Tactics Questions - Line and Column, Stacked or Not Stacked

[LarkinVB]

To play successfull against a human opponent I have to keep my units in column most (90%) of the time.
This is a bit sad as the line formation was surely used more often but it has to many disadvanteges in this game. The biggest disadvantage is that a line is mostly static, disordered easily and while disordered it is even more imobile and fragile.
It can be used a bit more to hold village hexes now with the changed village combat rules.

[BigDuke66]

That is why the only justification to use a line comes from using phases where you can maximize & optimize your defensive fire and by that are able to stop the attacker sometimes.
If not playing phases it's basically a game of "Who steps on who's toes first." meaning that the one who melees first might also carry the whole engagement to his advantage.

[LarkinVB]

... and phases are completly out of question playing a 388 turn waterloo campaign by email.

I find it a bit sad that in the waterloo campaign brits have no advantage firing in line over the french but a disadvantage attacking in column. The game does not support playing line formation tactics.

[LarkinVB]

Double post but can't delete.

[BigDuke66]

You pointed out yourself that the 2-rank infantry fires at 1.5 compared to 1 for 3-rank infantry, is that no advantage?

[Mowgli]

I think if you use lines skillfully (in a "defense in depth" / "beeswarm" - style), what you will see is that lines can inflict more casualties, but columns can gain ground more easily.

A few thoughts on defending against infantry columns with infantry in line formation:

1) Have a strong (size limit per hex = 1/8 of maximum stacking limit) and continous skirmisher screen directly in front of/adjacent to your line. This forces the opponent to assault your skirmishers before he can assault your line. Implications: The opponent needs to commit a unit that is strong (=large) enough to overcome your skirmishers. If the attack on your skirmishers is successfull, this unit will end up in the hex from which the opponent needs to stage his "main" assault on your line (the "gap" in your skirmish line). If your skirmisher screen was strong, the unit needs to be quite big, which means that it will eat up quite a few stacking points in that hex. This might rob your opponent's "main attack" of an extra unit (due to stacking limits).  Apart from that, the opponent's need to launch successive attacks to break through your skirmisher screen will also give you more opportunity fires. If the opponent just punches a gap into your screen but doesn't push through in a single turn, then the best thing is to just pull your line back one hex and re-establish the skirmisher screen.

2) If I have the choice between a single strong line or two weak lines behind each another (not in the same hex, but in the adjacent hex), I go for the weak lines. The option to split up units into "extended" lines comes in handy for this purpose. The idea goes like this: Let the enemy assault (and beat) the first line. Any assaulting units automatically become disordered and stay so during your turn. Since the opponent cannot move after the assault, he will now find himself disordered at close range in front of your second (undisrupted) line. [Just make sure that the first line doesn't rout and disrupt your second line - use good quality units and leaders in the first line!] So, with the enemy having pushed a hole into your first line, he now finds himself disrupted in column (*1.25 fire suffered) at point blank range of ideally 3 well ordered, stationary (no -50% malus) units in line formation. This fire of the second line usually more than compensates the casualties suffered by the first line in the melee. Unless threatened (don't let enemies enfilade you!), you can also pivot in the units in your first line to deliver fire or even flank-charge the attackers (*1.4 melee power!). If you manage to rout one of the attacking units, all other units automatically stay disordered, which leads me to point 3:

3) If both sides are disordered, the line is superior. Disordered melee-attackers have a melee power of just *0.33, while disordered melee-defenders have a melee-power of *0.66. So, while disordered, the column-attacker is unlikely to risk another assault. By contrast, the firepower of disordered units is just reduced by 0.5. If you can keep the columns disordered*, casualties will be very one-sided.

In my experiments with this tactics, using forces of similar size and quality with no external influences (cavalry, artillery), the columns were able to push and gain quite some ground (ca. 5 hexes), but suffered about twice as many casualties as the defending line in the process.

---

* Actively option A: If you can cause enough casuatlies on the opponent (depends on the number of casualties and the size of the targeted unit). Chance for unit to stay disordered = casualties / (casualties + current manpower/10); Actively option B: If one unit in the attacker's stack routs (due to a failed morale test), all others automatically stay disordered; Passively: If the opponent's leadership is bad, it's harder for his units to recover from disorder.

[LarkinVB]

You pointed out yourself that the 2-rank infantry fires at 1.5 compared to 1 for 3-rank infantry, is that no advantage?

True. I completly forgot this fact. It may be usefull for brits in certain situations but won't fix the problem that the game system discourages line tactics.