Line Infantry (compare)

[InfUA]

Maybe somebody wanted to see such a compare between the line infantry of major nations in game, so here it is:


All other line infantry (early)

IR=Irish line infantry
ETR=Etrangere line infantry

--------------------------------------
As everybody know british guys were always a land power, Al Alamein was the greatest battle in WW2, Montgomery best general of WW2, Wellington was best general of napoleonic(!) era, 85% of german troops were defeatet by UK with their colonies and british infantry best ever.

[Haggan]

Where is Sweden?

[merka]

Sweden isnt a major nation? I feel insulted

[InfUA]

Sweden isnt a major nation? I feel insulted

I added them too

[Wilk]

As everybody know british guys were always a land power, Al Alamein was the greatest battle in WW2, Montgomery best general of WW2, Wellington was best general of napoleonic(!) era, 85% of german troops were defeatet by UK with their colonies and british infantry best ever.

This is a joke right?:p

[notger]

This is a joke right?:p

Must be.
Had a good laugh.

El Alamain, the pinnacle of infantry warfare, where the loser was only outnumbered 2:1?

Anyway: Interesting to see, that the British infantry is modelled as the best infantry, with the French following close behind. Not that it matters too much, since numbers and tactics win the day, but interesting nonetheless. Poor Russians.

[Special Agent Sabre]

This is a joke right?:p

I hope that quote was a joke also Patton best general

[Kewpur]

Prussia looks pretty good all around.

[The_Dude]

well, british infantry was superior at that time simply for the reason that they were a professional army compared to the draft armies most other nations had.

[psykopatsak]

well, british infantry was superior at that time simply for the reason that they were a professional army compared to the draft armies most other nations had.

Thats bullox. Prussia. britain were not anything more special than anyone else. or you call the strictly disciplined army of prussia a draft army? (though they did have a PARTIAL conscription, but thats beside the normal army), or Charles XII's Indelningsverk?. basically ALL european forces had professional armies at this time, but many were added on, Drafted by force. its true britain diddnt have any drated soliders in the era, but thats because they nly sent their expeditionary forces, exclusiveley form the professional army. since britain is an island, the need of drafting for the army in war was unessecary, the army couldnt defen britain, that was the navys job.

[Keline]

Thats bullox. Prussia. britain were not anything more special than anyone else. or you call the strictly disciplined army of prussia a draft army? (though they did have a PARTIAL conscription, but thats beside the normal army), or Charles XII's Indelningsverk?. basically ALL european forces had professional armies at this time, but many were added on, Drafted by force. its true britain diddnt have any drated soliders in the era, but thats because they nly sent their expeditionary forces, exclusiveley form the professional army. since britain is an island, the need of drafting for the army in war was unessecary, the army couldnt defen britain, that was the navys job.

To be precise, Britain did draft. For the navy. The Term "Press Gang" known here?

[InfUA]

Between 1775 and 1781, the regular army increased from 48,000 to 110,000. Two acts were passed, the Recruiting Act 1778 and the Recruiting Act 1779 for the impression of individuals into the British Army.[7] The chief advantages of these acts was in the number of volunteers brought in under the apprehension of impressment. To avoid impressment, some recruits incapacitated themselves by cutting off the thumb and forefinger of the right hand.[8] The Recruiting Act of 1779 was repealed on May 26, 1780, and army impressment was permanently discontinued. During the experiment, the British government allowed army impressment under severely restricted circumstances — both acts emphasized volunteering over impressment, and offered strong incentives to volunteers. The impressment portion of the 1778 act applied only to Scotland and the area around London, excluding Wales and the rest of England, to avoid interfering with harvesting. The 1779 act applied to all of Great Britain, but was initially suspended everywhere except the area around London, and actually applied to all of Great Britain for only six months, until the 1779 act was repealed in May 1780, and army impressment ceased in Britain

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impressment

[Marcus Fulvius]

To be precise, Britain did draft. For the navy. The Term "Press Gang" known here?

if im not mistaken, wasn't that the exact reason for the war of 1812? the brits kept seizing merchants flying the american flag and impressing our sailors (citizens in fact) into british naval service.

britain may not have drafted its own citizens... but it sure as hell had no problem conscripting people from its colonies and former colonies whenever they had the chance.

one of the major reasons that britain's empire collapsed... they had a nasty habit of giving british born citizens fair treatment, while basically on the rights of its non-native subjects.

at least the roman empire did that part right, once conquered, you became roman... unlike the british empire, where once conquered, you didn't become a british citizen... you became a british subject.

[keith moons liver]

well, british infantry was superior at that time simply for the reason that they were a professional army compared to the draft armies most other nations had.

And a professional army is much more expensive... but looking at the upkeep this is clearly not the case.

[MKT-Smokescreen]

well, british infantry was superior at that time simply for the reason that they were a professional army compared to the draft armies most other nations had.

