Yes, they are kind of the bastard child of line infantry and skirmishers, but they don't exceed at shooting, they are for most intents and purposes almost identical to line infantry when shooting, get your hand on a rifle and its a different story however. Their melee stats are shoddy at best, very comparable to riflemen in that regard. But honestly, if a commander has any degree of situational awareness he shouldn't be without line support at any time, unless of course said lines have the "RUN MOTHER*******!!" sentiment.To add to that, firing in the charge being allowed renders lights completely obsolete. As well as the practise of an unorganized retreat. (Example: Get shot at, realize that staying will screw you, and order your line to run for it in true rabble fashion.)
My point is: Lights don't really outmatch line infantry in either shooting or melee, and they get trounced by rifles at range, and are still comparable in the melee if rifles get their hands on muskets, and even with rifles if they are competent enough. They are inferior skirmishers in most situations due to the significantly more harsh restrictions in most lbs. I just don't see the damn point of them. In the end I guess I'm a bit more biased than most, but still. Stay line, play rifles or nothing at all. Let us not spam this thread any further, there are other mediums we could use.
I don't see how light infantry is better at shooting than lines, I mean yes they have a bit more accuracy than the standard infantrymen but does it really make much of a difference? The only reason they can out match lines at range is because they can spread out and take less casualties. (1)Also a bayonet is hardly needed if you have a reliable line or two on your team, as a rifleman we usually scatter and run towards a line for protection whilst only taking a few casualties to cavalry if the line is willing to help you. And a bayonet? (2)How is that going to help you when your main objective is to stay close to your lines and support them as well as shooting. In the end the only reason which I think Light Infantry should be chosen is if you have a unreliable line that wont protect you from Cavalry.
I don't see how light infantry is better at shooting than lines, I mean yes they have a bit more accuracy than the standard infantrymen but does it really make much of a difference? The only reason they can out match lines at range is because they can spread out and take less casualties. (1)Also a bayonet is hardly needed if you have a reliable line or two on your team, as a rifleman we usually scatter and run towards a line for protection whilst only taking a few casualties to cavalry if the line is willing to help you. And a bayonet? (2)How is that going to help you when your main objective is to stay close to your lines and support them as well as shooting. In the end the only reason which I think Light Infantry should be chosen is if you have a unreliable line that wont protect you from Cavalry.
1. Makes you dependent on other lines. Light Infantry can handle that by themselves, making reenforcements not necessary = more lines on flanks and centre etc.
2. Main objective is in the end to kill the enemys. Light infantry can work as flanking units and even as focused units (getting all the fire at them).
In a straight fire and charge engagement where the majority of the lines are engaged it would be preferable if all parts engaged in the melee for maximum chance of success. If the light infantry played to their advantages and kept shooting they would be a detriment to the whole team effort, seeing as the end result of the melee would likely determine who wins and who fails. The extra line infantry would be of much greater use.I don't see how light infantry is better at shooting than lines, I mean yes they have a bit more accuracy than the standard infantrymen but does it really make much of a difference? The only reason they can out match lines at range is because they can spread out and take less casualties. (1)Also a bayonet is hardly needed if you have a reliable line or two on your team, as a rifleman we usually scatter and run towards a line for protection whilst only taking a few casualties to cavalry if the line is willing to help you. And a bayonet? (2)How is that going to help you when your main objective is to stay close to your lines and support them as well as shooting. In the end the only reason which I think Light Infantry should be chosen is if you have a unreliable line that wont protect you from Cavalry.2. Main objective is in the end to kill the enemys. Light infantry can work as flanking units and even as focused units (getting all the fire at them).
One thing which always bothered me during my time in the 60th was how we were unable to skirmish effectively due to cavalry. Skirmishers should be doing quick flanking and daring maneuvers yet when there is cavalry you are forced to stay in close proximity to the lines. Merely having bayonets is a deterrant to cavalry because they know they can have much better results if they bide their time.Most definitely if said cavalry are hussars, but heavy cavalry shouldn't have any more issues taking out a lone light inf line with bayonets. If there is competent cav running about, any attempts at splitting off from the main force will surely result in being diced and overwhelmed eventually. Line, light or rifles all the same.
