Russia > France

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.

I'm working with a unit of Cossacks on each flank, with some cavalry to their outside. In the middle, slightly in front I'm putting my light infantry. Behind them, I'm stacking line infantry and then in the rear of them, ready to hit wherever is needed - I have my Dragoons. General goes in the rear of all of these, protected.

This is of course with early unit rosters...but the moral of Russia combined with her starting provinces and roster = arguably the best in the game at first glance.

yea, but russia also has one of, if not the worst line infantry stats.

the cossacks have better range and gun skills, also cheaper upkeep. They just lose out in melee.

savoy > france in my campaign lawl

France unit roster is completely lacking, but then, most factions' unit rosters are actually lacking. Hope someone will be working on a realism mod soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by knoddy

savoy > france in my campaign lawl

---

I Gest Savoy got opportunistic in that war of French succession.
I did not find French unit roster to bad, maybe not 100% historical correct but still a good range of unit and cavalries. Line infantry , grenadier and skirmisher is on par with UK, good navy, and better cavalries than UK. Remember that France only get superior army only after Napoleonic reform (like the uber French-Polish heavy-lancers and Napoleonic square infantry)

Uhh how are rosters lacking, you want them to invent units?

There were guns, cannon, grenades and horse. and thats what we get, without over reaching for obscure or romantic unit types like they have in the past

The units are fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Callahan9119

Uhh how are rosters lacking, you want them to invent units?

There were guns, cannon, grenades and horse. and thats what we get, without over reaching for obscure or romantic unit types like they have in the past

The units are fine.

---

The British got two unique elite infantry, three light infantry, and at least one unique line infantry that I can think of right now, without ETW at hand. Plus their lifeguard cavalry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

France unit roster is completely lacking, but then, most factions' unit rosters are actually lacking. Hope someone will be working on a realism mod soon.

---

Excuse the horrific spelling...

Chasseurs a Pied, Regiments Estrangers, Infanterie Petit-Veux, Gendarmie, Courours de Bois, Tiralleurs, Royal Ecossois, Maison du Roi, Chasseurs de Cheval, Chevaux-Legers, Garde du Corps...this is not counting colonial and native units.

No offense but maybe you should actually check their roster in the custom battle menu, or play more than 3 turns with them in the campaign.

Some factions have very good unit rosters. France and Britain for example. A few other factions could certainly do with their rosters being fleshed out with a few more unique units.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graphic

Excuse the horrific spelling...

Chasseurs a Pied, Regiments Estrangers, Infanterie Petit-Veux, Gendarmie, Courours de Bois, Tiralleurs, Royal Ecossois, Maison du Roi, Chasseurs de Cheval, Chevaux-Legers, Garde du Corps...this is not counting colonial and native units.

No offense but maybe you should actually check their roster in the custom battle menu, or play more than 3 turns with them in the campaign.

---

Except that most of these units are just generic units with a french name, to make them sound unique. Read the descriptions. Except for a few of them, they all have generic descriptions.
The only one I can think of that actually has a proper description and isn't a generic unit with a french name is the Maison du Roi. And well, too bad, but the Maison du Roi wasn't a single elite squad, but a military administration that basically was in charge of all bodyguard and royal units, such as the Gardes Suisses, the Gendarmes, the Mousquetaires and half a dozen others.

So yeah, the french roster is bad. One or two ahistorical faction specific units? Wow.
Now, overall, most factions have poor rosters, and the french one at least sounds original thanks to the french names, but overall, ETW is disappointing in that regard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

Except that most of these units are just generic units with a french name, to make them sound unique. Read the descriptions. Except for a few of them, they all have generic descriptions.
The only one I can think of that actually has a proper description and isn't a generic unit with a french name is the Maison du Roi. And well, too bad, but the Maison du Roi wasn't a single elite squad, but a military administration that basically was in charge of all bodyguard and royal units, such as the Gardes Suisses, the Gendarmes, the Mousquetaires and half a dozen others.

So yeah, the french roster is bad. One or two ahistorical faction specific units? Wow.
Now, overall, most factions have poor rosters, and the french one at least sounds original thanks to the french names, but overall, ETW is disappointing in that regard.

---

CA really can't seem to win can they? If they add in lots of different units to add variety they are accused of making up unhistorical fantasy units, and ruining balance. If they give each faction a historically accurate and balanced unit roster people accuse them of laziness and not putting in enough units. :laugh4:

I would like a few more units for some factions, but mostly they haven't done a bad job. The rosters aren't 'bad' per se, they could just use a little expansion.

Out of interest do you have any ideas for units they could add to say, France or Britain? (This is a genuine question btw, I wondered what they might have missed).

Wait until they get further, when it's all "Conscript, artillery, trench digger"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Beane

CA really can't seem to win can they? If they add in lots of different units to add variety they are accused of making up unhistorical fantasy units, and ruining balance. If they give each faction a historically accurate and balanced unit roster people accuse them of laziness and not putting in enough units. :laugh4:

I would like a few more units for some factions, but mostly they haven't done a bad job. The rosters aren't 'bad' per se, they could just use a little expansion.

