Adjustment to be made to Raleighs tip guide

[Tanaka]

Tip 17.4:

I get much better results charging from a column and not a line!!!

[Ralegh]

How so?

[Naomi]

I'd like hear of details. Other things being equal?

[jchastain]

This raises an interesting question. What exactly is the impact of charging in a line versus in a column, all other things being equal. I feel some testing coming on...

[mogami]

Hi, Historically I think you did charge from column. Denser troop formation results in more shock. A line formation is not deep. (Rather then several Regts in line 1 behind the other they formed columns abreast with each Rgt covering less front but deeper)
Also it is much easier to maintain a column then a line.

[Ralegh]

There are some other threads on this on this historical subject - the attack column was a french formation that allowed somewhat effective charges from militia. That formation is not represented in the game. TYhe column in the game is a marching column.

As a practical measure, while I have sometimes had good results charging from column (and do it very very often), I would certainly say that charging in line causes more damage to the enemy if everything else if equal.

[mogami]

"Historian John Lynn studied the tactical formations used in 108 engagements fought by the Armée du Nord between April 1792 and July 1794. He found fifty-five recorded instances of the French deploying into line and cites seven examples of the line in attack and thirty-five cases of column attacks. Lynn concludes that "commanders placed their soldiers...in ways which exploited terrain and met the tactical challenge. Battalions stood in a full close order repertoire of line, column, and square or dispersed in open order This conclusion applies to French infantry throughout the Napoleonic Wars."

Hi, The problem as I see it was the French aquired the habit of having a swarm of troops in skirmish order in front of their infantry in column for manover. If time permitted and the terrian was favorable French infantry would form line to charge.
The French did not engage in musketry duels for long periods. (like the Prussian and British did) The French did not use reverse slopes or lie down (like the British did)
The French would use the column to charge in restricted terrian or if they were in a hurry and had not already deployed into line. To be strictly precise one could argue the most common French formation in battle was skirmish formation and at the proper moment formations that had been screened by this cloud would emerge and engage.
In any event I have had good result from column formation charges (against disordered enemy troops) I am more prone to retain the column rather then risk disrupting my troops by going into line. So I tend to advance a line that duels with musketry and when enemy becomes disordered a fresh French unit in column advances and charges. The line formations are fatigued by their duel and I don't want to shake them up with a charge. However as the Army improves I will use the line more often for bayonet charges (once I get that upgrade)
As non French I always take target practice upgrades before any other so I can fire at the advancing French before they charge me.

[ahauschild]

The problem with line always has been that if a man falls, and they will, it creates gaps. Some of these where filled or the spacing increased, but a Line formation had allot of frontage for firepower coverage, but did not have the staying power a column did.

Imangine this. A line defense a 100 yard area 2 guys deep. They will get to fire in that 100 yard area still only 2 guys deep.

Now a Battle or Attack column advances, taking up about 40 yards frontage. The line overlaps him a bit so can bring 60 yard frontage effective to bear on the column. But the line cannot really open fire untill 100 yards or less. They will get maybe 2, possibly 3 volleys into that column, but because the frontage is actuly less, they will most likley drop the front rank twice, but guess what, by the time the column reachs the line there is 6 to 8 more ranks left, and the column may have halted once to fire also, and that 40 yard area of line that is 2 guys deep will suddendly be very thin indeed. At that time, with nobody to fill the line the column ussuly advances by bayonet, i say advance, they did not actuly charge (run) in many cases, but just moved forward with the pointy thing sticking out.

That is why a french Attack Column was one of the most fearsome sights on the battlefield back then. They kept comming, and comming and comming. Reports indicated that many other nations line infantry was broken ussuly after the 2nd, if not the 3rd volley. But often the french Attack Columns would take up to 6 volleys and still advance in good order to push the attack home.

But I could be wrong, and a 2 man thin line of man (sometimes 3) faced on the same frontage as a column would fire AND charge as well as a column. But I dont think so. Sure there is accounts of a line charging, but those are rare.

