Bayonet charge

[Uxbridge]

AJLewisBrookes published a great picture of a bayonet charge in the ongoing "help this is terrible" thread (sorry I don't know how to insert a direct link to it).  I saw my first such action the other day. Is this a feature of the latest patch or was it there all the time but not correctly rendered in 3D? If it has always been there, this would explain some of the odd things such as two infantry regiments facing each other, one firing away and the other not moving or firing at all. Is it that the passive regiment is really charging up and then recoiling from the musket volleys?




 

[AJ]

Hail oh one legged one!!!!! It's been there all the time but just as in real life, it rarely happened.  Nobody likes being stabbed with a rusty bayonet so they usually had a mutual rout. I read somewhere on the forum (quite some time ago), that napoleons Personal battlefield physician said he had only seen a handfull of bayonet wounds.

I was just lucky with the screenshot

[Uxbridge]

Very interesting. Even though the offficial doctrine of some armies (the Austrian, for example) was for bayonet in preference to musketry at short ranges,  you are saying it rarely happened. Would it really be a mutual rout? Seems more likely that one side would back off (or run away) and rely on their second line to stop the enemy.

[Gunner24]

I read somewhere on the forum (quite some time ago), that napoleons Personal battlefield physician said he had only seen a handfull of bayonet wounds.

I have seen the figures in a book, it was a small % of total wounds seen, I forget the number, but it was small and I have seen many different forum members around the Community saying melee was a rare thing - not common at all.

[Hook]

Very interesting. Even though the offficial doctrine of some armies (the Austrian, for example) was for bayonet in preference to musketry at short ranges,  you are saying it rarely happened.

That's exactly how it was.  Every general wanted the bayonet charge but the troops would stop to fire instead, and it was almost impossible to get them moving again.  It's possible that's one reason why the Old Guard was so effective, because they didn't stop to fire, but I haven't read anything about that.

Bayonet wounds were a very small percentage, around 2% or so.  At least one general was quoted as saying he'd never seen a bayonet fight in an open field.  They only happened when a "fortified" position was attacked.

In "Battle Studies", du Picq goes into the bayonet charge problem at length.  It's a great read for anyone interested in the morale side of Napoleonic warfare.

Hook

[AJ]

"One legged One", had a dig around and found this topic on bayonet charges, don't know if you remember it but it proved to be informative.

http://www.histwar.org/forum/index.php/topic,4868.msg63087.html#msg63087

[Marquês de Alorna]

Anyway, the unit that charges and then stops, should return fire instead of remaining inactive taking fire. Either this or run away. So, there is probably a bug.

[AJ]

How did we get on the subject of bugs again?

[Uxbridge]

I agree with Marquês de Alorna - the 3D view often shows a regiment apparently motionless with an enemy regiment firing at them from about 100m range.  In reality what would be happening - would they be firing back, attempting perhaps to close with the bayonet or retreating? It would be very pleasing if Histwar depicted more clearly what the 2D engine has calculated.

[AJ]

It would be very pleasing if Histwar depicted more clearly what the 2D engine has calculated.

This is JMM's current project, I believe

[JMM]

These behaviours are  a bit annoying because I am sure we checked 10, 100 times these kind of fight.
We had a grid with a several dozens of type INF vs INF fight (line, column, skirmisher, strength (<,=,>, 1 to 6 batallions).. and I can say all was very good...
I believe a thing is broken in the 3D engine and I didn't spend time to fix this issue. So, I have to re-do the tests in order to definitively fix these behaviours. Just a few patience...

JMM

[Uxbridge]

Thanks JMM.
Good to know you are on the case.  When I play I go from 2d to 3d and back all the time, trying to understand the strategic position in 2d then looking in 3d to see what is actually happening.  I find the 3d view vital. For example, if a regiment forms square and stops advancing then I want to know what cavalry unit they can see that is worrying them. Not easy to do that on the 2d view.

[Alfiere]

This is bad news for me.
I have almost exclusively played only in 2d.
The example of square is interesting.(i hope that in the future also in 2d represents the square)
There are other important example where 3d is so important?
I would not continually switch 2d and 3d for all battle for to see if infantry is in square or not.This is micromanagement.

[AJ]

One thing I do when fighting predominantly in F2, is right click and hold on an individual unit. You get a top down view of the unit and it's formation. When things are going well, I do take 3D tours of the battlefield, enjoying firefights charges etc...
I also do a 3D tour of the Map before I make my battle plans, this is the only way to get a true feeling of the topography.

[Alfiere]

Thank Ajle , you are always generous with advice.