Russia > France

While I'm no history expert, the 18th Century armies were pretty unvaried in real life. I don't think anyone is really clear on how the generic units that make up the bulk of armies at the time varied from faction to faction in a really significant way. They all had the same sort of weapons and everyone used line tactics. I guess that any advantages gained technological innovations were short term as discoveries spread, which is already modeled in game. How is CA supposed to justify unique units with big stat differences given the historical reality?

Even so, I agree that the current unit rosters lack faction specific character, though its not clear how to achieve that.

It seems a bit ridiculous to add 'elite' regiments to the normal unit roster. That just encourages the player to build them to the exclusion of the other 'normal' regiments. Extra cost is not sufficient deterrent to the savvy player, or the rich one. Extra time to build though would really hit where it hurts. Perhaps build limits could be considered too.

What about a customizable unit system? Its unlikely to ever be implemented, probably abusable and ahistorical. But Total War is about changing history isn't it?

It is certainly open to debate why of all countries the British got the best in an english PC Game :inquisitive:

I find it especially funny when people start to cite Waterloo to show who superior the British were when even the 68000 strong Anglo-Netherland army consisted mostly of Germans (Hannover, Brunswick, KGL) and Dutch. Somehow the 50000 Prussians winning the day seem also often amiss when an Englishman recalls the story... :sweatdrop:

It is also worthwhile to say that the French army was at its best early in the war. The quality was bleeded white in the long campaigns in Europe against Austria, the guerillia war in Spain and the retreat in Russia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oleander Ardens

It is certainly open to debate why of all countries the British got the best in an english PC Game :inquisitive:

I find it especially funny when people start to cite Waterloo to show who superior the British were when even the 68000 strong Anglo-Netherland army consisted mostly of Germans (Hannover, Brunswick, KGL) and Dutch. Somehow the 50000 Prussians winning the day seem also often amiss when an Englishman recalls the story... :sweatdrop:

It is also worthwhile to say that the French army was at its best early in the war. The quality was bleeded white in the long campaigns in Europe against Austria, the guerillia war in Spain and the retreat in Russia.

---

Not to mention that all the good general were dead or were fired. If Joachim Murat would have not "fallen from grace" and commended the cavalry it would have been a very different battle.

I agree with you that Blucher maneuvers (retreat&attack) divided the "Grande Armée" in two and open for a flank attack.

But you have to give the Brits the credits for master minding all the alliance (diplomatic work & financement ) against Napoleon, truly grand works.

If it is the Prussians that provided the tactical victory at Waterloo it was UK grand strategy that made Prussia to be present at Waterloo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oleander Ardens

It is certainly open to debate why of all countries the British got the best in an english PC Game :inquisitive:

I find it especially funny when people start to cite Waterloo to show who superior the British were when even the 68000 strong Anglo-Netherland army consisted mostly of Germans (Hannover, Brunswick, KGL) and Dutch. Somehow the 50000 Prussians winning the day seem also often amiss when an Englishman recalls the story... :sweatdrop:

It is also worthwhile to say that the French army was at its best early in the war. The quality was bleeded white in the long campaigns in Europe against Austria, the guerillia war in Spain and the retreat in Russia.

---

British accounts curiously seem to leave out the involvement of the Dutch and Germans at Waterloo. In fact, strangely enough, I've had people argue that the British were the main military force responsible for defeating Napoleon. They never seem to have heard of Austria or Prussia, Russia, Spain, and so forth.

And, of course, you'll be hard pressed to find a school history book in the US that does any better than mention the Battle of Borodino. Firefox's spellcheck doesn't even pick it up.

I have never disagreed that the British were the ones who financed the Napoleonic Wars and did a good job of keeping the alliance together. Politics and economics are the strong points of the British, they play their enemies off against each other, organize alliances, and ensure that the people who support them are well paid. It's how they won India.

But the argument that the British are the superior military force in the world from 1700 to WWII which seems so prevalent is just silly. The British certainly had high quality soldiers, but they lack manpower. You can have as many supersoldiers as you want, but if Russia, France and Austria can all bury your entire army under a mountain of dead it doesn't matter. Russia, in particular, had that war-winning ability to throw soldiers at a problem until it went away, even if the soldiers in question were a bit under/over aged, had a few extra toes or had room-temperature IQ's.

When all you're doing is giving them a cap and a pike, one sometimes feels that recruitment standards can be a bit relaxed. And fighting the 'antichrist' helps a bit too.

In the British recall of the story, the British held off his armies till the Prussians came in at the last moment, rather like Gandalf and the Riders of Rohan at the Helms Deep in the Lord of the Rings movie. It if wasn't for the skill involved with holding back his forces, the whole Prussians coming in too late would have been for nothing and a completely different tale.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TiberiusBeskar

In the British recall of the story, the British held off his armies till the Prussians came in at the last moment, rather like Gandalf and the Riders of Rohan at the Helms Deep in the Lord of the Rings movie. It if wasn't for the skill involved with holding back his forces, the whole Prussians coming in too late would have been for nothing and a completely different tale.

---

Indeed, if the main front don't hold there can be no flank...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheogorath

I have never disagreed that the British were the ones who financed the Napoleonic Wars and did a good job of keeping the alliance together. Politics and economics are the strong points of the British, they play their enemies off against each other, organize alliances, and ensure that the people who support them are well paid. It's how they won India.

But the argument that the British are the superior military force in the world from 1700 to WWII which seems so prevalent is just silly. The British certainly had high quality soldiers, but they lack manpower.

