Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

Bayonet Upgrade

wsx1986wsx1986 Senior MemberPosts: 182Registered Users
This is a feature that I would really like to see in FotS.
With the setting that this game takes place it only makes sense, and I don't really understand why it was omitted from the game in the first place.
Some might argue that this would throw off balance of the game by making spear units redundant, but I am of a view that it will only add a more interesting dimension to the game. Also, I like to design my army based on authenticity, so I don't enjoy bringing old fashioned spear units when I'm fielding modern rifles (similar issue stands for bringing yari ki, which I prefer not to bring with my modern army - but that is another topic).
I imagine that being able to add a bayonet would be a great feature, e.g.,:

*Make it an upgradable skill (perhaps at level 5 at a cost of around 100~120 koku)

*Maybe make it a feature that you can turn on/off (it would take a couple of seconds for a unit with this skill to fit bayonets on their rifles)

*The benefits of turning this skill on could be like the following:
-Units with this skill on will engage in melee fight with their bayonet-rifles (not swords)
-Adds a small advantage against cavalry in melee combat (e.g., about +5 bonus melee attack against cav units)
-Increased charge
-Maybe increased melee attack? (Some might argue otherwise, but there are many historical instances when bayonets triumphed over swords)

*The disadvantages of turning the bayonet skill on could be:
-Slightly decreased rifle aim
-Slightly decreased rifle reload rate
-No bonus against cavs
-Base melee attack with no added melee bonus

I would guess that having this feature would add a whole new style of gameplay in some circumstances, and I would really like to see something like this in the future.
Post edited by wsx1986 on

Comments

  • Marshal SuchetMarshal Suchet Senior Member Posts: 2,077Registered Users
    edited April 2012
    All European, imperial/shogunate guard and imperial/shogunate infantry should all have bayonets AND the ability to form square.

    The other units - well, I don't mind if they have katanas. But its silly to see every man in a european or western styled unit using swords as opposed to bayonets.
    RedStag
  • TheCrazyCatTheCrazyCat Banned Posts: 1,502Banned Users
    edited April 2012
    im glad they dont otherwise rear charging hills with those is gonna be painful.
  • wsx1986wsx1986 Senior Member Posts: 182Registered Users
    edited April 2012
    All European, imperial/shogunate guard and imperial/shogunate infantry should all have bayonets AND the ability to form square.

    The other units - well, I don't mind if they have katanas. But its silly to see every man in a european or western styled unit using swords as opposed to bayonets.


    I did like this feature in the Empire/Napoleon series, but the use of infantry squares was most widely seen during the Napoleonic wars and fast grew out of favour along with other Napoleonic fighting tactics with the introduction of contemporary firearms. There are only a few instances of infantry squares that were effectively used in post-Napoleonic battles, and most of them were against native armies of Africa, America, etc. who either did not have modern rifles or were not able to use them effectively (e.g., Anglo-Zulu war).
    Infantry squares would have been wiped out by any opponent who could effectively field contemporary firearms, and wouldn't really serve a purpose in FotS.
  • HallorranHallorran Senior Member Posts: 130Registered Users
    edited April 2012
    wsx1986 wrote: »
    I did like this feature in the Empire/Napoleon series, but the use of infantry squares was most widely seen during the Napoleonic wars and fast grew out of favour along with other Napoleonic fighting tactics with the introduction of contemporary firearms. There are only a few instances of infantry squares that were effectively used in post-Napoleonic battles, and most of them were against native armies of Africa, America, etc. who either did not have modern rifles or were not able to use them effectively (e.g., Anglo-Zulu war).
    Infantry squares would have been wiped out by any opponent who could effectively field contemporary firearms, and wouldn't really serve a purpose in FotS.

    At the moment there's a fair balance between guns and melee, adding bayonets and square formation is just going to turn this game into NTW, Cav and other Melee units will suffer.

    That and you'll alienate all the players who hated NTW and actually like the mix of melee and guns we have in FOTS. bad idea imo.
    AggonySpoon, MizuSpoon
  • kamikaze7100kamikaze7100 Senior Member Posts: 107Registered Users
    edited April 2012
    This has been talked to death and CA already said that its not gonna happen. Btw, i believe that lines already have bonus vs cav so whats the big deal. On a side note, I keep wondering why bayonets should give a bonus vs cav anyway. They r not as long as spears and even in melee a sword or a saber would make more damage then a kitchen knife tied to a rifle.
  • Sima Zhong DaSima Zhong Da Senior Member Posts: 532Registered Users
    edited April 2012
    「>> Some might argue that this would throw off balance of the game by making spear units redundant, but I am of a view that it will only add a more interesting dimension to the game.