[Chaldkydri]

yeah.. but if an entire division takes upa 100 yards you're gonna have lines going back for quite a while. but the reason charging in collum is that your front is gonna get shot to hell. Since you ahve a bunch of people getting blown away at teh tip the charge has to run over the dead bodies or go around them. Realy if' they're just gonna concentrate their fire on teh front you're charge is screwed. Then when it comes to bayonets you got 4 guys are so, asuming they can form up against a line where you got 4 right in front read to stab and a bunch of people on the side ready to amke sure no one survives. then it becomes a meele where you're crushed cuz your front is smashed becase there isn't eough people up front. Then you get enveloped. It would be a bit differnt if it jsut wasn't one coloum. but a dozen or so. Theat might work. but otherthan that it's like trying to push a pencil though a book. there's jsut too many variables but the line is best for charging agaisnt another line cuz it's equal and just hope cuz you're charging that they take heavier casulties.

[Jordan]

In any event I have had good result from column formation charges (against disordered enemy troops) I am more prone to retain the column rather then risk disrupting my troops by going into line. So I tend to advance a line that duels with musketry and when enemy becomes disordered a fresh French unit in column advances and charges.

This is key. And if this is how you're thinking then the developers have done a good job of modelling history.

[Jordan]

That is why a french Attack Column was one of the most fearsome sights on the battlefield back then. They kept comming, and comming and comming. Reports indicated that many other nations line infantry was broken ussuly after the 2nd, if not the 3rd volley. But often the french Attack Columns would take up to 6 volleys and still advance in good order to push the attack home.

That'a because (non-British) volleys often occurred at ineffective long ranges. By the time the column had closed the gap, the line had been subject to skirmish fire and had their morale shaken by viewing their own ineffective fire. At that point the French didn't need to form line.

I diagree about charges in line. They occured often enough. The decision was about terrain, the state of your troops, their troops, etc

[Naomi]

How often the AI-controlled units tend to form lines, especially when the column-firing units prove effective in a general-purpose job. I have a detailed battle case, where all the enemy infantry units remained in columns up to the end. Does it hint at the lack of significant line superiority?

[Kimse123]

This is an entire division charging here there are some issues for the game to clear up.

[diesel7013]

FWIW,

It seems that INF charging, either line or column, there is no discernable difference... in the games I'm playing, mind you.

BUT, I've seen Cav charge MUCH better in column - and all I've really done right now is play tactical battles - so I've palyed a few different types...

AND - always put ARTY on level ground - NOT hills

[GreenDestiny]

Didn’t the French attack in a mix column / line formation with their battalions.
That was something like this.

1 regiment


====== ...=========...=========...=========...====== ====== .........Line...................Line...............Line..........======
====== .........................................................................======
Column ...........................................................................Column

[dapamdg]

Regarding line depth, only the British had troops of sufficient training in rapid fire and reloading to be able to make use of two men deep line formations. Almost everyone else, including the French, used three deep line formations. This was not a question of skill, bravery or morale. It was a question of how quickly troops were trained to reload their muskets. The British soldiers could reload so quickly that a two deep formation could maintain a continuous fire, while other nations needed three deep to keep up the same continuous fire.

Regarding combat formation, the attack column was considered vastly inferior to the line, even for charging. As has been pointed out, the attack column was a response by the French to the fact that the huge armies raised by the levee did not have the training and discipline necessary to fight in line formation. The surplus of manpower also allowed the French to accept the huge losses attack columns suffered from enemy fire.

The compromise the French achieved during the Revolution was the demi-brigade using LeOrder Mixte (sp?). The revolutionary government brigaded one regular army battalion (from the old royal army) with two battalions of levees in a unit called a demi-brigade. The regular troops formed into a line, since they had the discipline and training to do so, while the levee battalions formed attack columns, one on each side of the regulars, exactly as GreenDestiny has shown.

However, once Napoleon became Emperor and reorganized the army during the peace between 1800 and 1805, French Infantry gained the experience and discipline to operate in more conventional infantry lines. On the other hand, Napoleon was rarely careful with the life of his soldiers (1796 and 1814 excepted), so he was more than willing to continue the use of attack columns if he thought the would be useful. AFAIK, and I stand to be corrected, the British never used attack columns and always attacked from line formation.

