Russia > France

[Sir Beane]

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

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

[Sheogorath]

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

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!

[KozaK13]

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.

[ArtillerySmoke]

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.

[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.

[Sheogorath]

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

[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.

[Wausser]

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

[Jong]

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?

[Oleander Ardens]

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

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...

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.

[Melvish]

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

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...

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.

[Sheogorath]

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

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...

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.

[al Roumi]

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

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...

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.

[Daevyll]

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!