Empire: Total War Heaven

to me it looks like maratha has the most green in their area

Heheh. But, if you look at the Sikh musketeers, they're candidate for one of the better line infs.

Increased morale and great accuracy, for a small increase in recruiting cost and a melee hit, looks like a good trade-off, especially when you take into account Maratha's melee units you can use for hand-to-hand fighting.

[This message has been edited by wyzr (edited 04-08-2009 @ 06:14 AM).]

That's very interesting wyzr. I knew that some line infantry units were different but not that there was so much variation.

thanks Gaius.

I only really started digging for this info when I concluded an Austrian campaign, and wondered why my line inf almost invariably routed after a few minutes of charging Prussian infantry, with superior numbers and all. And why Russia is always so easy to beat. Heh.

That doesn't make sense historically, why on earth do an indian empire have more accurate muskets than a well trained and drilled english army, which historically pwned.....

Sikh troops were elite warriors perhaps?
Is there a limit to how many you can recruit? I know you can only get four of the foreign mercenary line infantry for France.

Well, in the game it looks like the Sikhs act as elite infantry for the Marathas (even if they aren't labelled as such). Understandable, as the Sikhs really were (and still are) the cream of the crop in the Indian army.

Bit off-topic, but look up the Battle of Saragarhi: 21 Sikh soldiers hold off 10,000 Afghans (they were killed to the last man, but held on long enough for the rebellion to stall).

Sikhs are some of the fiercest warriors in that continent, so ETW made their stats reflect that. Personally, I'd prefer they had better melee ability instead of accuracy, but with a wealth of melee units, I suppose accuracy had to be a better choice.

In-game they're elites - a match for regular British infantry, but Guard elites would grind em up.

That's why I normally play as the US as opposed to Austria online...the extra units aren't worth it since they rout easier. I have won and lost battles due to lower morale.

[This message has been edited by justgotowned (edited 04-08-2009 @ 05:32 PM).]

Do you have one of these for the elite infantry?

What's the consensus regarding Coldstream guards vs black watch? I.e, whould you rather the better firepower, or the better melee combat?

Coldstream. they will still be able to get off shots before entering melee and once in melee...you have managed to pin down the enemy allowing you to surround and massacre it,its much harder to deal with soldiers who destroy your men and arent letting themselves be drawn in.

I once faced a U.S. Ranger unit against a Coldstream Guards unit.

The Ranger unit was able to do some damage, picking off individuals, they had already decimated a line infantry unit by themselves with almost no casualties, but the Coldstream Guards got into musket range while I was paying attention to another part of the map.

I turned the camera just in time to see what happened, with just 1 volley, the Coldstream Guards killed like 20 men in the range runit and routed the unit. One minute I had a nearly pristine unit (36 men out of 40) and then the unit was cut in half. And they were in skirmish mode, spread out.

I have a new level of respect for the Coldstream Guards unit in the game. It was a real jaw dropping experience.

But anyhoo....

I'd really like to hear what people think are the 2 most important qualities in a line infantry are. Accuracy, melee attack, melee defense, morale, cost, ect.

Pick 2.

Personally, I gotta go with morale and melee attack. Accuracy is important, but I can improve accuracy through battlefield tactics and good use of the terrain. Ultimately, I want a unit to be able to hold it's own in a melee fight, and if one of those is going to occur, I always try to be the attacker to gain the initiative.

And morale to me is just key. The general objective is to rout a unit from the field of battle. A unit with better morale can hold-out longer.

What are your choices and the logic behind them? No right or wrong answers here, it's all subjective.

[This message has been edited by burndaddy (edited 04-24-2009 @ 11:48 AM).]

I thought the British would have the best line inf in the game! The dicapline of the infamous redcoats is known through out millatry history. The french to.

The British, the French and the Prussians had the most well drilled and well equiped army's during the 18th century.

The Portuagse had a very strong alliance with the British and the Portuagse Cassadors were traind by the British in shooting and drills.

I understand this may have been done for gameplay reasons but the British line inf should have the best morale, accuracy and firepower stats and i'm not just saying this because i'm British myself!!

Looking at the british stats, they are nothing to sneeze at.

Solid line infantry, and the brits have more special units than any faction in the game I think.

I don't see anything to complain about.

Don't forget also, the victors tend to write history.

Great example, ask an American what the best fighter plane of WWII was, and they'll say "P-51 mustang of course!" ask a Russian and they'll say "The Yak-9 comrade!".

John F. Kennedy was killed by a rifle reputed to be the "worst accurate" rifle of WWII. French I believe.

Everyone knows the story of the charge of the light brigade. But only the polish know of the polish light cavalry that won the Battle of Somosierra for Napolean, winning high praise and medals by Napolean himself.

My point is, best, worst, these things are often subjective. It depends on who is conducting that vote, based on what evidence, based on political and economic factors, any biases the tally taker might have, and any candidates they may be leaving out, and any additional battlefield variables that could have affected the "battlefield history" of the subject matter.

For example, the british kicked butt in Europe, but got their butts handed to them several times in the 1600s in the Americas because of tactical doctrine. So based on that, were they still "best"? See how vague that is?

