← Home ← Back to /his/

Thread 18145005

63 posts 42 images /his/
Anonymous No.18145005 [Report] >>18145193 >>18145584 >>18146369 >>18146390 >>18146407 >>18146460 >>18146882 >>18146963 >>18146990 >>18147041 >>18147638 >>18147909
Linear Warfare
>Lets just line up in a field and shoot at each other until one side decides 'fuck it' and retreats or surrenders.
One could argue that this style of warfare existed all the way into the Great War.
Anonymous No.18145193 [Report] >>18145580 >>18146460 >>18146784 >>18147642
>>18145005 (OP)
>another thread about linear warfare
You have just begun playing Master of Command, haven't you?
>One could argue that this style of warfare existed all the way into the Great War.
Not really. Extensive skirmish and loose order tactics were already commonplace by the middle of the 19th century and the thin firing lines of early WW1 are not comparable to the thick 18th century lines which consisted of entire battalions.
Anonymous No.18145580 [Report] >>18146774 >>18147297 >>18147741 >>18148905 >>18149009
>>18145193
No I've been playing Total War Napoleon, Empire, and Warhammer 3.
Anonymous No.18145584 [Report]
>>18145005 (OP)
>He doesn't understand the tactical advantage of a volley from slow firing weapons
Anonymous No.18146369 [Report] >>18146380 >>18149722
>>18145005 (OP)
any 18th century field army was 30-50% cavalry. neglect this fact at your own peril
Anonymous No.18146380 [Report] >>18147063 >>18147067
>>18146369
That's way too much, it was far less and they were expensive to field, that's why line infantry was a thing, to soak up the combat so cavalry could make a decisive attack
Anonymous No.18146390 [Report]
>>18145005 (OP)
Because if an army didn't do that they would have been obliterated by the massed firepower of the line army.
50 muskets in a line firing at you all together > anything else you can do
Anonymous No.18146407 [Report]
>>18145005 (OP)
>One could argue that this style of warfare existed all the way into the Great War.
Yes, if you're illiterate.
Anonymous No.18146460 [Report] >>18146774
>>18145005 (OP)
>>18145193
If it works, it works.
Ignore the fact that I won the battle with my OP cavalry and Napoleonic combined arms tactics.
Anonymous No.18146774 [Report] >>18146823
>>18145580
Mh, in the last weeks coinciding with the release of this game, there were a lot of threads about linear warfare. And they all used the same picture.
>>18146460
I really like this game as well but got clapped in Act 1 by the HQ army. Granted I let it collect full power and had only two full brigades of my own... anyways now I at least have a few unique units for my next campaign.
Anonymous No.18146784 [Report] >>18146823 >>18146825
>>18145193
>Master of Command
is it good? I played Imperial Glory and Empire:TW back in the day. Empire had good battles, but the world map (the actual strategy, not the tactics) was lacking.
Anonymous No.18146823 [Report] >>18146825
>>18146774
Act 1 is easy.
How did you even get BTFO?
>>18146784
It's a rogue like real time tactics game.
The game has three acts where you have to move your army around the map, gather manpower, coin, provisions, and ammunition while picking fights with weaker enemies to upgrade your units (you can drill them but that eats a lot of ammo) and finally find the enemy HQ to defeat their large army to get to the next chapter.
You can buy items from the stores that allow you to equip your units with them to boost their stats.
There are five factions to pick right now: France, Britain, Prussia, Austria, and Russia each with their own strengths and weaknesses.
Look at the screenshot which was the final battle of the act 2 for me. I'm playing as France which means I can't depend on my infantry to decide the outcomes so I have to use concentrated artillery fire to weaken enemy infantry while massing my cavalry on enemy flanks to shatter them from rear.
Anonymous No.18146825 [Report]
>>18146823
I bought up too many supplies (which I didn't need) and didn't had enough money to raise regiments. And I took my time exploring the map and building up my army.
>>18146784
I like it but maybe wait for a new discount. Other than that I agree with the points the other Anon made. Of note is that the HQ army is not static and after a timer will come after and catch (it's always faster) you. So you have an urgency to act - I neglected this part and got beaten in Act 1.
And there is no diplomacy so you can't get yourself a truce to build up your army in peace like in a Total War game.
>Empire had good battles
I find them to be quite flat desu. It is still a mayor nostalgia title for me and I hope we get a TW: Empire II in the future.
Anonymous No.18146882 [Report] >>18146901 >>18146910 >>18146979 >>18146980 >>18150235 >>18150603 >>18150622
>>18145005 (OP)
Why didn't they use armored war elephants to storm those cuck lines?

