Printable View
I noticed that Austria's line infantry boasts 20 more men than usual. However, their stats are...errr... on the low side. Morale, reloading and accuracy are all below average.
The question is why ? History buffs, care to enlighten me ? Did the Austrians pressgang farmers to boost their ranks or something like that ?
You mean that Austria has 25% more men, because it depends on the unit sizes.
I believe it was supposed to signify that Austria was a disorganized empire? There are lots of ethnic groups in that region, and forced to go to war with people that they hate with a passion. That should explain morale, but I don't see historical reason for reload and accuracy. Presumably a gameplay choice to not make them overpowered.
Sweden has this system for cavalry, but no faction does for artillery.
There are a lot of various quirks which I don't particularly like. CA's kind of given the short shrift to some factions.
The poor Russian's have the worst regular line infantry in the game. They even have the same animations as militia.
Good question. I suppose gameplay-wise the low stats are to counteract the higher manpower.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2fr
Historically Austrian infantry wasn't in any way out of ordinary during that time period, with the artillery arm gaining some renown.
Later (1740 and on) Trencks Panduren got infamous, mostly for brutality and looting, but they were good soldiers too.
For an definite answer I guess you'll have to wait for CA :)
Susanne/Calapine :pokemon:
It is slightly off, considering that the Austrian army was one of if not the best organised and developed by the middle of the century, it annoys me.
As does Russia's awful line infantry, in y opinion it kills the appeal of that nation.
Austrian Line was neither particulary outstanding or bad in that period of time. While it is true that for example the Prussians achieved an unmatched level of reloading skill it is hard to understand why the Austrians would be any worse in such regard than the Polish or French peers.
On the other hands its irregular horse and foot where quit renowned and something of a trendsetter. Susanna pointed to the Pandurs already, the "scum" which denied the Prussian the countryside and informations. The artillery arm was one of the very best in Europe. CA has done a good job IMHO to add early Jaegers and to give the "Hungarian" Hussars more charge than the others.
There were several reforms of the organization of the infantry between 1740 and 1770 where the number of the battalions within the infantry regiments and the numbers of companies per battalion were raised. It is possible that CA tried to reflect that. The loading and accuracy may be because of the balance in the game. The increase of the numbers of the battalions is not limited to Austria but reaches out to France, Prussia and other States with smaller armies as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2fr
Austrian Rgt
1740: 3 bat musketeer + 2 cp gren (bat à 5 cp)
1748: 4 bat " + 2 cp gren (bat à 4 cp - hungarian bat still 5 cp)
1756: 3 bat f, 1 bat g, 2 cp gren (bat à 4 cp) - peace
1756: 2 bat f, 2 cp gren, 1 bat garrison (bat f à 6 cp, bat g à 4 cp) - war
1769: 2 bat f + 2 cp gren, 1 bat g (bat f à 6 cp, bat g 4 cp) - peace
1769: 2 bat f + 2 cp gren, 1 bat g + 2 cp fusiliers - war
f for type field battalion
g for type garrion battalion
-> https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...56#post2174156
-> Christopher Duffy, The Army of Maria Theresa. Armed Forces of Imperial Austrai, 1740-1780, 1977.
Traditionally wargame rules for the Napoleonic era penalize the Austrian Army. This is generallly justified by their poor performance during the 1805 Campaign which included the surrender of an entire Austrian Army under Mack to the French.
However, these penalties usually take the form of reduced campaign movement speed (to reflect the rather heavy dependance of the Austrian Army upon formal supply lines) and lower initiative ratings for Austrian commanders (to reflect their rather rigid and outdated positional doctrine). I don't think there is any real justification for arguing that the troops themselves were any worse trained than the bulk of European Arimes in this period.
Yes, I noticed that too, but it is balanced by the fact that their recruiting costs is a bit cheaper. They are also a smidge better in offensive melee than most (high melee, highest charge bonus). So playing with them is more "medieval" : let loose once or twice, then wait for the enemy's volley to end and charge home yelling "Hurraaaah !". Also, they have grenade launchers, and early access to mounted missile units to counterbalance it somewhat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar
On the whole, I don't think the Russian army is any worse off than the rest, and the different tactics needed make it interesting.
Didn't the Russians make the switch to "modern" technologies and tactics rather late compared to the rest of the European powers though ? I assumed that was the reason for their poor Line - but then again my knowledge of 17th century history onwards wouldn't fill a lot of pages :/
@All : Thanks for the answers !
The Russians introduced western tactics and forms of organization under Tsar Aleksei Mihkailovich around 1650. The mobilizable forces were around 60'000 infantry and 45'000 cavalry. These reforms were influenced by the dutch reform work of Maurice of Nassau. The creation of a standing russian army goes back to Tsar Peter the Great in the years 1699-1700. The new regiments of cavalry and infantry had a size of around 32'000 men on paper. The infantry regiments were thought to have a size of around 1100 men.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2fr
-> Christorpher Duffy, Russia's Military Way to the West. Origins and Naure of Russian Military Power 1700-1800, 1981