the blessed relief of a dip (from the artillery) ensuring a proper line is formed at both stages. (couldnt expect the a mix of 3 different regiments and some publicers' to advance onto the ridge in the line). Its not like we are getting a massive advantage (we have a lower firing rate which balanced out the fact that we were gaining protection from those very very accurate cannon rounds)

If you can point out what rule we contravened then we will happily stop doing it.

As far as I am aware this is perfectly within the rules.

 

[Disparate]

Yes well we had a number of regimental commanders accuse us of skirmishing when employing that tactic in yesterdays public line battle (including the opposing teams commander) so i just wanted it clarified if possible

 

[Azrooh]

Yes well we had a number of regimental commanders accuse us of skirmishing when employing that tactic in yesterdays public line battle (including the opposing teams commander) so i just wanted it clarified if possible

While that is skirmishing behavior, as long as you're doing it in the way you described, you're doing it in a line infantry formation and should be ok.

 

[Royal_Marine_Machine]

Yes well we had a number of regimental commanders accuse us of skirmishing when employing that tactic in yesterdays public line battle (including the opposing teams commander) so i just wanted it clarified if possible

While that is skirmishing behavior, as long as you're doing it in the way you described, you're doing it in a line infantry formation and should be ok.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khzaRjrkTsY

It is NOT "Skirmishing behaviour". Nothing like it.

 

[trethmeier]

That's where we do not agree Herbiie.  I agree that hills and ridges provide excellent defensive positions and were often used as cover from artillery and infantry.  However, once a line commited to firing at the enemy, they would not usually fall back behind the ridge again while reloading.  Cover was used to shield the men when they were not in combat, but wasn't consistently used during the actual fighting, unless there were earthworks.  Falling back after every shot not only slowed down the reload time, but also broke contact with the enemy, which when fighting a clever enemy, is not a good thing to do. The constant falling back behind the hill is more akin to the tactics of skirmshers.

 

[Royal_Marine_Machine]

The constant falling back behind the hill is more akin to the tactics of skirmshers.

No it's not...

It was a tactic never used by anybody. Neither were single ranks ever used, and rarely were volleys used (firing by platoon and no, not fire by file, 600 men firing by file? No thanks!). We do not use many tactics that were used then. Skirmishers wouldn't constantly be falling back & moving forward, skirmishers were still pretty rigid, they were just spread out.

The only reason it wasn't used was because of how badly it affects Rate Of Fire - but, remember that units in those days could and would just take artillery fire. Trying doing that in our LBs and you're dead. The unit needed to hold that position (A big hill in the centre of the battlefield... pretty important!) & were under heavy Artillery fire (The enemy artillery had just destroyed a Regiment, something real Artillery could never of done) & so the tactic was viable. There was nothing, NOTHING, stopping them in those days from doing this, it's just that for them, it wasn't particularly viable.

We're not a re enactment group, we're playing PC games.

 

[Madf11]

So why do we form regiments and do linebattles with actual formations? Why not play it like Counter-Strike and other FPS. Why not just disband the regiments and form clans where we would hide behind cover and do super cool awesome tactical tree to tree maneuvers. The main point of linebattles is some sort of recreation of warfare of that era, not a real reenactment but a similarity to that time. Any sort of hiding behind the hills and firing etc is just a waste of time. Even if you manage to kill 1-2 guys with a volley, you still are wasting time. Bullets don't do the majority of kills in this mod, but bayonets and sometimes artillery does. So the Linebattles should have less play time to enable some actual battle and not some camping stationary warfare.

 

[Disparate]

I'm not going to comment on the definitions between the tactics employed. I'm just going to point out that some suspension of disbelief is needed for all aspects of the mod to turn this into a recreation of line warfare. (i'm thinking of engine limitations which dictate unit sizes excetera)

Also the pinpoint accuracy of well drilled artillery (within the mod) are not strictly accurate to the time so some flexability in the interpretation of acceptable tactics should be agreed on. (this is why i brought it up as i didnt want another line battle interupted with accusations of cheating like the public one on monday). So lets just agree to disagree. And if the authors of the rules could give some kind of feedback on the validity of the tactic it would be great (yes i saw your view plazek and its appreciated, however, i'm not altogether sure of who gives the final decision so it would be great to hear from them too).