Over the years I've seen numerous statements of best and worst, in regards to militaries or military equipment. But when you really dig down, you find that all very subjective. Multiple conclusions can be drawn by the same evidence. This is the stuff historians debate all day. Kids in school only learn the most popular version of history at that given time. Give it 50 years and someone draws new conclusions and rewrites the textbooks.

That said, no doubt, the british military kicked ass in this era. I'm just not going to launch into declarations of who was "best". The British were very good, and won a solid reputation on the battlefield. But there were other nations in the world at the same time who also won impressive battles and wars. Even if their own global reputation didn't soar as high as the british flag.

FYI, if you can't tell, big amateur historian nerd here.

[This message has been edited by burndaddy (edited 04-24-2009 @ 04:42 PM).]

I was bored so I made a chart of the relative strengths and costs of each line infantry based on percentage different to the average unit. It is based on averaging the percents of each of the given stats (so for Britain 100% size 100% range 100% accuracy 100% melee attack 115.3% melee defense and 111.1% moral averages out to 104.4%).

Unit/ Effectiveness/ Cost
Austrian/ -4.2%/ +10.8%
Britain/ +4.4%/ +5.4%
France/ +4.2%/ +2.7%
M. Bargir/ -15.3%/ 0%
M. Sikh/ +0.4%/ +2.7%
Isarelys/ -14.1%/ -10.1%
Nazam-I/ +3.7%/ +2.7%
Prussia/ +3.1%/ +5.4%
Russia/ -5.0%/ -2.7%

You have some very good point's burndaddy.

History is always written by the winners, of course (this usally because the losers are dead, or similar).

The British Redcoats were probally still the best of the standared line infantry, (and I still say best). But the Americans beat the British, the Unacceptable derogatory term removed - Gaius beat the british etc. This is because although the Recoats were the best line infantry, but they were only good at fighting other line infantry.

One the reasons the Americans beat the British in the War of Inderpendace is because the Americans diden't just fight in the 'line your men up facing each other and keep shooting until one side is more dead than the other' fashion they used gorilla tactics.

This ment the redcoats were at a huge disatvantage, because at the end the day all the training and drills and formaitions in the world carn't save you if there are lots of people shotting at you and you carn't shoot back because you can't see them!


So my point is really making the British Redcoats a little bit better but the are still at a disatvantage to iregular troops. It will just make sure if you are fighting the British hopping to best there line infantry in a streight shoot-out is not going to work.

[This message has been edited by Gaius Colinius (edited 04-28-2009 @ 09:49 AM).]

The idea that the Americans defeated the redcoats through sniping and ambush tactics is a common misconception.

Some small engagements were fought that way, yes. Mostly by militias. But those engagements almost never "won ground", meaning they engaged the british but almost never succeeded in winning decisive engagements.

But as the war escalated, the continental army was formed, and trained in fight in line fashion, I believe great improvements in discipline and marching were made by a former german officer, his name escapes me at the moment. He used the quiet winter months to train up the army from militia to continental army quality to prepare them to fight the british.

Most of the major battles of the war were fought line to line, musket to musket. European style.

Bunker Hill, Saratoga, the lists goes on.

Really? well, you learn somthing new every day. Thanks burndaddy.

I still think that the British line inf could be slightly more accurate but even more expensive or how about a completely different unit? But i guess that would unbalance the game slightly. Any thoughts anyone?

[This message has been edited by ARCHIEIKE (edited 04-25-2009 @ 02:33 PM).]

The reason USA won its independence besides their own achivemnts whas:
1) To transport troops over the Atlantic took long time and was costly.
2) Help from France, Spain and the Dutch

And while it was not smaller engagemnts that defeated the British, soldiers with Kentucky long rifle did play a small part by snipering down officers. At Cowpens the British lost many officers to American marksmen.

But gorilla tactics can still be effective. Gorillas are very strong you know.

(Sorry about the lame joke, coludn't resist)

Heh, very funny.

why did everyone hate the British, i mean really, it seemes everyone in europe (exept Portugal) seemed to dislike us Brits for one reason or another.

That's not so bad, everyone in the world hates America for some reason or other

Anyway, we should get back on topic.

Everybody hates the most powerful country in their time. Usually because the hater's country recently lost a war with that country.

fair enough!

@Thrashmad.


Also the US defeated the British because they had 500,000+ militia doing guerilla tactics. The main continental army that Washington commanded constantly avoided battles head on with redcoats on plain battlefields. Washington knew when to attack head one and when not to. Mix this with thousands militia, throw in mainly French support and you can stand up to the redcoats.

ARCHIEIKE
Derogatory terms for ethnic races are completely unacceptable on these forums.

DEROGATORY TERMS
If you use any terms in an offensive context against a person, race, culture, group or organization, as determined by our moderators, you are in violation of this rule.

Please note that words carry different meanings in different cultures, and that while a word may be acceptable use in one part of the world, it may not be in another. In addition, any one can invent their own derogatory terms, unfortunately. Because of those factors, we will evaluate the context in which the term was used to determine whether a violation has occurred.

Consider this an unofficial warning.

Deleted. Email sent - Gaius

[This message has been edited by Gaius Colinius (edited 04-29-2009 @ 06:37 AM).]

i thought the russians were good in bayonet combat
i can understand lower accuracy, but if anything i want them to have better hand to hand capabilities