Russia > France

[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.

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.

[Belid Hagen]

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

[Beskar]

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

[knoddy]

savoy > france in my campaign lawl

[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.

[Melvish]

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)

[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.

[Sheogorath]

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.

[Graphic]

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.

[Sir Beane]

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.

[Meneldil]

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.

[Sir Beane]

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.

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).

[Beskar]

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

[Sheogorath]

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.

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
(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)

[knoddy]

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.

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

[Graphic]

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?

[Sheogorath]

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.

[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."

[Sheogorath]

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.

[Sir Beane]

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 .

[Sheogorath]

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

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

[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.

[Sheogorath]

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'.

[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