 

[-Rice-]

The constant falling back behind the hill is more akin to the tactics of skirmshers.

No it's not

Yeah...it is. Skirmishing means you don't fight in direct combat like line infantry. Just because skirmishing is usually done in a spread formation doesn't mean it has to be done like that.
For example Fire and Retreat exactly what you did in that LB was used by skirmishers and light infantry it's one I plan on using if the LB allows those kinds of tactics for light infantry and skirmishers. It was rarely if not at all used by line infantry.

 

[Hibiki]

Good observation, Rice.

Though, even regular line infantry were, to some extent, trained to skirmish. For Musketeers and Grenadiers, generally only the 3rd rank were given this instruction. However, on the field, only a small percentage were deployed as skirmishers, and our current line-battle rules are more for the purpose of ensuring that heavy infantry fill their proper roles.

That said, I believe those tactics, while they can be classified as skirmishing, are well within the rules and should be allowed.

 

[Royal_Marine_Machine]

The constant falling back behind the hill is more akin to the tactics of skirmshers.

No it's not

Yeah...it is. Skirmishing means you don't fight in direct combat like line infantry. Just because skirmishing is usually done in a spread formation doesn't mean it has to be done like that.
For example Fire and Retreat exactly what you did in that LB was used by skirmishers and light infantry it's one I plan on using if the LB allows those kinds of tactics for light infantry and skirmishers. It was rarely if not at all used by line infantry.

That is not fire & retreat, fire & retreat is when one man fires the other moves back then reloads as the other man moves back. Fire & Retreat is not retreating back behind the hill then moving forward - why would skirmishers do that? Artillery is almost literally NO threat to skirmishers, so why would they bother? They weren't thick, they wouldn't be running backwards & forwards when they don't have to.

They were in line the whole time... = NOT SKIRMISHING. Skrimishing is ONLY, PURELY being spread out, that is it. Ofcourse, being spread out means that line tactics do not work & so they adapted them, but a skirmish chain was just a spread out line, they never did what we did because it would of been stupid. As I said - the ONLY, ONLY reason they didn't do that in those days was because they didn't need too! Artillery wasn't that much of a threat! Infantry COULD stand there and take it, simple as, whereas, in the LB (I assume you were there? If not than you have no idea what you're talking about.) Artillery was highly effective and was destroying battalions.

End of discussion, you guys are wrong, weren't even there to see the situation, & really have some funny ideas about Skirmishers being idiots.

 

[Disparate]

This is not a discussion thread, i only posted here to clarify a situation which occured in a line battle. If you want to discuss the finer points of infantry tactics please take it to pm or a different thread. Thanks to everyone who's put input into the thread tho. Consensus seems to be that its legal but possibly a grey area at the moment.

 

[Disparate]

Sorry for double post (even though it is about 1week since i last posted here).

I know that this wont change any rules but people prior to the publishing of these line battle rules prohibiting crouching there were queries about the historical accuracy of regiments crouching/lieing down to avoid fire while engaged with the enemy. I found this post regarding a regiment called the 42nd Royal Highland Regiment. here

The Highlanders on this occasion were commanded by Sir Robert Munro of Fowlis, their lieutenant-colonel, in whom, besides great military experience, were united all the best qualities of the soldier. Aware of the importance of allowing his men to follow their accustomed tactics, he obtained leave of the Duke of Cumberland to allow them to fight in their own way. He accordingly "ordered the whole regiment to clap to the ground on receiving the French fire; and instantly after its discharge they sprang up, and coming close to the enemy, poured in their shot upon them to the certain destruction of multitudes, and drove them precipitately through their lines; then retreating, drew up again, and attacked them a second time after the same manner. These attacks they repeated several times the same day, to the surprise of the whole army. Sir Robert was everywhere with his regiment, notwithstanding his great corpulency, and when in the trenches he was hauled out by the legs and arms by his own men; and it is observed that when he commanded the whole regiment to clap to the ground, he himself alone, with the colours behind him, stood upright, receiving the whole fire of the enemy; and this because, (as he said,) though he could easily lie down, his great bulk would not suffer him to rise so quickly. His preservation that day was the surprise and astonishment not only of the whole army, but of all that heard the particulars of the action."