Out of interest do you have any ideas for units they could add to say, France or Britain? (This is a genuine question btw, I wondered what they might have missed).

---

They've already got plenty of ahistorical units. Once again, I feel compelled to mention the GRENADE LAUNCHERS :tongueg:
(And double-barreled musket using Grenzers. And air rifle snipers.)

But, IMO, the British have their roster just right in terms of size. The problem is it seems CA put a lot less effort into most of the other factions. Russia, France and the Ottomans/Marathas seem to have gotten a good amount of units, but it seems the UK is the faction that gets the fancy late-period elite units (Coldstream guards vs. Cossacks, hmmmm)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Beane

CA really can't seem to win can they? If they add in lots of different units to add variety they are accused of making up unhistorical fantasy units, and ruining balance. If they give each faction a historically accurate and balanced unit roster people accuse them of laziness and not putting in enough units. :laugh4:

I would like a few more units for some factions, but mostly they haven't done a bad job. The rosters aren't 'bad' per se, they could just use a little expansion.

Out of interest do you have any ideas for units they could add to say, France or Britain? (This is a genuine question btw, I wondered what they might have missed).

---

indeed, u can never please everyone but oh well were happy and thats wot matters :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

Except that most of these units are just generic units with a french name, to make them sound unique. Read the descriptions. Except for a few of them, they all have generic descriptions.
The only one I can think of that actually has a proper description and isn't a generic unit with a french name is the Maison du Roi. And well, too bad, but the Maison du Roi wasn't a single elite squad, but a military administration that basically was in charge of all bodyguard and royal units, such as the Gardes Suisses, the Gendarmes, the Mousquetaires and half a dozen others.

So yeah, the french roster is bad. One or two ahistorical faction specific units? Wow.
Now, overall, most factions have poor rosters, and the french one at least sounds original thanks to the french names, but overall, ETW is disappointing in that regard.

---

I knew you were going to respond with this.

The fact of the matter is, it's the 1700's. You got guys with muskets, guys with pikes, and a few different types of cavalry, and they all wear similar uniforms in Europe. Unique names, unique stats...what else more do you want? The French roster is filled to the brim with unique units, who cares if the descriptions are generic? How varied can the descriptions be between the factions for guys with muskets who you're supposed to form a long front line with?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graphic

I knew you were going to respond with this.

The fact of the matter is, it's the 1700's. You got guys with muskets, guys with pikes, and a few different types of cavalry, and they all wear similar uniforms in Europe. Unique names, unique stats...what else more do you want? The French roster is filled to the brim with unique units, who cares if the descriptions are generic? How varied can the descriptions be between the factions for guys with muskets who you're supposed to form a long front line with?

---

Look at the British roster. Something like that.

Yeah? I never denied that GB's roster is the most varied and that there's always room for more. That doesn't mean France's roster is "severely lacking."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graphic

Yeah? I never denied that GB's roster is the most varied and that there's always room for more. That doesn't mean France's roster is "severely lacking."

---

I dont deny that the FRENCH roster is rather varied, however, many OTHER nations are pretty much generic, and could use some fancy units. Look at poor Spain. They get a couple of skirmisher units, as I recall.
Would it REALLY be that much trouble too look up some famous regiment/organization from each nations history and throw it on the roster? They certainly did with the UK.
[/shrug]

I suppose that's the reason I proposed a mod 'fix' for this stuff. I guess it's really just a matter of opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheogorath

I dont deny that the FRENCH roster is rather varied, however, many OTHER nations are pretty much generic, and could use some fancy units. Look at poor Spain. They get a couple of skirmisher units, as I recall.
Would it REALLY be that much trouble too look up some famous regiment/organization from each nations history and throw it on the roster? They certainly did with the UK.
[/shrug]

I suppose that's the reason I proposed a mod 'fix' for this stuff. I guess it's really just a matter of opinion.

---

They are saving that for the DLC. Finish a faction's unit roster for the low low price of 5 pounds per faction :tongue:.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Beane

They are saving that for the DLC. Finish a faction's unit roster for the low low price of 5 pounds per faction :tongue:.

---

I think I'll stick to the modders. They can probably do a better job anyway :tongueg:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheogorath

I think I'll stick to the modders. They can probably do a better job anyway :tongueg:

---

Not at the moment sadly, we have to wait till CA release modding tools :shame:.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Beane

Not at the moment sadly, we have to wait till CA release modding tools :shame:.

---

Lazy!
Back in the RTW/MTW2 days people made their own modding tools! And walked uphill both ways to do it! In the snow! With no shoes on!