---

Well, speaking as a Brit, you are entirely right. If anything, you've been a little too generous in allocating us strong points, but I would probably add the Royal Navy into the list. It was a much more important factor in our 18th/19th century power than our army, and even it was destined to suffer in comparison to the USN, which had seamen just as well trained but much better treated than ours (with the better morale you'd expect following from that).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArtillerySmoke

I was going to play as France but I don't think so now. I think that Russia has arguably the best unit roster in the game, along with a great starting position.

---

Back in another Total War forum there is a thread on how bad the Russian line infantry is in the game. This concerns mainly the accuracy (35) not being compensated at least with a bonus to melee, since it seems they relied a lot on the bayonet. So maybe they should have better melee attack or defense.
I'm at my work place so i can't really check the numbers.

Hmm... If the game allowed it, it might make sense to have different morale depending on if they were exchanging shots or choosing steel over lead.

Of course the valiant actions of 26000 Germans, 24000 British and 17000 Dutch held back the French onslaught and allowed the 50000 Prussian to enter combat and win the day. :yes:

I think it is very hard to sum up the typical line infantry of a country with a couple of numbers. Sometimes the very same regiment would have heroic defenses and rapid routs in their track record. Said that I hope that the game is balanced for the MP and not too far from history. For example give Russian line regiments bad accuracy but a bit higher defense/morale and/or lower upkeep (less powder used in the training). I really hope that there will be an EB for ETW.

After further review: I see France's power. It lies in the later game...

Their infantry seems to have the highest moral in the game, and they have a very nice cavalry and artillery lineup.

Britain is great...but I would pick France over Britain for a campaign (very well might).

Does this really matter? You would win with every faction, wouldn't you?

By the way, if you mention France. France seems to be sometimes one of the most underestimated powers in the 1700's. Before about 1750 they were the model for many European armies (after that Prussia was for some time but never the British, I'm sorry ~;)). They started the century with a big war in a small coalition against a big coalition and were, despite they lost 3 of the 4 major battles, more or less victorious in the end. Not bad. They ended the century in wars alone against some or many of the other bigger powers in Europe relatively victoriously and conquered great parts of Europe shortly after 1800. Not too bad, too (in a military, not a moral sense). France lost great parts of her colonies because of mismanagement and low interest, not because of the military genius of the others. In North America the French often fought against far superior British and Colonial troops and won (before Quebec).

Yes, France might be a good faction to play with. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jong

What about a customizable unit system? Its unlikely to ever be implemented, probably abusable and ahistorical. But Total War is about changing history isn't it?

---

Now this is brilliant idea!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oleander Ardens

It is certainly open to debate why of all countries the British got the best in an english PC Game :inquisitive:

I find it especially funny when people start to cite Waterloo to show who superior the British were when even the 68000 strong Anglo-Netherland army consisted mostly of Germans (Hannover, Brunswick, KGL) and Dutch. Somehow the 50000 Prussians winning the day seem also often amiss when an Englishman recalls the story... :sweatdrop:

It is also worthwhile to say that the French army was at its best early in the war. The quality was bleeded white in the long campaigns in Europe against Austria, the guerillia war in Spain and the retreat in Russia.

---

And that gentlemen, is i believe the crux of the matter.

Although at least in ETW the voice work is more varied and accurate than in MTW2, where the Spanish, Portugese, Milanese, Sicilian and Venetian factions all shared the same actors & accents. I think there was also a minor scandal on these very forums about what the names of Russian characters meant...

I'm British but I don't half get annoyed with the anglo-centricity of any TW games with Britain/England in them. Either their interest in historical research or their desire for consistency of the game with history are lacking -"domus dulcis domus" as a random Scithii settlement in RTW a case in point.

And then look at the promotional artwork -why is it always Richard the lionheart or a red-coat? I don't know what percentage of sales are based on UK purchases but they are frankly missing the boat IMHO -or maybe no one really cares?

Cossacks -European wars, now THAT had a more balanced approach to unit types for each faction. Shame about the gameplay though...

P.s. Sheogarath's rant was most entertaining. :wall:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

And that gentlemen, is i believe the crux of the matter.

Although at least in ETW the voice work is more varied and accurate than in MTW2, where the Spanish, Portugese, Milanese, Sicilian and Venetian factions all shared the same actors & accents. I think there was also a minor scandal on these very forums about what the names of Russian characters meant...

I'm British but I don't half get annoyed with the anglo-centricity of any TW games with Britain/England in them. Either their interest in historical research or their desire for consistency of the game with history are lacking -"domus dulcis domus" as a random Scithii settlement in RTW a case in point.

And then look at the promotional artwork -why is it always Richard the lionheart or a red-coat? I don't know what percentage of sales are based on UK purchases but they are frankly missing the boat IMHO -or maybe no one really cares?

---

I think it's just because They're smaller than France. People gotta compensate, you know?

The US did it by building missiles. The Germans do it by building armies. The French do it by being snooty bastards.

The British've got the right idea. They write the history books :gring:

Quote:

---

Cossacks -European wars, now THAT had a more balanced approach to unit types for each faction. Shame about the gameplay though...

---

Hurk.

I suddenly have an idea where the ETW crew got their ideas about grenadiers from.

Cossacks at least had more tangible variety in the units...they didn't just make the Russians worse, they made them cheaper, less accurate, and gave them a morale boost.

Quote:

---

P.s. Sheogarath's rant was most entertaining. :wall:

---

Less than three :tongueg: