Author Topic: Are light infantry a viable choice?  (Read 6587 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Shortshorts

  • Major General
  • **
  • Posts: 1476
  • I love memes
    • View Profile
  • Nick: 60th_Lt_Shortshorts
  • Side: Neutral
Are light infantry a viable choice?
« on: April 06, 2013, 12:04:42 am »
This is more or less a continuation of the small conversation that took place on the 44th thread in the aftermath of them deciding to play mainly light infantry.
I personally am of the mindset that lights are utter trash, and are completely outclassed by their competitors(being line infantry and riflemen).
My main points:
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.

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.
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.)

What I want is some sort of a justification for their usage.(In game only that is)

Offline Cop

  • Donator
  • *
  • Posts: 1665
    • View Profile
  • Nick: Cop
  • Side: Neutral
Re: Are light infantry a viable choice?
« Reply #1 on: April 06, 2013, 12:16:33 am »
I was talking to a cavalry commander and we were talking about skirmishers vs. cavalry he said the only skirmishers he is afraid to attack would be the French voltigeurs, due to their bayonet.

I consider both light infantry and rifleman to be "skirmishers." They both sit in loose formations and skirmish at range with the enemy. Yet, the lights just get the bayo and in exchange for the bayo, they loose some of their accuracy. As long as it is used properly on the battlefield, lights could be just as effective as riflemen.

Offline Kator Viridian

  • Second Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 310
    • View Profile
  • Side: Neutral
Re: Are light infantry a viable choice?
« Reply #2 on: April 06, 2013, 12:16:57 am »
Skirmishers weakness, better than them at melee and stronger than line at aiming plus the spread out effect, at closer ranges are perfect agianst skirmishers and often a deterant from a battlefield, also perfect for attacking line.

Just overall superior ... end of.

Offline Pinkknight

  • Sergeant Major
  • *
  • Posts: 125
    • View Profile
  • Side: Neutral
Re: Are light infantry a viable choice?
« Reply #3 on: April 06, 2013, 12:17:38 am »
Acctually the thing I think makes light infantry a viable choice is that they acctually stand a chance against cavalry in close quarter without support. An average rifleman can't take down a cavalryman unless shooting him, which is 1 chance. Having a musket with a bayonett on however greatly increases the chances of survival after a charge.

Light do have an advantage over line too, they can move around and still have the same accuracy as standing still, and I don't think that normal infantry do.

Offline James Grant

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 2454
    • View Profile
  • Side: Union
Re: Are light infantry a viable choice?
« Reply #4 on: April 06, 2013, 12:18:48 am »
Well it's simple,they are merely a middle ground between the line and rifles classes but the fact you seem to ignore is that their shooting skills are much higher than any other class and though their melee is awful they are at least given a chance against cavalry unlike rifleman who haven't a hope in the world.
I would also state that in many events you are allowed more lights than rifles and if handled correctly they n cause just as much if not more damage. Riflemen will always outshoot all others, but caught in melee before given the chance to scavenge muskets they stand little chance at all.


Pick up a rifle as a light infantryman and you have a thing of wonder by the way.

Offline dooomninja

  • First Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 227
    • View Profile
  • Nick: 1brig_95th_Maj_dooomninja
  • Side: Neutral
Re: Are light infantry a viable choice?
« Reply #5 on: April 06, 2013, 12:43:34 am »
it might be a viable tactic to have them mixed with skerms as protection against cav, yet don't get shot apart at range as they can go in loose formation, and they have the same stats as rifles so can still help at range
ಠ_ರೃ Quite!
2 most satisfying shots- a rider off a moving horse and officers who think they are safe :b

Offline Peter Broetz

  • Brigadier General
  • *
  • Posts: 3065
  • batteries
    • View Profile
  • Side: Neutral
Re: Are light infantry a viable choice?
« Reply #6 on: April 06, 2013, 02:01:46 am »
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. 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? 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.

