Alastair II
12-09-2002, 08:24
This is a replica of a post in the Main Hall, and the topic post is a reply to that of the topic in the Main Hall.
I have done a large amount of reading on these wars, and I'd like to correct some statements made in the referenced topic.
Napoleon did not use 12-pounders as his sole ranged weapon. He did engage in firefights frequently, especially when using light infantry and cavalry.
It is said that his genius was his ability to sense the progression of a battle and to know the exact place to apply overwhelming force, which could come in the form of the Old Guard (a force composed of the best of the best veterans), cannon loaded with canister shot (a form of ammunition that was short-ranged and extremely lethal to infantry), or heavy cavalry. This had nothing to do with his use of infantry, which, as said above, he did not make the mistake of using purely as columns. The use of that strategy was the reason for the lack of success of the pre-Napoleonic French Revolutionary generals.
Napoleon himself preferred a mixed strategy, mixed between the stiff, cumbersome lines of the British and Prussians and the chaotic skirmishing and columns of the Revolutionary French.
Why am I telling you all of this? Because IMO, this serves as a template for a much-improved TW (and this time it really IS total war, since Napoleon was actually able to destroy the enemy army almost totally, as Clausewitz said). In this TW, the amount of discipline of formations could be determined by the commander, by the amount of training the troops recieve, and their fatigue. The Napoleonic era, IMO, has many aspects to it that are lacking in European or Japanese medieval warfare and that would fall in line well with the tactical depth and relative (stress relative, since they didn't REALLY have that much discipline in medieval times) realism that CA is famed for.
I hope this will come to the favorable attention of some CA members (as well as Guild promoters http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif )
Alastair
I have done a large amount of reading on these wars, and I'd like to correct some statements made in the referenced topic.
Napoleon did not use 12-pounders as his sole ranged weapon. He did engage in firefights frequently, especially when using light infantry and cavalry.
It is said that his genius was his ability to sense the progression of a battle and to know the exact place to apply overwhelming force, which could come in the form of the Old Guard (a force composed of the best of the best veterans), cannon loaded with canister shot (a form of ammunition that was short-ranged and extremely lethal to infantry), or heavy cavalry. This had nothing to do with his use of infantry, which, as said above, he did not make the mistake of using purely as columns. The use of that strategy was the reason for the lack of success of the pre-Napoleonic French Revolutionary generals.
Napoleon himself preferred a mixed strategy, mixed between the stiff, cumbersome lines of the British and Prussians and the chaotic skirmishing and columns of the Revolutionary French.
Why am I telling you all of this? Because IMO, this serves as a template for a much-improved TW (and this time it really IS total war, since Napoleon was actually able to destroy the enemy army almost totally, as Clausewitz said). In this TW, the amount of discipline of formations could be determined by the commander, by the amount of training the troops recieve, and their fatigue. The Napoleonic era, IMO, has many aspects to it that are lacking in European or Japanese medieval warfare and that would fall in line well with the tactical depth and relative (stress relative, since they didn't REALLY have that much discipline in medieval times) realism that CA is famed for.
I hope this will come to the favorable attention of some CA members (as well as Guild promoters http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif )
Alastair