I just thought i'd post it; Mainly because i only stumbled upon it about 20mins ago completely by accident.

 

[Plazek]

Sounds like they crouched only to receive fire not to give it.

Thusly I think such a tactic just about falls within the rules. If your only receiving fire and not giving it then I think you should be fine regarding the rule:

Not allowed to crouch in combat

Of course this depends on your interpretation of the "in combat" clause. Personally I would say you are not necessarily involved in combat unless you are engaging the enemy. After all shooting non-combatants (for examples civilians) does not make them combatants!

Though that is just one interpretation.

edit:

I should also add I doubt it would be a particularly good tactic. Being unable to go prone the benefits from getting low to the ground in MM are very limited,  doing it close enough to charge within a reload length and waiting while crouching in line to take the volley before charging seems unlikely to be effective. You could just charge in loose order as is permitted making for better defence,  not to mention that your bayonets will arrive at their destination sooner allowing you to leave some real cover later while still being punctual

 

[Disparate]

I'm not particularly fussed about it to be fair, however, my interpretation is that:
they advanced upon the french,
hit the ground to avoid fire,
got up again,
got to close range,
shot into them,
the french retreated,
French reformed,
the regiment advanced upon the french again
and so on....

As i said i dont have particularly strong feeling upon the subject of using crouch in line battles (in the old rules thread) but i did want to share that interesting historical tidbit.

Yes crouch isnt particularly useful to avoid fire (mainly because it doesnt decrease your profile by a massive amount), however, lacking a prone button it does provide a bit of flavour to regimental tactics which are unsimulatable otherwise i think.

I'm just going to state again, "I don't expect anything to change i just found it interesting"

 

[29HA_Lt_Bell]

Hello all,

I have a question in regards to Artillery in the Sunday Line Battles. It states in the rules that Artillery must remain near cannons at all points. Usually this isn't a problem, however, during a cavalry charge, or if we are rushed upon by infantry, is it acceptable for us to fall back behind the Line Infantry to save our own skins, and return to the cannons when they are out of danger?

Or, if the cannons are lost (meaning, the enemy has indefinitely overrun our battery, and we hold no hope of returning to them to pick up the fight), is it acceptable for us to make like dismounted cavalrymen, and grab a musket and tag onto the end of an infantry regiment?

We did the former last week with the 92nd, we kept getting charged upon by waves of militia, or harassed by stragglers from charging units, and as such, there usually came a point where the usage of artillery was more of a hindrance to the team. So I ordered the men to grab a musket and fall in with the infantry in an attempt to salvage the battle.

 

[HarbingerOfDoom]

I personally don't see a problem with it, as long as the artillery men join up with another regiment and don't go skirmishing on their own.

 

[Trotsky]

Yes well we had a number of regimental commanders accuse us of skirmishing when employing that tactic in yesterdays public line battle (including the opposing teams commander) so i just wanted it clarified if possible

I would be that accuser if I am not mistaken. The reason i was so pissed off is very simple. I failed to appreciate the following style of fighting, camp on a giant hill, fire, run away behind the ridge and crouch to reload and then repeat the sequence every time. This video shows exactly what i mean http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khzaRjrkTsY. Can the admins please make a rule for public LB's about camping and other things like shooting the scouts in order to get an extra kill

 

[Disparate]

Who crouched? i certainly was repeatedly telling them to stand up and the vast majority did so (and its not like crouching is illegal in a monday line battle anyway). I'm not exactly sure why your complaining about a regiment holding a hill... our orders were to hold that hill and we were unable to just stand on the ridge due to your cannons on our flank. The regiment who was on our flanks adequately showed that when they were decimated by a single cannonball. One last point and then i think i've adequately answered your complaints. How is it camping if that whole hill is further from our spawn then it was from yours? Each round we were told that we had to form up and move quickly to that hill to prevent you from controlling the hill because it was one of the 2 hills which dominated that battlefield and the other one was right next to your spawn.

 

[lord_olafson]

shouldnt:

Regiments of Light Infantry
1. 95th Regiment of Rifles - Colonel Moogs
2. 51st Regiment of Horse - Colonel Stalker

be

Regiments of Light Infantry
1. 95th Regiment of Rifles - Colonel Moogs
2. 51st Regiment of Rifles - Colonel Stalker

?