Offline USE4life

  • Donator
  • *
  • Posts: 3306
  • Queen of Yorkshire
    • View Profile
    • http://www.yorkshireparty.org.uk/
  • Nick: Kicked out the K-KA_USE4life
  • Side: Confederacy
Re: Are light infantry a viable choice?
« Reply #7 on: April 06, 2013, 02:06:26 am »
They're faster at reloading as well! And perform better by themselves since they have the bayonet if they get caught off guard.

Offline Pinkknight

  • Sergeant Major
  • *
  • Posts: 125
    • View Profile
  • Side: Neutral
Re: Are light infantry a viable choice?
« Reply #8 on: April 06, 2013, 02:08:41 am »
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).

Offline Peter Broetz

  • Brigadier General
  • *
  • Posts: 3065
  • batteries
    • View Profile
  • Side: Neutral
Re: Are light infantry a viable choice?
« Reply #9 on: April 06, 2013, 02:34:27 am »
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.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2013, 02:44:57 am by Peter Broetz »

Offline PrideofNi

  • Major General
  • **
  • Posts: 6087
  • This is just a game, respect other people!
    • View Profile
    • K-KA HQ
  • Nick: PrideofNi
  • Side: Confederacy
Re: Are light infantry a viable choice?
« Reply #10 on: April 06, 2013, 02:36:23 am »
I played as a volts back in the day. We where beating lines in melee and what not but for skirming, rifles are the weapon of choice. Obviously.

Offline Shortshorts

  • Major General
  • **
  • Posts: 1476
  • I love memes
    • View Profile
  • Nick: 60th_Lt_Shortshorts
  • Side: Neutral
Re: Are light infantry a viable choice?
« Reply #11 on: April 06, 2013, 02:36:56 am »
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).
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.

Offline James Grant

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 2454
    • View Profile
  • Side: Union
Re: Are light infantry a viable choice?
« Reply #12 on: April 06, 2013, 02:49:56 am »
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.

Offline Shortshorts

  • Major General
  • **
  • Posts: 1476
  • I love memes
    • View Profile
  • Nick: 60th_Lt_Shortshorts
  • Side: Neutral
Re: Are light infantry a viable choice?
« Reply #13 on: April 06, 2013, 02:56:08 am »
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.

Edit: What I'm trying to communicate is that the need for generalists just isn't there, if a force consisting of cav, lines and riflemen play in a reasonably organized fashion they will likely be more effective than a force being weaker due to having less line infantry. I have always looked at the line infantry as sort of an ankor for all other classes, skirms are a support unit, and if the line proves too ineffective there is simply nothing one can do to save the day in most situations, there are exceptions but they don't come by often.

Once or twice in almost every line battle there is a crucial melee, the outcome of this melee will likely determine the outcome of the line battle.
The roles of cav, skirms and arty are to try and sway the outcome before and during the engagement. Their effectiveness at doing this will "usually" decide the victor, varying competence of the lines non withstanding. What irks me about light infantry is that it simply isn't effective enough to warrant use in my opinion.
Their melee stats are shite, so helping the lines through melee simply wont do, and their shooting skills are again subpar in comparison to the riflemen, so why bother?
I'd take the extra line infantry every time.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2013, 03:24:54 am by Shortshorts »

Offline Pinkknight

  • Sergeant Major
  • *
  • Posts: 125
    • View Profile
  • Side: Neutral
Re: Are light infantry a viable choice?
« Reply #14 on: April 06, 2013, 03:25:37 am »
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.

What I understood from this is basically that all infantry would be destroyed if they face an equal amount of cavalrymen.  Then it only depends on how skillfull a regiment is with their class.

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.


Here again, wouldn't this depend on how skillfull a regiment is with their class? If the regiment of light infantrymen would be better than the line they are facing in melee, then they would probably win, right?

I'm not claiming that Light Infantry is the master class to rule them all, I think it in the end rest upon how good the regiment is at using the advantages and disadvantages of different situations with their class. A skirmisher could beat a light in range, whilst a light could beat a skirmisher in melee. A line could beat a light in melee, whilst a light could beat a line  in shooting.