1. Light Infantry will still be destroyed by a cavalry regiment regardless of their bayonet. If you throw 16 cavalrymen at 16 Light Infantry in the end the most likely unit to win is the cavalry due to the fact that most light infantry regiments are not trained to deal with cavalry. Even 16 Foot guards would most likely suffer a defeat against 16 cavalrymen as well. I have seen this before, throw a regiment like the 7th Hussars or the 7e against a unprepared line and I can assure you that the lines will be destroyed. So what difference does it make? Rifles and Light Infantry will end up destroyed either way if they attempt to go in alone.
In a straight fire and charge engagement where the majority of the lines are engaged it would be preferable if all parts engaged in the melee for maximum chance of success. If the light infantry played to their advantages and kept shooting they would be a detriment to the whole team effort, seeing as the end result of the melee would likely determine who wins and who fails. The extra line infantry would be of much greater use.
Historically, Light Infantryman consisted of line infantry who were better than most at shooting. They were taught to march and move in wider order. Also, for almost every nations at the time, a Light Infantry company, maybe even two, would be attached to every regiment. So, they line/centre companies would work in accordance with their light company. I can only see in NW Light Infantry being the most effective when working with a line regiment. The line infantry would move to the front of the enemy, and take the bulk of the fire, and volley back, that way the light company can move to the flank and take out the enemy from their flank, as they did historically.As I said in the OP this thread is only for arguing about their effectiveness and use in game.
I don't see how light infantry is better at shooting than lines, I mean yes they have a bit more accuracy than the standard infantrymen but does it really make much of a difference? The only reason they can out match lines at range is because they can spread out and take less casualties. (1)Also a bayonet is hardly needed if you have a reliable line or two on your team, as a rifleman we usually scatter and run towards a line for protection whilst only taking a few casualties to cavalry if the line is willing to help you. And a bayonet? (2)How is that going to help you when your main objective is to stay close to your lines and support them as well as shooting. In the end the only reason which I think Light Infantry should be chosen is if you have a unreliable line that wont protect you from Cavalry.
1. Makes you dependent on other lines. Light Infantry can handle that by themselves, making reenforcements not necessary = more lines on flanks and centre etc.
2. Main objective is in the end to kill the enemys. Light infantry can work as flanking units and even as focused units (getting all the fire at them).
1. Light Infantry will still be destroyed by a cavalry regiment regardless of their bayonet. If you throw 16 cavalrymen at 16 Light Infantry in the end the most likely unit to win is the cavalry due to the fact that most light infantry regiments are not trained to deal with cavalry. Even 16 Foot guards would most likely suffer a defeat against 16 cavalrymen as well. I have seen this before, throw a regiment like the 7th Hussars or the 7e against a unprepared line and I can assure you that the lines will be destroyed. So what difference does it make? Rifles and Light Infantry will end up destroyed either way if they attempt to go in alone.
Pick up a rifle as a light infantryman and you have a thing of wonder by the way.He speaks the truth. Lights have the best shooting stats (skirmishers are equal with line, their rifle being their only ranged advantage), so giving rifles to a light infantry company would be deadly.
thats not exactly accuratePick up a rifle as a light infantryman and you have a thing of wonder by the way.He speaks the truth. Lights have the best shooting stats (skirmishers are equal with line, their rifle being their only ranged advantage), so giving rifles to a light infantry company would be deadly.
United KingdomInfantry33rd Regiment of FootRanker
1h Weapons: 50 wpf
Polearms (Bayonets): 130 wpf
Crossbows (Muskets): 150 wpf
Strength: 14
Agility: 14
Ironflesh: 3
Powerstrike: 3
Athletics: 3[close]51st (2nd Yorkshire West Riding) Regiment of FootRanker
1h Weapons: 50 wpf
Polearms (Bayonets): 90 wpf (!)