    But you never say WHY. Some say that John Cena sucks, but I am of the view that John Cena adds a more interesting dimension to the WWE. Do you realize your argument can be retrofitted to well, just about anything?

    >> Also, I like to design my army based on authenticity, so I don't enjoy bringing old fashioned spear units when I'm fielding modern rifles

    Then don't. Bring all line infantry units and be at a strategic disadvantage. Be "authentic" but not without breaking the gameplay balance between melee and range. The whole game is about melee vs range right now. You don't see Bushido generals arguing that anyone who uses line infantry must automatically be disadvantaged by being banned from using cavalry and melee units do you? No, and God bless them too.

    >>-Slightly decreased rifle aim
    -Slightly decreased rifle reload rate

    Redundant. When you are in melee, you will not need to shoot anyway. After all, if it is toggleable, you can simply turn it off after you win the melee fight. This just screams abuse and additional power to ranged units, without any compensation to melee units.
    Modern war is conducted against an out-group by powerful people who have an exaggerated opinion of themselves and their degree of morality, are overconfident, often have an illusion of control, enjoy taking risks and are almost always male. - Robert Trivers, Deceit and Self-deception
  • III IDOLIZE IIIIII IDOLIZE III Senior Member Posts: 118Registered Users
    edited April 2012
    wsx1986 wrote: »
    -Units with this skill on will engage in melee fight with their bayonet-rifles (not swords)
    Bayonttes, if used, would have to be plug bayonetts, making so when equipped, cannot be taken out after a duration of time, (40 seconds?)
    Otherwise, increasing melee stats that much, will start making more powerful melee units like kat kachi, and shogatai useless, and only further defeat the purpose of charging lines of guns with nothing more than swords and spears.
  • dark as silverdark as silver Senior Member Posts: 1,510Registered Users
    edited April 2012
    if it where only a graphical update you wanted I'd agree, however I feel that the balance between melee and gunpowder is just too fine for this
  • AggonyDuckAggonyDuck Senior Member Posts: 3,592Registered Users, Smiley
    edited April 2012
    Last time I checked the bayonets are factored in. Why do you otherwise think that line infantry that are "armed" with swords get a bonus vs. cav?
  • Marshal SuchetMarshal Suchet Senior Member Posts: 2,077Registered Users
    edited April 2012
    @WSX:

    Infantry squares in napoleon had very limited firepower - it was so easy to force your enemy into square then blast him apart with gun units. Rushers would similarly benefit from having their enemies in square because it means there will be fewer men in the unit capable of shooting.

    I think that cavalry is a bit too powerful in the game at the moment as there are not very many ready counters. Having form square on a few key units, maybe as a level 5 upgrade could really turn this around without being unduly imbalancing to the game.

    In any case, the Austrians, British, Americans (at least in the early years of the civil war) and Russians were all very slow to shift away from the old infantry tactics of the early 1800's - only the French and the Prussians really made an effort to change their infantry formations to suit the times in which they were fighting. I'd hazard a guess and say that most of the infantry maneuvers that were taught to European troops involved a lot of Napoleonic infantry drill, so it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to say that the square formation may have been one of them.

    One way or another those sabres that ALL of the foreign line troops are carrying certainly aren't period accurate - any japanese units modeled on European infantry wouldn't be carrying them either.
    RedStag
  • the bourgeoisiethe bourgeoisie Senior Member Posts: 625Registered Users
    edited April 2012
    history people. during the boshin war the japanese didn't use bayonets, they used katana's read up on it, instead of going on a boast about bayonets, and if they were to put it in, it would have to be during the satsuma rebellion time period, where it was a now uniform army, Imperial Japanese Army
    Fear God, Honor King
  • Sima Zhong DaSima Zhong Da Senior Member Posts: 532Registered Users
    edited April 2012
    「I also note that certain line infantry have ridiculous charge bonuses, so even without bayonets, they are devastating if countercharged into an advancing melee unit. Granted, they will not get the win in the long run, but they will buy enough time to have other line infantry flank the entire melee line. Very notable is the Shinsengumi, which can hold off Shogitai for inordinate amounts of time.」
    Modern war is conducted against an out-group by powerful people who have an exaggerated opinion of themselves and their degree of morality, are overconfident, often have an illusion of control, enjoy taking risks and are almost always male. - Robert Trivers, Deceit and Self-deception
  • Marshal SuchetMarshal Suchet Senior Member Posts: 2,077Registered Users
    edited April 2012
    history people. during the boshin war the japanese didn't use bayonets, they used katana's read up on it, instead of going on a boast about bayonets, and if they were to put it in, it would have to be during the satsuma rebellion time period, where it was a now uniform army, Imperial Japanese Army

    History? European infantry weren't armed with sabres. There is no reason why that should be the case in this game. If you re-read my last post you'll see that I was also referring primarily to Western troops.