There are soooo many ways one can think of removing linear cucks from the premises... all you need is a little bit of creativity.
Anonymous No.18146901 [Report]
>>18146882
you are not going to steer elephants into that kind of noise. and you won't armor them against grenades and artillery.
and each one will be horrendously expensive to acquire and train in Europe.
If you have them in your area, you can use them as pack animals, but that is about it in that era.
Anonymous No.18146910 [Report] >>18146979
1 guy with a musket is going to fire once and has like a 10% chance of hitting anything and then proceeds to do a 90 second long reload.
200 guys firing 200 muskets at the same time is like a gigantic shotgun that kills everything in the horizon.

if one country decides this is retarded and doesn't do it, their opponent will and they'll get blown the fuck out.
"b-but i'll have guerillas hide sparsely in brush and fire off surprise shots at their stupid giant shotgun line"
a horse will come decapitate those guys because a couple isolated guys in bushes can't form a bayonet wall and have a 90 second reload where they're vulnerable throughout without a line of guys behind them to step forward and produce a giant shotgun.
it's just the most meta and effective use of a musket.

>>18146882
elephants were giant unpredictable pussies and they aren't bulletproof. but just the sound would make them flee let alone the pain. a volley of line fire would kill enough to rout the rest if you had multiple elephants. thats why they saw no more use after gunpowder. they barely saw use pregunpowder.
lancer cavalry was also very common and were faster and had longer reach than an elephant. they could stab the undefended hindquarters of an elephant and encircle it before it even reached a line of gunfire. most cavalry fought other cavalry.
but the main problem is nobody had elephants anyway.
Anonymous No.18146963 [Report]
>>18145005 (OP)
People always act like lines would stand there for half an hour exchanging fire until the last man standing.
But at effective battle distance, that won't last for many volleys. One side will break, retreat or charge after a few volleys, because it is quickly clear who has the stronger forces. unless they are well trained and have to hold a position while another unit is getting ready to turn the tide. But even that is going to be a matter of minutes.
Anonymous No.18146979 [Report]
>>18146882
>armored war elephants
Nice targets for field artillery. Smaller pieces like 3pdr (already obsolute by the middle of the 18th century) or wall guns would also work wonders against them.
>There are soooo many ways one can think of removing linear cucks from the premises... all you need is a little bit of creativity.
Give us some of your ideas then.
>>18146910
>1 guy with a musket is going to fire once and has like a 10% chance of hitting anything and then proceeds to do a 90 second long reload.
That is a gross exaggeration at best. 3 rounds in 60 second was the training ground standard that a few experienced units managed to maintain in battle. The most common rate of fire in battlefield situation would be 1 round per 30 to 35 seconds. Not that you want to continuously fire anyways as you need to preserve powder and shot. Additionally you also have to take the overheating of the gun barrels into account.
Anonymous No.18146980 [Report]
>>18146882
I'm pretty sure the indians tried that at some point. But we all know who got cucked.
Anonymous No.18146990 [Report]
>>18145005 (OP)
>Lets just line up in a field and shoot at each other
I can tell you shoot a musket often and know exactly how such a weapon functions.
Anonymous No.18147041 [Report] >>18147048 >>18147127
>>18145005 (OP)
At the start of the war 100% it still existed with volleys even being used against cavalry.
Battle of Cer 1914
Anonymous No.18147048 [Report] >>18147052 >>18147127
>>18147041
Slow moving advance towards enemy fire with officers equipped with sabers very reminiscent of the Napoleonic era.
First battle of the Marne 1914.
Anonymous No.18147052 [Report]
>>18147048
1914 ww1 is peak aesthetics
Anonymous No.18147063 [Report] >>18147067 >>18149722 >>18149966
>>18146380
>it was far less and they were expensive to field
it wasn't. go and look at battles from the period. by unit count cavalry squadrons always outnumbered infantry battalions and by headcount it was typically in the range I stated.

