Light Infantry vs Line Infantry

[Furious Mental]

'Um, that time period (which is after the ending of the campaign in this one) featured the "Levée en masse," which was the 1st large-scale compulsory conscripting of the Industrial Age. Napoleon's tactics focused on a combination of massed cannons, cavalry charges, and infantry columns breaking through the enemy line and convincing the survivors to leave the field ... bloody, but effective (at the time: imitating them later led to the horrific casualties of the ACW and WWI).
'

Yeah cheers but I don't need a lecture on Napoleonic tactics, especially from someone who thinks it was all about assault columns. The point is that soldiers instinctively spread out and protect themselves when they get shot at. They is why they had to be trained to stand shoulder to shoulder and fire in unison, which in any case even trained soldiers could not manage for extended periods of time.

[Oleander Ardens]

The American example showed as the earlier war of the Seven Wars before that you need both irregular and regular troops, both men capable to stand up in battle and men adept to skirmish. The regular units - or part of it - were also employed as Skirmishers and were usually the better men than the common soldier. However both the fighting styles needed trained men.

IMHO there are two often conflicting tendencies in this ages for no very well trained troops:
a) to bunch up
b) to take conver

The result would be a completely unstructured cloud of men - very difficult to command. An example would be the successfull battles in Tyrol against the French and Bavarians. Through superior positions and fine markmenship they were able to inflict quite stunning victories but were unable to exploit most of them.