Crossbows (Muskets): 206 wpf (!)
Strength: 14
Agility: 14
Ironflesh: 2 (!)
Powerstrike: 1 (!)
Athletics: 3[close]95th Regiment of Foot (Rifles)Ranker
1h Weapons: 50 wpf
Polearms (Bayonets): 90 wpf (!)
Crossbows (Muskets): 206 wpf (!)
Strength: 14
Agility: 14
Ironflesh: 2 (!)
Powerstrike: 1 (!)
Athletics: 3[close][close]
Anyone who believe Light Infantry are useless did not see the old 15e at their best. We were capable of ripping up 3 lines at a time through a blend of skirmisher and melee tactics.
thats not exactly accuratePick up a rifle as a light infantryman and you have a thing of wonder by the way.He speaks the truth. Lights have the best shooting stats (skirmishers are equal with line, their rifle being their only ranged advantage), so giving rifles to a light infantry company would be deadly.
https://www.fsegames.eu/forum/index.php?topic=1108.0
United KingdomInfantry33rd Regiment of FootRanker
1h Weapons: 50 wpf
Polearms (Bayonets): 130 wpf
Crossbows (Muskets): 150 wpf
Strength: 14
Agility: 14
Ironflesh: 3
Powerstrike: 3
Athletics: 3[close]51st (2nd Yorkshire West Riding) Regiment of FootRanker
1h Weapons: 50 wpf
Polearms (Bayonets): 90 wpf (!)
Crossbows (Muskets): 206 wpf (!)
Strength: 14
Agility: 14
Ironflesh: 2 (!)
Powerstrike: 1 (!)
Athletics: 3[close]95th Regiment of Foot (Rifles)Ranker
1h Weapons: 50 wpf
Polearms (Bayonets): 90 wpf (!)
Crossbows (Muskets): 206 wpf (!)
Strength: 14
Agility: 14
Ironflesh: 2 (!)
Powerstrike: 1 (!)
Athletics: 3[close][close]
light infatry have the same stats as skerms the only difference is the weapons whereas line have lower crossbow but higher polearm
light infantry is something I havent really seen done right in events. its varies from musket armed skirmishers to double rank lines with 3 man spacing.I'm with millander on that. No one has properly executed it(that i have seen) anywhere in NW. Although I don't think they are worthless they are just a happy medium between skirm and line. They shoot faster than Skirm and have more space than line. while being in the middle of the accuracy tree. Peronally i woudn't waist my time being a Light Infantry reg. But i think if done right it could be cool and maybe even more affective than skirms.
Alright, I need to jump in here again, because something is bothering me.
Skirmishers and light infantry are the same thing.
Riflemen are light infantry, light infantry are skirmishers, and skirmishers can be armed with either muskets or rifles. They all received similar training, and they were all deployed in very similar manners.
Please, for the sake of being historically correct about this, don't say that France's 'skirmishers were essentially light infantry', because that's like saying the UK's guards were essentially shock troops, or their light dragoons were essentially cavalry. Redundancy is unnecessary here. :P
"For battle prepared in their country's just cause.." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MMd33uoecg)
Has it occurred to you that the light infantry regiments of France were only so in name? They were almost exactly the same as the line regiments, but were capable of deploying more quickly and were considered Napoleon's finest 'normal' troops. The real light infantry of France went by a name that you put into your post yourself. The Voltigeurs were the light troops, not the Chasseurs, nor the Carabiniers. They were named 'light infantry' solely to permit the conscription of smaller men, and in order to encourage an esprit de corps within those regiments. "We're better than them, we're the light infantry, follow me!"Excuse me, did you just call Chasseurs line infantry and that their sole purpose was to give short men an Esprit de Corps? Like i would usually take hours to find information to try to help someone learn about Chasseurs and their exploits and uses as Light Infantry, but you... It be like trying to make an oak tree wave its branch to me.