[mogami]

Hi, It seems to me Nappy grew fond of mass and began substituting mass for tactics.
At Borodino he made attacks that were down right sickening. Just a mass of infantry dragging it's entrails in attacks.
When he commanded small Armies he was very carefull about how, where and when he attacked. After he formed the Grand Armee he began being wastefull. Whether he was tired or just grew lazy is open to debate. (Or it might be that many great Generals just had days where they seem careless when they belive they or their troops can beat anyone anytime)
It is important to bear in mind that in COG we are moving divisions not Regt or Bn.
Therefore my questions are
1. When a division is in line, is it being shown as the Regt in line abreast or in rows one line behind the other. (An entire division on line only takes up 1 hex side?)
2. When a division is in column is it Columns of Regts one behind the other (march) or Regts in Column abreast (attack)

How hard would it be to add these new formations. (line abreast and line astern Column abreast and column astern)

Or should we simply be splitting our divisions? (I've never split a unit)

[Ralegh]

I'll say it one last time, then I am gonna ignore this thead.

It is definitely true in COG that line does more damage in both men and moral when charging or making fire attacks than column if all else is equal. It is possible for this to look a little different if certain upgrades are taken and other upgrades not taken, but anyother results are just randomness effects.

The AI is pretty good at making switches between the formations in combat. If the chance of getting into line formation is too low, the AI won't try, which is why sometimes the AI will just stay in column. But if you fight the French in 1805, for example, they will mainly be in line. (I don't think the skirmishers stuff is quite right at the moment, but the chjange of formation seems good.)

I agree that some more formations (at least the attack column) has appeal. Maybe the very best thing would be for the formation to be a drop down - then perhaps it could later be made moddable, so people could add other formations... Yep - that would be cool!

[jchastain]

ORIGINAL: Ralegh

I'll say it one last time, then I am gonna ignore this thead.

It is definitely true in COG that line does more damage in both men and moral when charging or making fire attacks than column if all else is equal. It is possible for this to look a little different if certain upgrades are taken and other upgrades not taken, but anyother results are just randomness effects.

The AI is pretty good at making switches between the formations in combat. If the chance of getting into line formation is too low, the AI won't try, which is why sometimes the AI will just stay in column. But if you fight the French in 1805, for example, they will mainly be in line. (I don't think the skirmishers stuff is quite right at the moment, but the chjange of formation seems good.)

I agree that some more formations (at least the attack column) has appeal. Maybe the very best thing would be for the formation to be a drop down - then perhaps it could later be made moddable, so people could add other formations... Yep - that would be cool!

A VERY important element of that statement Ralegh is "all other things being equal". I think what people may be seeing is the effect of remaining movement points upon casualties inflicted. What I have seen is that often times you will receive greater casualties from charging in column formation with full or nearly full movement points than you will if you expend the movement points to change formation and then charge with far fewer remaining movement points in that same turn.

[mogami]

Hi, Not to confuse anyone. I fight formed (line or column) enemy infantry in line formation. I will use column to charge disordered enemy infantry.
All I require in a battle is enough distance at start to permit me to form line.
I hold a portion of my infantry in the rear and this is where the columns come from. (depending on battle progress they might instead form line and replace a division that is shaken,disordered, out of ammo or fatigued. I am very predictable in that my flanks will have Cav posted on them and my arty will be in the line flanked by infantry in line. Everything depends on the size of my force. Most Army have at least 4 Cav divisions 1 Arty and 5 Infantry so my basic set up is Arty flanked by infantry with Cav on wings and 1 division in the rear in reserve. As time goes by the Army grow in size but my formations don't really change I just add another formation like the first along side it. (Corps) 2 Inf 2 Cav 1 Arty with Jgr or Lt Cav/inf for special terrian/assignments And then extra Arty attached to Army.
But line formation is the most common one I use if I have the time to deploy. I don't like to change formation in range if the percent chance of disordering my troops is near 50 percent. They get better at doing it after they get a few training upgrades and have fought in a few battles. So at start of fight I don't move towards enemy as much as I move to assume my large battle deployment.