How did the farmers win?

what an absolutely idiotic thing to say

Looks like you triggered the OP.

BY GOD SHARPE

I think realistically the farmers would panic and run after that volley. And the musketeers probably would have the guys in the front crouch or fire in rotation so they all don't get killed by friendly fire.

Blue retards should have hit with the rifle instead of reloading

Here's another reply calling you wrong which you will take as proof that you are right because "x SEETHING lmao!"

probably because they were 6 feet away by the time the first volley of shots happens

Blue killed a good portion of their own troops in the first volley, they have no AI for switching to melee so they just sat around getting stabbed while reloading.

no bayonet or sword, which is what all of them carried or had back then

Actual 16th century gunners would have bayonets or sidearms to use when the enemy got close and actual badly-armed farmers would probably run away after the first volley

This tech was not discovered until the british

Don't shoot all at the same time, shoot them one buy one and whoever is the closest. By the time farmers at the back get to them, the ones who shot first would have reloaded. Or like people said, just mount bayonets

Retard. There's a reason regimental warfare survived for hundreds of years. Try pitting unorganized retards with guns against organized retards with guns and see who wins.

Oh hey it's Vietnam

The farmers used their women and children as human shields. Re-run the simulation with that in mind.

you lost to rice farmers with AKs and desert goat herders with AKs

Blue team has no discipline.
youtube.com/watch?v=f_6AQA4uzD0

Hand cannons need a buff, obviously.

backline shoots their own frontline

hilariously shit game
also you need footmen to defend range units from the melee attackers, this is shouldnt be hard to grasp

that friendly fire

Musketeers should have bayonets and a saber, anyway this is not how muskeeters fight, they would first have a line that shoots, then rotate to the back and reload while another lines up and shoots, they would repeat this and of course when they are out of ammo they would just use a bayonet charge and they would win. This is just completely inaccurate.

they also wouldn't be withing spitting distance of the pitchfork men. there would be at least 80 feet between the lines when they fired the first volley

Does anyone have suggested unit placement if I heavily use guns in Warhammer 3 but I also want to protect my flanks from Calvary?

You’re brown.

Why is it that everyone assumes everyone is american
we beat russians in winter war :DDD

True, this would only happen if the farmers were to ambush them out of the blue.

this game look both horribly shit and stupidly fun at the same time
which one is it?

Because those musketeers were modeled and programmed to not have bayonets

Spear walls to the flank with heavy infantry ready to support the spear walls taking on the cavalry?

how did the farmers win?

The game isn't simulating real tactics. Also you can see the musketeers just shoot each other initially which would not happen.
No staggered volleys, no bayonets, etc.
the list goes on

Because it's safe to assume dumb posters are am*ricans.
Cope and seethe.

There still is no way the farmers are are not routed after half of them drop dead immediately.

Everyone firing at once like a bunch of idiots is what caused Simmerson to lose the King's Colours because French cavalry stormed them before they could reload. Poorly trained undisciplined troops.

Agreed. Major Lennox must answer.

Not true in the slightest, the musketeers don't behave anything like what they would in real life. Aside from simply retreating, they would also fire in columns, use bayonets, use the rifles as clubs, etc. The farmers' pitchforks are actually just worse melee weapons than the musketeers' rifles are. The musketeers effectively have spears but are incapable of using them due to gameplay limitations. The Battle of Roarke's Drift alone proves you wrong.

Major Lennox answered with his life!

Not to mention a lack of an "oh shit" effect. Under realistic circumstances when it comes to untrained peasants I'm pretty sure a good number of them would scatter and retreat after the thunderous roar of a volley of muskets leaves quite a few of them dead or bleeding out on the ground

and neither side fought with regimental line warfare, one fought with maneuver warfare and the other with guerilla tactics

shooting six of their own guys at the first volley

No point arguing how people would "really" act when hypothetically the farmers could be fighting to the death because they're defending their families or they know they'll be rounded up and executed regardless.

I don't know anon, it worked pretty fucking well against the Chinese in the 1800's, and it definitely worked against all those tribal savages in Africa.

And there is a reason it stopped being en vogue when the American war for independence obsoleted it. Guerilla warfare supplanted it globally.
When the americans tried going into vietnam with regiments and order they got blown out by punji sticks and dugout holes.

And there is a reason it stopped being en vogue when the American war for independence obsoleted it.

Except for literally every major conflict until Vietnam, but yeah I guess.

Punji sticks and dugout holes.

uhh no. They got blown out because of: Snipers, mines and traps.

...This is retarded on an entirely new level. Regimental warfare would persist all the way until it met emplaced machine guns at the dawn of the 19th century. Arguably earlier, as both the Sino-Rus War, the Crimean War, and the American Civil War would all showcase just how out of date the tactics were in relation to the technology being used.

snipers

In dugout holes

mines

In dugout holes

traps

Punji sticks in dugout holes

Be at charging distance

No bayonets fixed

Yeah, it's a total mystery.

the latter, for what it is
muskets in V formation are so strong every new unit type gets a hard counter and it still eviscerates any army not designed to resist (also give them their derserved huge range)

Mines were on the fields blowing up vehicles. That's the highest reason for deaths in Vietnam.

American war for independence obsoleted it

you are fucking retarded line warfare stuck around until ww1. even if you're being you're being america-centric there's still the american civil war.

retard

one roman numeral with all the armor in the eastern sea vs one appley boy

ok so what GAME is op?

TABS

Not OP but it's Totally Accurate Battle Simulator
I wouldn't recommend it though

The guys with guns just stood there while reloading instead of falling back or firing in intervals.
Also no bayonets on their gun.