    My argument is that the foreign trained Japanese units should be carrying them also, as these are meant to represent an elite minority. The larger part of the armies of the period which would, as you say have been equipped with more traditional weapons, but it would be easy to argue that the elite types of units should be an exception.
    RedStag
  • AggonyDuckAggonyDuck Senior Member Posts: 3,592Registered Users, Smiley
    edited April 2012
    There are not many ready counters for cavalry? ... You've got to be kidding me. Both spearmen and line infantry can counter cavalry just fine. If squares were added to the game a squared line at the flank would be able to completely negate enemy cavalry. A square with 125-150 range and fast loading rifles would simply slaughter cavalry in terms of seconds.
  • Marshal SuchetMarshal Suchet Senior Member Posts: 2,077Registered Users
    edited April 2012
    In large I've been running an army with 4 shogunate cav, 4 yari ki and about 7 black tortoise troops - it seems to demolish pretty much any army that it fights against in open terrain - guns can't scratch it for the most part, nor can they deploy in a way that can easily counter the combined gun and cav rush. On the flipside whenever I have taken a balanced type gun army with about 4-5 supporting cav I have been totalled by decent players who have gone for the 7-8 cav units because its very difficult for a skirmish army to absorb multiple cav units and have enough strength to take out whatever supporting troops may be following the cavalry.

    Infantry squares would make it much harder for cav to simply ball through someones flank and smash their line. You would need to have infantry and cavalry working together rather than simply having cavalry taking out the enemy line on its own.

    Infantry squares actually would have significantly reduced firepower, as only a few troops on any face of the square would be able to shoot. Now sure you probably wouldn't want to swarm the square with cav, but by the same token you wouldn't have to, the square would be easy meat for any infantry that are following it up. It worked well in NTW and it would work again in FOTS, especially when you consider that only a few units would be capable of doing it.

    On a side note, spears are a real waste in a skirmish build at least in my opinion. They're a passive unit type when you use them in a skirmish and the more of them that you take the less firepower/cavalry you are likely to be able bring to bear against your opponent. They also have real trouble moving to shut down cavalry units, at least from my experiences with them - cav can even rout them fairly easily with rear charges, as their morale is so low.

    In rush builds, spears are very much a different matter as they can be used very effectively on the offense in coordination with sword and cav units, although a pure rush build isn't likely to be fielding much in the way of 150 range european troops. Indeed, the ability for certain units to form square would help to fix the rush/skirmish balance, as skirmish players would be less vulnerable to the traditionally cav heavy rushes. Whenever I face a 7-8 cav rusher I usually find that unless I have an equal number of cav, my gun units will be so damaged by their mounted units that I won't have enough troops/firepower left to fight off the advancing melee units. Now sure I can take spears to deal with the cav but the moment that I do that I weaken my firing line, which is extremely likely to suffer heavy casualties anyway from the enemy cavalry attacks and will be in no way sufficient enough to ward off a strong rush build. Square forming elite regiments would be a far more fair, logical and cost efficient solution to this problem.
    RedStag
  • TheCrazyCatTheCrazyCat Banned Posts: 1,502Banned Users
    edited April 2012
    for your balanced build, what sort of infantry you use?
  • MachofishMachofish Member Posts: 49Registered Users
    edited April 2012
    I don't think CA is going to get around to this, one way or another. The entire reason the Marines don't carry bayonets is because CA was too lazy to bring their choreographers back into the motion capture studio so they could program in bayonet vs. katana animations.

    At least they took the effort to arm them with sabres, unlike in the original Shogun 2 where the Portuguese sailors aboard the Black Ship were apparently versed in kendo.

    Although the addition of bayonets would be a good idea, even if only for aesthetics.
  • wsx1986wsx1986 Senior Member Posts: 182Registered Users
    edited April 2012
    history people. during the boshin war the japanese didn't use bayonets, they used katana's read up on it, instead of going on a boast about bayonets, and if they were to put it in, it would have to be during the satsuma rebellion time period, where it was a now uniform army, Imperial Japanese Army