yes, cavalry was expensive, but field armies actually increased their proportion of cavalry between 1400 and 1700, not decreased it like pop history retards seem to think. it was only towards the late 1700s when the gradual shift from mercenary forces to mass conscription greatly reduced the fraction of cavalry again.
Anonymous No.18147067 [Report]
>>18147063
>>18146380
needless to say that due to the much greater frontage of cavalry units a typical battle would actually be, in spatial terms, be dominated by cavalry deployments.

infantry in the total order of battle were more numerous than in the field armies, because of various rear line duties.
Anonymous No.18147127 [Report] >>18147140 >>18147144
>>18147048
Notice how this is a thin firing line advancing with another firing line prone giving fire support? This is nothing like a whole battalions advancing in close order as was the common practice in the 18th century.
>>18147041
This painting depicts a scene that didn't happen.
Anonymous No.18147140 [Report] >>18147421
>>18147127
>This painting depicts a scene that didn't happen.
Are you sure?
>The 29th Austro-Hungarian Division, which included cavalry detachments, tried to advance through Šabac and Lešnica.

>Serbian troops from the Combined Division and parts of the Drina Division reported repelling cavalry with concentrated rifle volleys.

>In memoirs (e.g., Ratna sećanja jednog oficira sa Cera, “War Memoirs of an Officer from Cer”), an officer describes giving the order:

>“Wait! Aim low! Fire by ranks!”
when cavalry appeared out of the mist — indicating controlled volley fire.
Anonymous No.18147144 [Report] >>18147421
>>18147127
It's similar though echoing the Napoleonic era.
Anonymous No.18147290 [Report]
What really bothers me about MoC is in the camp screen it says I have a 4 second reload time on my Prussian Life Guards but in the actual battle they have a 7 second reload time.
What gives?
Anonymous No.18147297 [Report] >>18147309 >>18147320 >>18147604
>>18145580
>Warhammer 3
I’m sorry to hear you’re retarded, anon.
Anonymous No.18147309 [Report]
>>18147297
Anonymous No.18147320 [Report]
>>18147297
I was really disappointed in the chaos dwarves they're boring desu I was waiting for them foy over a year
Anonymous No.18147421 [Report] >>18147624 >>18147633 >>18147637 >>18147876
>>18147140
Nice source you got there. When I search for any of those sentences I only get this here thread as a result.
>>18147144
If such superficialities are enough for you, then napoleonic warfare is also very reminiscant of ancient macedonian warfare.
Anonymous No.18147604 [Report]
>>18147297
I can't hear you over SUMMONING THE ELECTOR COUNTS
Anonymous No.18147624 [Report]
>>18147421
What's this "Ratna sećanja jednog oficira sa Cera, “War Memoirs of an Officer from Cer" numbskull? It's source dipshit what I'm just gonna make that up? I don't speak Serbian.
Anonymous No.18147633 [Report]
>>18147421
>If such superficialities are enough for you, then napoleonic warfare is also very reminiscant of ancient macedonian warfare
One of the dumbest comparisons I've ever heard you are an absolute fucking idiot. They didn't use guns in ancient Macedonia you brainlet!
Anonymous No.18147637 [Report]
>>18147421
Ok shitstsin I want you to disprove that painting I'm sick of incredulous pieces of shit like you. The painting itself is already evidence it's not a claim so the burden of proof is on you NOT ME to prove that that didn't happen.
Anonymous No.18147638 [Report] >>18149084
>>18145005 (OP)
>One could argue that this style of warfare existed all the way into the Great War.
I was reading a war memoir from a Hungarian who fought in WW1 recently, and he talked about how at the start of the war he was sworn into the army, given only a couple week's training, handed a gun and told to just march up the road in ranks until they encountered the enemy.
Anonymous No.18147642 [Report] >>18147788
>>18145193
>Extensive skirmish and loose order tactics were already commonplace by the middle of the 19th century and
The Civil War did still mostly have massed volleys though.
Anonymous No.18147691 [Report] >>18149028
Anonymous No.18147719 [Report] >>18149028
Anonymous No.18147741 [Report] >>18147827
>>18145580
Pharoah Dynasties is actually pretty good. I'm playing as Odysseus.
Anonymous No.18147788 [Report]
>>18147642
Amerifats were behind the times in military tactics as European armies by the 1860s were already moving towards squad and platoon formations.
Anonymous No.18147827 [Report]
>>18147741
The infamous Odysseus
Anonymous No.18147833 [Report]
Why didn't they just grease up pigs, set them on fire and let them loose into the other guys firing line?
Anonymous No.18147876 [Report] >>18147878
>>18147421
>superficialities
What an absolute numbskull you are. There were still nepoleonic style cavalry in ww1 plenty of lancers too.
Anonymous No.18147878 [Report] >>18147889
>>18147876
Anonymous No.18147889 [Report]
>>18147878
Shakos
Anonymous No.18147909 [Report] >>18147921 >>18147952
>>18145005 (OP)
What's the verdict?