And the snipers in dugout holes waiting for the mine to go off to start shooting

Have single shot weapons

Takes forever to reload

Shitty accuracy

You're just standing there volley firing and reloading

Surprised when your shitty single shot weapons that have terrible accuracy don't kill everyone in the first two volleys

Undead tards now within melee range and your old, shitty gun still isn't loaded and able to fire

They were also in the trees: youtube.com/watch?v=fiAX1-LFOsY

That’s just an elevated dugout hole

No its a platform. THEY ARE IN THE TREES! IN THE TREES!

The farmers had mastered crop rotation so unlike their opponents they had no downtime.

WW1 didn't use regimental warfare

what

gets killed in a 10:1 ratio

Bugs have no soul and were able to send wave after wave of people until Americans reached their preset kill limit.

naruhodo

The muskeeters IRL would've been the ones crop rotating with their line of fire thoughbeit.

You’re brown.

In a dugout platform (hole)

They used trench warfare, air battles dominated the theatres of war and naval battles were deciding factor more so than land battles which were just stall until help arrives type of deal.

The guys with the guns weren’t programmed correctly. They could use the gun as club instead of reload

Based, this guy knows how to use guns.

And even using them as clubs is less ideal than simply fixing bayonets, which means your line of muskets is now a line of slightly shorter pikes.

WE WOULD'VE WON IN MY HEAD

eat shit musketcuck because god knows you're not getting any crops

Somehow get passed the artillery fire

Somehow get passed the cavalry

Somehow get through multiple volleys to get within 10 feet

"We got'em now boys! All we have to do is charge into their bayonets, these trained soldiers are no match for poorly armed peasants"

Because they were 5-10 yards away. Any firing line is fucked in that situation. If the regiments were ready by the time their enemy was in firing distance, they'd win.

Lack of bayonet.

I enjoyed it. I wouldn't pay full price for it though. Its more fun to fuck around with than play levels.

Tell that to the Zulu lol

open trapezoidal formation where the enemy-facing side is a checkerboard of melee and guns, anti-large is on the diagonal sides, and the middle is filled with artillery/cavalry/more anti-large

no bayonets

Don't underestimate bayonets. During the Franco-Dahomey war the French supposedly had a 100 to 1 kdr done mostly in melee.

you lost to rice farmers with AKs a

vietnam had an air force dude.

we beat russians in winter war :DDD

AKSHUALLY you lost the winter war losing a chunk of the territory in the process

America won in vietnam.
There was a signed agreement to it from the north viets and everything.
Vietnam just lost after we left because they broke the agreement.
What were we suppose to do? Go back and kill everyone?

It's been decades and I still find it absolutely astounding how Anon Babble continues to be full of some of the dumbest, most room temp IQ retards on the face of this godforsaken planet. It's amazing you idiots even understand how to use a computer. It's appalling how you don't die from forgetting to breathe. It's unreal how you've gotten this far in life without learning fucking anything.
And yet, you still believe your thoughts and opinions matter.

Yet you participate in Anon Babble, curious!

because in real life, the musket guys would have started a bayonet charge immediately after shooting.

This is like one half of the puzzle, this looks like pike and shot era gunners so they would've been paired with pikemen in what is essentially a revival of a phalanx.

America lost in Vietnam for trying to conflate military might with ideological might. America never lost the advantage of military might and never suffered any particularly vital military losses for the entirety of the campaign, but the war wasn't about killing more of one side than the other. The war was one of ideology, and we can see exactly how well having foreigners come in and shoot/stab/immolate your friends and neighbors while fucking your women worked out for convincing the native population that America's ideals needed to stay in place and be celebrated after the Americans left. The exact same thing happened in the Middle East, too.

What were we suppose to do? Go back and kill everyone?

If you want to win purely by the metric of military might, which is the victory you're trying to claim? Yes. And it would have been easy to do so, too. But if you want to win the ideological battle that was the actual impetus of the war, then you needed to stop trying to shoot all your problems away and realize that you needed victories that didn't rely on you having boots on the ground. Otherwise, exactly as you said, you completely lose the second those boots are no longer on the ground. Which again, is exactly what happened in the Middle East.

Regimental warfare was just performative faggotry being conducted by the officers (aristocracy) and ended very quickly after the introduction of rifling made standing in the open suicidal.

Just want to make sure toy realize how dumb you are

Why are 80% of the posts in this thread and across this entire board just complete shit? Like not even trying to make a point or be funny at least just "hurr durr your dumb gay tranny durr" idiocy. You all type like you are 12.

HE ANSWERED WITH HIS WIFE.

Unironically? Third worlders.

ended very quickly after the introduction of rifling

They had rifles in napoleon's age too. Hell, they had rifle regiments.

thats just not a realistic starting distance between the armies

What were we suppose to do? Go back and kill everyone?

Yes, and without judgement. Without judgement.

The side that has a major numbers advantage usually wins. In order for the side with less units to win, they need be able to effortlessly take on multiple opponents at once.
Here its 78 vs 50 so the farmers have over 50% more units, which means 28 of the musketeers are gonna have to fight a 2v1. Once those 56 farmers are done with the 28 musketeers, they then move onto to the remaining 22 musketeers making them fight what would be 3v1s and 2v1s.

The only reason why it "didn't work" in the Revolutionay War is because they were fighting like 1k vs 1k skirmishes most of the time. I think the biggest english army in NA was like 5k. Compare that to the 150k armies of napoleon just 15 years later. "Hiding behind rocks" is not going to work when you have a battle line stretching several miles.

Bayonets.

Do you know why armies used pikes well over a century after guns became practical? Because without a bayonet, gunners had absolutely fuck all to protect themselves with.