Game Balance, or the lack there of.

[Husar]

That they invented it doesn't mean they mastered it.

I'm also on the realism > balance side and as has been said, MP can be balanced by adjusting the prices, prices in MP and SP wouldn't have to be the same anyway, but for stats that would be nice to avoid too much confusion.

Let's say Poland has worse but way cheaper units than the UK in MP, that means they can get a full stack and up the experience of their units while the british would have a hard time deciding whether they take this hugely expensive elite infantry that can take on 3 polish infantry units at once or whether they'd rather take two artillery pieces etc. etc.
That way MP could turn out very interesting, yet SPers would get the realism they want, I hope.

[Sheogorath]

^exactly. GB should be able to easily beat most others in stand-up line battles, whereas they would get their asses kicked in hand-to-hand. of course, Prussia would be nearly invincible with their infantry, but cavalry would be lower-than average and arty would be average.

everyone see how this works? no? i'll list it:

key: Amazing, great, average, below average, crappy

Ottomans=amazing arty and cav, crappy inf., average light inf.
Russia=great cav, average arty, below average inf., amazing light inf.
GB=great inf., crappy cav, great arty, crappy light inf.
Prussia=amazing inf., crappy cav, average arty, great light inf.
Austria= great cav, average arty, average inf., great light inf.
Poland= amazing cav, below average inf., great arty, average light inf.
U.P.= great inf., below average cav, amazing arty, great light inf.
Sweden= amazing inf., below average arty, average cav, great light inf.
Marathas= amazing cav, great arty, below average inf., amazing light inf.
France= great cav, average inf., great arty, crappy light inf.
Spain= great cav, below average inf., average arty, great light inf.
U.S.A.= average cav, average inf., great arty, amazing light inf.


anyone contest this chart?

I think you'd need to be more detailed. Sweden's standard line infantry, for instance, were basically disciplined militia. They had quite good guards, but their strength lay more in leadership. Russia's line infantry were feared across Europe, not for their amazing musketry, but for their stubbornness. Properly equipped, Russians were considered, even by Napoleon, to be the 'ideal' infantry, simply because they obeyed orders and didn't think for themselves (the problem was, of course, that most Russian officers followed the same trend :P)

Most of them sound abitrary. What's wrong with Prussian cavalry? Why would Britain be bad at hand-to-hand, seeing how they developed the bayonet drill in the first place? There should be no balance, just realism.

Prussian cavalry where fine in NTW2, just not as good as French cavalry. The French were, as I recall, mostly 'above average' with the best elite units available in the game.
The British weren't BAD at melee, but the Russians were the masters of it.