Quote Originally Posted by SaFe
Well, that is your opinion.

Normally the english won the field battles because their ability to shoot and reload faster than their opponents was better.
At least in the english-france wars.

The cannons and the muskets will win the day.

Tactical perhaps, but tactical battles like Zama or Alesia?

Diversity of troops for the different nations?

I'm not convinced that the tactical level of the Total War series except eye candy and naval battles will improve with the musket and cannon era.
Nothing can be said about diplomacy at this time naturally.

I think it is a tactical era. Its the time of Frederick the Great, king of Prussia. In the battle of Rossbach in the seven years war he won a brilliant victory. He was outnumbered 1:2 (22000 prussians against 42000 austrians. The austrians also held the better position on a ridge. By a brilliant flanking manoeuvre he managed to defeat the austrians, losing only 550 man. The austrian losses where 10000 (including prisoners)

This battle is not widely known, but in my opinion it stands besides more famous battles as Gaugamela, Canae, Agincourt and Austerlitz.

Another battle of interest is the battle of the Narva. The Swedes with a little more than 10000 men where 3:1 outnumbered by the russians. With the loss of only 700 men the complete russian army was destroyed. This victory was achieved by tactical, technical and disciplinal superiority.

I think that this era has a lot possibilities for tactical warfare. Ok, technical superiority is a nice thing, but a commander has to use the right tactics to win a battle. And well, didn`t the romans have technical and discipline superiority (their legions) at Alesia and Zama

(References: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Narva_%281700%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Rossbach