>Real or staged?
Anonymous No.18147921 [Report]
>>18147909
Anonymous No.18147952 [Report]
>>18147909
Why would it be staged? Take your meds
Anonymous No.18148319 [Report]
Anonymous No.18148905 [Report]
>>18145580
based
Anonymous No.18149009 [Report]
>>18145580
>Warhammer 3
Anonymous No.18149028 [Report] >>18149061
>>18147691
>>18147719
How can you brag about losing a war against such piss-poor strategists? Obviously their strategy was more effective than yours, so don't you doubly-insult your own side when you insult your conquerors?
Anonymous No.18149061 [Report]
>>18149028
That second one with Grant is because he got two of my great-great-great uncles killed.
Anonymous No.18149084 [Report] >>18150092
>>18147638
Austria was the lolcow of WW1
Anonymous No.18149722 [Report]
>>18146369
that is untrue
>>18147063
consider that cavalry squadrons have around 150 men when infantry battalions up to 1000
also anon mention XVIII century so dunny why you bring 1400-1700 years into it
Anonymous No.18149966 [Report]
>>18147063
Dumb retard award. Pretty much only. PLC had super high cav to inf ratio by that time
Anonymous No.18150092 [Report]
>>18149084
Conrad Von Hotzendorf could not command his way out of a wet paper bag
Anonymous No.18150235 [Report]
>>18146882
Elephants would be slaughtered by cannons and mortars. War elephants are only really viable when the enemy can't penetrate more then a few inches of meat with their ranged weapons, not when they can level entire cities
Anonymous No.18150603 [Report]
>>18146882
Elephants love loud noises, fire & explosions
Anonymous No.18150622 [Report]
>>18146882
I appreciate most highly Your Majesty's tender of good offices in forwarding to this Government a stock from which a supply of elephants might be raised on our own soil. This Government would not hesitate to avail itself of so generous an offer if the object were one which could be made practically useful in the present condition of the United States.

Our political jurisdiction, however, does not reach a latitude so low as to favor the multiplication of the elephant, and steam on land, as well as on water, has been our best and most efficient agent of transportation in internal commerce.

I shall have occasion at no distant day to transmit to Your Majesty some token of indication of the high sense which this Government entertains of Your Majesty's friendship.

Meantime, wishing for Your Majesty a long and happy life, and for the generous and emulous People of Siam the highest possible prosperity, I commend both to the blessing of Almighty God.

Your Good Friend, ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

Washington, February 3, 1862.