Now let's look at the British army, which deployed light infantry regiments itself.. all of which were made up of skirmishers.. the same with the Rifles.. both of which fought in line when necessary.. Should we then state that the British light infantry and rifles weren't skirmishers?
Light infantry/skirmishers deployed in line when necessary, and fought in open order when necessary, as their orders dictated. Fighting as light infantry and line were not mutually exclusive by any means.
Also, you have been genius enough to contradict yourself, you said that the Chasseurs, light infantry were not the same as skirmishers ' The Voltigeurs were the light troops, not the Chasseurs (...) '. Thanks for proving my point, GG.
Has it occurred to you that the light infantry regiments of France were only so in name?
Has it occurred to you that the light infantry regiments of France were only so in name? They were almost exactly the same as the line regiments, but were capable of deploying more quickly and were considered Napoleon's finest 'normal' troops. The real light infantry of France went by a name that you put into your post yourself. The Voltigeurs were the light troops, not the Chasseurs, nor the Carabiniers. They were named 'light infantry' solely to permit the conscription of smaller men, and in order to encourage an esprit de corps within those regiments. "We're better than them, we're the light infantry, follow me!"Excuse me, did you just call Chasseurs line infantry and that their sole purpose was to give short men an Esprit de Corps? Like i would usually take hours to find information to try to help someone learn about Chasseurs and their exploits and uses as Light Infantry, but you... It be like trying to make an oak tree wave its branch to me.
Now let's look at the British army, which deployed light infantry regiments itself.. all of which were made up of skirmishers.. the same with the Rifles.. both of which fought in line when necessary.. Should we then state that the British light infantry and rifles weren't skirmishers?
Light infantry/skirmishers deployed in line when necessary, and fought in open order when necessary, as their orders dictated. Fighting as light infantry and line were not mutually exclusive by any means.
Also, you have been genius enough to contradict yourself, you said that the Chasseurs, light infantry were not the same as skirmishers ' The Voltigeurs were the light troops, not the Chasseurs (...) '. Thanks for proving my point, GG.
Concerning your English ' light infantry ' and rifles, they both fought in line but these ' Light ' regiments hardly ever fought as skirmishers.
French Gen. Foy writes: "Several regiments of the line, such as the [British] 43rd, the 51st, the 52nd etc., are called light infantry regiments. These corps, as well as the light companies of the battalions, have nothing light about them but the name; for they are armed and with some slight change in the decorations, clothed like the rest of the infantry. It was considered that the English soldier did not possess sufficient intelligence and address to combine with the regular duty of the line the service of inspiration of the sharpshooter."
I will be staying ON Topic from now on, sorry for boring the rest of you.
You can continue to call Chasseurs light troops all day, but the fact remains that the 'light infantry' regiments were simply line troops with better uniforms, and were organised in exactly the same way as the line, albeit with different names involved. Don't get me wrong, I think the French light regiments are awesome, but we should not portray them as something they were not, despite their name.
Skirmishers and light infantry are the same thing.
Riflemen are light infantry, light infantry are skirmishers, and skirmishers can be armed with either muskets or rifles. They all received similar training, and they were all deployed in very similar manners.
...
Really? What are you trying to say here man?
Also you call French Light regiments for Line but the British ones are skirmishing super heroes. Furthermore, skirmishing is all about individual intelligence and initiative, whereas the French constantly pressured enemy skirmishers and line, most German and British regiments tended just to stand still and hold ground, just listening to orders.
I Believe a French General knows a lot more about skirmishing than you or I, so i highly suggest you stop acting like you know more and then criticizing him.
However, the fact that i used General Foy's explanation of British Light Regiments is because i generally prefer French sources as i find them to be a lot more honest. Additionally, i could use British sources too if you prefer, but i used his explanation because i thought it fit my argument very well :)
Just so we can finish this off, i think we can both agree that Skirmishers are NOT the same as light infantry