    Bayonets have been in use in Japan from at least the beginning of 1860's. Both socket and sword/knife bayonets were used depending on what the guns would fancy - e.g., 1862 Japanese Dreyse Socket-style bayonet; 1860's Japanese Enfield issue rifles were fitted with bayonets.
    The Boshin War was fought from 1868-1869, so I don't understand where you got the information that bayonets weren't used during that war.
  • wsx1986wsx1986 Senior Member Posts: 182Registered Users
    edited April 2012
    I wasn't aware that line infantry units already had bonus against cavalry, although I was a little suspecious as to how some line units fared so well against them. If that's the case, I would prefer to see units without bayonet upgrade have no cavalry bonus.
    I also found a few forums about bayonet in FotS before and after its release. Sadly, it looks like CA won't be adding this in the future, not even as a visual feature... Really disappointing to see such little investment in FotS and it looks like they really didn't want to spend more money and time to depict FotS more accurately... no bayonet, breech loading rifles are reloaded in a muzzle-reload manner, and so on...
  • Marshal SuchetMarshal Suchet Senior Member Posts: 2,077Registered Users
    edited April 2012
    for your balanced build, what sort of infantry you use?

    I havent used it for a few weeks now, but I had 1-2 extended range marine units, with the remainder being white bears with 2 x reload and suppressing fire. I used to take about 4 yari ki units at about vet 2 and spent whatever remaining funds I had on levy spears.

    The army 'worked' to a degree but it was horrible to use in many respects - so much money that should have gone into cav went into spear units that only ever did a sub-par job of defending my guns. I'd actually have the edge in terms of ranged stats in most firefights, but because I could not easily control the battlefield due to having weaker or equal-strength cav forces, it meant that there were a few times where my army was getting balled up and destroyed by cav armies that were superior to mine in numbers. My results have been far better since I switched to a cav heavy approach, especially since so many people seem to be more concerned about taking lots of long range guns as opposed to cavalry units.
    RedStag
  • the bourgeoisiethe bourgeoisie Senior Member Posts: 625Registered Users
    edited April 2012
    wsx1986 wrote: »
    Bayonets have been in use in Japan from at least the beginning of 1860's. Both socket and sword/knife bayonets were used depending on what the guns would fancy - e.g., 1862 Japanese Dreyse Socket-style bayonet; 1860's Japanese Enfield issue rifles were fitted with bayonets.
    The Boshin War was fought from 1868-1869, so I don't understand where you got the information that bayonets weren't used during that war.

    my information came from battle accounts, not training accounts from the french mission, if you look at certain battles they charged with katana not bayonets, yeah they had them but didn't use them par say in the war, that this game represents.
    and foreign units should have it, but typical units no, even though it would look stupid of them pulling out a sword, and this was definetely brought up many times, in the thread, look good yes, but if the game was about imperial japanese army and not imperial vs shogunate then sure, but right now, no, don't put it in, and if it was, it would need to be moderated to upper tier units such as elite, imp/sho inf
    Fear God, Honor King
  • TheCrazyCatTheCrazyCat Banned Posts: 1,502Banned Users
    edited April 2012
    I havent used it for a few weeks now, but I had 1-2 extended range marine units, with the remainder being white bears with 2 x reload and suppressing fire. I used to take about 4 yari ki units at about vet 2 and spent whatever remaining funds I had on levy spears.

    The army 'worked' to a degree but it was horrible to use in many respects - so much money that should have gone into cav went into spear units that only ever did a sub-par job of defending my guns. I'd actually have the edge in terms of ranged stats in most firefights, but because I could not easily control the battlefield due to having weaker or equal-strength cav forces, it meant that there were a few times where my army was getting balled up and destroyed by cav armies that were superior to mine in numbers. My results have been far better since I switched to a cav heavy approach, especially since so many people seem to be more concerned about taking lots of long range guns as opposed to cavalry units.
    meh, your better off using 1 foreign marine in your army. and bring some spear levies with BTs or WTs.
  • Sun TzuSun Tzu Senior Member EnglandPosts: 646Registered Users
    edited April 2012
    history people. during the boshin war the japanese didn't use bayonets, they used katana's read up on it, instead of going on a boast about bayonets, and if they were to put it in, it would have to be during the satsuma rebellion time period, where it was a now uniform army, Imperial Japanese Army

    I don't think line infantry would have been issued with katana swords. Far too expensive to make. If they had any swords, they would have been cheap and inexpensive. Not sure line infantry in fots period carried any swords at all. The elite units maybe. But not the cheap cannon fodder types.
    "True wisdom is knowing you know nothing."
  • Marshal SuchetMarshal Suchet Senior Member Posts: 2,077Registered Users
    edited April 2012
    meh, your better off using 1 foreign marine in your army. and bring some spear levies with BTs or WTs.

    Oh theres a reason why I ditched my balanced army for something with more hitting power. :)
    RedStag
Sign In or Register to comment.