I'm prety sure britain and france have roughly equivalent unit rosters, with france having more elite infantry,

If you should feel for anyone it is the dutch...the reason im never going to play as them is their hideous blue and lack of any unique land unit, atleast in the custom battle roster, the fluyt doesnt really make up for it, seeing as the trade theatres are abit fritzy and you can get much better ships.

Doesn't Russia get a moral bonus?

I thought I remembered reading that somewhere.

Either way - with their 9 starting provinces and relatively little threat to them initially, I can see building a massive, massive army with Russia.

In my battles with them so far they've fought really hard. The line just keeps moving, regardless of what's coming at them.

I cant really find an argument against the UK getting the best advanced troops. They were the pinnacle of excellence . The Austrians, Prussians and Russians were not at the meeting to decide Napoleon's and France's fate due to the quality or ability of their troops. They were already relics when 1800 rolled around. Spain was a dump.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Callahan9119

I cant really find an argument against the UK getting the best advanced troops. They were the pinnacle of excellence . The Austrians, Prussians and Russians were not at the meeting to decide Napoleon's and France's fate due to the quality or ability of their troops. They were already relics when 1800 rolled around. Spain was a dump.

---

Ummm, you DO know who it was that broke the back of the Grand Army and led the march into Paris, right?

You DO know who fought against Napoleon's France the longest, right?

I'll give you a hint. The 'The British' is not the answer to either of these questions.


And, good sir, you discount Spain rather lightly. They carried on a war against the French even after their government was beaten, and managed quite well.

While it is certainly true that the British financed many of the major players against Napoleon, this is hardly evidence of military excellence, and their involvement 'on the ground' was minimal until late in the wars, and generally not a whole lot better than everybody elses.

Now, of course, this is all rather late in the game. We should be looking earlier, right?

Well, Russia...that'd be Peter the Great right now. Built himself an army and navy from scratch and took on the Ottomans and Swedes...at the same time.

Prussia, well, they're not so hot right now, but Frederick the Great will show up pretty soon and be ready to take on pretty much everybody at once, while simultaneously revolutionizing military thought on the continent, although arguably not in a good way.

Austria...just their existence alone is a testimate to national identity. Considering 'Austrians' were about twenty different groups, all of whom spoke a different language and most of whom hated each other to some degree. Austria maintained a cohesive army and even managed to win on occasion.

Spain, which you so happily discount as a 'dump' was, in fact, reaching the peak of its territorial expansion, and would not lose that territory until the 1820's. True, they were not the power they once were, but you can hardly expect anybody in such close proximity to France with Spain's monetary problems and monarchical issues to put up a straight-up military fight and win.


I do find it irritating when people spout about the British being the official 'best of everything'. I suppose it's because most English speakers read textbooks based chiefly on British sources. It's like there's this concept going around that the British COULD have taken over the world, but didn't really want to, since there wasn't enough tea.

I have said it many times, and I will say it again, the balance of power in Europe was such that there was no 'best of everything'. If there WAS a 'best of everything' the other European powers would not exist, because the 'best of everything' would annex them.

Napoleon tried, and tried hard, and nearly managed it, but in the end proved decisively that, even under one of the most brilliant military minds of all time could not defeat everybody.

Oh, look, I've started ranting. Dont mind me :ave:

I agree with most of your statements, but I'm not sure what the answer is to the two questions. Certainly, Russia and Prussia fought hard, but were still defeated in rather embarrasing defeats (Borodino withstanding) and Liepzig was utter chaos, to tell the truth, and the coalition, despite outnumbering Napoleon by twice the army, still lost their equivalent in troops.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Very Super Market

I agree with most of your statements, but I'm not sure what the answer is to the two questions. Certainly, Russia and Prussia fought hard, but were still defeated in rather embarrasing defeats (Borodino withstanding) and Liepzig was utter chaos, to tell the truth, and the coalition, despite outnumbering Napoleon by twice the army, still lost their equivalent in troops.

---

No arguments there, but, fortunately for the coalition, Russia was willing to put just about anybody into a uniform. Some Russian units went into battle equipped with PIKES.

This was partly possible because, among other things, Alexander declared a holy war against Napoleon and informed the Russian populace that he was, in fact, the antichrist.

Still, you can't argue, Napoleon lost the war at Borodino and Moscow. You cant march across the entirety of Europe to capture the enemies cultural capital only to have them burn it down and expect your morale to keep. I mean, if they're willing to burn down one of their major cities just to keep you from getting it, what would they do to YOUR major cities?

The answer, is, of course, visible today in the form of lots of Frenchmen with funny last names and high cheekbones. And the word 'bistro'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KozaK13

If you should feel for anyone it is the dutch...the reason im never going to play as them is their hideous blue and lack of any unique land unit, atleast in the custom battle roster, the fluyt doesnt really make up for it, seeing as the trade theatres are abit fritzy and you can get much better ships.

---

Poor us, no special units and CA didn't even gave us the correct flag, they started using the Red White Blue after the Death of The Republic of the Seven United Netherlands

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: