Always 3 ranks deep?

[PoorOldSpike]

The computer's infantry units always seem to be 3 ranks deep, don't they ever change to 2 deep or even a long line of 1 deep?
I mean, a solid block of troops 3 ranks deep is a juicy target..:)

[Insaniac]

As someone whose tested rank depth extensively, there are benefits and drawbacks to width/depth. Mind you, you can just adjust those yourself during deployment or during the battle. Wider formations posses slightly more burst damage (except platoon fire where rank depth doesn't make a huge difference) and sustain slightly lesser casualties from incoming fire. However, thin/wide formations are vulnerable to cavalry attacks, are unwieldy to maneuver with, and surprisingly easy to flank.

[Smokedice]

3 ranks deep is standard and the only formation you should use for Line Infantry and Grenadiers after researching fire by rank (fire by rank does 3 ranks maximum, so if you use 4 ranks only 3 will still fire, if you have 2 ranks, you have 1 less volley and it may not be as effective)

3 is the holy number...but as for light infantry you can get more firepower if you lengthen them out. Idk why the computer doesn't ever change its ranks I guess that's just the algorithm (it assumes fire by rank maybe?)

[Inardesco]

As long as you don't have Fire By Rank, make sure to spread your line out as much as possible to make sure as many troops as possible are firing.

After Fire By Rank, you want to have 3 ranks deep in order to, once again, have as many troops as possible fire.

Originally posted by Rawfire:

.but as for light infantry you can get more firepower if you lengthen them out.

All soldiers in a light infantry battalion fire regardless of how deep/wide the formation is. Obviously, those that aren't in range won't fire but that's debatable considering that Light Infantry with Light Infantry Tactics seem to fire at units outside their shown range.

[Insaniac]

Three ranks deep with rank fire is the default, but for head on shootouts it's not actually the ideal. 2 ranks is preferable in terms of performance. That said, 3 ranks usually wins out due to convenience and utility. Grenadiers should almost always be in two ranks. And skirmish fire units' firing is dependent upon the line of sight that the individual man in the unit has, so generally two ranks is ideal.

[PoorOldSpike]

Thanks guys, but no matter how deep we make our ranks taking into account such factors as the terrain, length of frontage to be covered and the tactical situation etc, the AI units always stay at 3 deep which means we flexible human players will always have the edge in battles.
Personally I use 2 ranks depth most of the time because the way I see it, 1 rank seems too strung out and fragile, and 3 ranks seems too dense ( if an enemy shot passes between the guys in the front rank, it's almost certain to hit a guy in the 2nd or 3rd rank.)
Also with 3 ranks deep,I should think the guys in the rear rank will have their line of fire blocked somewhat by the two ranks in front of them.
But what the hell do I know, I'm mainly a WW2/ Modern nut and know zilch about the age of musketry..:)
PS- I'm on the lookout for a good military discussion forum so any suggestions from you guys would be welcome.
Also I wouldn't mind dabbling in ETW multiplayer instead of the dumb AI, so if anybody's interested let me know and we can arrange proper objectives and missions and stuff before we start..:)

[Smokedice]

Originally posted by Inardesco:

As long as you don't have Fire By Rank, make sure to spread your line out as much as possible to make sure as many troops as possible are firing.

After Fire By Rank, you want to have 3 ranks deep in order to, once again, have as many troops as possible fire.

Originally posted by Rawfire:

.but as for light infantry you can get more firepower if you lengthen them out.

All soldiers in a light infantry battalion fire regardless of how deep/wide the formation is. Obviously, those that aren't in range won't fire but that's debatable considering that Light Infantry with Light Infantry Tactics seem to fire at units outside their shown range.

Not the light infantry unit, only the front rank fires

[Inardesco]

Originally posted by Rawfire:

Not the light infantry unit, only the front rank fires

You haven't read anything have you?

Originally posted by Inardesco:

As long as you don't have Fire By Rank, make sure to spread your line out as much as possible to make sure as many troops as possible are firing.

After Fire By Rank, you want to have 3 ranks deep in order to, once again, have as many troops as possible fire.

All soldiers in a light infantry battalion fire regardless of how deep/wide the formation is. Obviously, those that aren't in range won't fire but that's debatable considering that Light Infantry with Light Infantry Tactics seem to fire at units outside their shown range.

[Smokedice]

Originally posted by Inardesco:

Originally posted by Rawfire:

Not the light infantry unit, only the front rank fires

You haven't read anything have you?

I thought you were talking about the in-game light infantry unit. In the game, only the front rank fires, therefore it is more beneficial to spread them out

[Smokedice]

Nevermind, I was thinking of the light infantry in Shogun 2 Fall of the Samurai since I had been playing the heck out of it recently

[Xcorps]

, but no matter how deep we make our ranks taking into account such factors as the terrain, length of frontage to be covered and the tactical situation etc, the AI units always stay at 3 deep which means we flexible human players will always have the edge in battles.

Even if it was possible to give all those factors numerical values and then convert those values into meaningful behavior that maximized the AI ability to maintain frontage (along with dispersion, range maintenance, and economy of force) it would still be true that humans will always have the edge in battle.

When devs can write an AI that can plot manuevers like drawing 4 enemy units into a wrong facing in the fire sac of a battery of cannon with plunging enffilade cannister then rank and file management might be worth messing with.

The AI can't even manage a flanking manuever.

Just saying.

[PoorOldSpike]

Originally posted by Xcorps:

, but no matter how deep we make our ranks taking into account such factors as the terrain, length of frontage to be covered and the tactical situation etc, the AI units always stay at 3 deep which means we flexible human players will always have the edge in battles.

Even if it was possible to give all those factors numerical values and then convert those values into meaningful behavior that maximized the AI ability to maintain frontage (along with dispersion, range maintenance, and economy of force) it would still be true that humans will always have the edge in battle.

When devs can write an AI that can plot manuevers like drawing 4 enemy units into a wrong facing in the fire sac of a battery of cannon with plunging enffilade cannister then rank and file management might be worth messing with.

The AI can't even manage a flanking manuever.

Just saying.

Yeah, I've been computer gaming for over 30 years and haven't yet seen any AI in any game (land,sea,air or space) that can give us a decent run for our money.
The AI is ok for playing against for fun, but 95% of the time I only play multiplayer against the most dangerous creature in the known universe- the human being,
I've logged over 2000 hours on the Armed Assault III multiplayer servers so far...:)
"Those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, care for nothing else thereafter"- Ernest Hemingway