Not so professional my friend, Colonels were given a large amount of cash, they would then in turn hire their own units, pay them, equip them and train them from that cash.
Som units were insanely strong, but most regiments were only semi-professional. This is based upon Charles I's system of recruitment during the English Civil War when he realised that he needed something more professional, but he didn't go for the far more sensible fully proffessional option because that'd be doing exactly the same as the Parliamentarians, and Charles I's would have hated that.

I agree that the British were probably more powerful in some aspects; but they weren't alot stronger than their contemporaries because they were only sometimes drilled to a high standard.

[nodey]

Let me take a guess, CA is brittish.

[joedreck]

As everybody know british guys were always a land power, Al Alamein was the greatest battle in WW2, Montgomery best general of WW2, Wellington was best general of napoleonic(!) era, 85% of german troops were defeatet by UK with their colonies and british infantry best ever.

You forget the 18th century. Washington. Ohhh sorry was American. Uups the british lost there, sorry. Back to WWII: Total War and heroic british heros.

Nice list. The Austrian have more soldiers? :hmmm:Never saw that. Cool!

[Gamey]

You forget the 18th century. Washington. Ohhh sorry was American. Uups the british lost there, sorry. Back to WWII: Total War and heroic british heros.

Nice list. The Austrian have more soldiers? :hmmm:Never saw that. Cool!

It's delayed but. Are you serious about this? Washington a superior general? Although I'll admit he did win the revolution but he was in no way a superior general to figures such as Charles Cornwallis (British) or Sir William Howe. (Also British)
Washington was if anything equal to these men in his command ability. This is clear by the fact that. The revolutionaries under Washington used Guerrilla tactics, in that sense it is a primitive although effective solution to professional British armies of the period, revolutionary soldiers were in no way comparable in the proper tactics used during this period as they were poorly trained and usually ran quickly during a fight. This is because due to lack of training and prior experience militia could not stand up to an army composed of rank and file.
Washington used tactics that as stated cannot be compared to that of British tactics used in the same period. The main defeat of the British in this period was arrogance, with their many victories they often became disillusioned with thoughts of being unbeatable in combat this offered openings for guerrilla warfare as they often expected to fight on the standard open fields of which these tactics were effective and were often unprepared when attacked in a Forrest by revolutionaries.
Although Washington did win by the use of different tactics he was in no way superior to a man like Cornwallis who won many of his battles (Although he was one of the better generals in the British army stationed in America) up until (unless my history is slightly off) his most unfortunate defeat at the battle of Cowpens. And for reference Washington was not even apart of this victory, in fact his army was defeated at the battle of Brandywine prior to Cowpens by guess who General Cornwallis.
Maybe you should read up on your history once in awhile.
And I am not favoring the British there were many other generals who were better than Washington or Cornwallis, I just thought that I should find something related.

Note:
My file as the British where I own all of North America and part of Europe seems to close down saying that there is an error with the game and that it has to close down has been occurring since my last save. I would like any comments on how to fix this problem as I do not want to go through capturing everything again.

[gamesguy]

It's delayed but. Are you serious about this? Washington a superior general? Although I'll admit he did win the revolution but he was in no way a superior general to figures such as Charles Cornwallis (British) or Sir William Howe. (Also British)
Washington was if anything equal to these men in his command ability. This is clear by the fact that. The revolutionaries under Washington used Guerrilla tactics, in that sense it is a primitive although effective solution to professional British armies of the period, revolutionary soldiers were in no way comparable in the proper tactics used during this period as they were poorly trained and usually ran quickly during a fight. This is because due to lack of training and prior experience militia could not stand up to an army composed of rank and file.
Washington used tactics that as stated cannot be compared to that of British tactics used in the same period. The main defeat of the British in this period was arrogance, with their many victories they often became disillusioned with thoughts of being unbeatable in combat this offered openings for guerrilla warfare as they often expected to fight on the standard open fields of which these tactics were effective and were often unprepared when attacked in a Forrest by revolutionaries.
Although Washington did win by the use of different tactics he was in no way superior to a man like Cornwallis who won many of his battles (Although he was one of the better generals in the British army stationed in America) up until (unless my history is slightly off) his most unfortunate defeat at the battle of Cowpens. And for reference Washington was not even apart of this victory, in fact his army was defeated at the battle of Brandywine prior to Cowpens by guess who General Cornwallis.
Maybe you should read up on your history once in awhile.
And I am not favoring the British there were many other generals who were better than Washington or Cornwallis, I just thought that I should find something related.

Note:
My file as the British where I own all of North America and part of Europe seems to close down saying that there is an error with the game and that it has to close down has been occurring since my last save. I would like any comments on how to fix this problem as I do not want to go through capturing everything again.

Learn some freaking history.

The continental army mostly stood and fought just like their European counterparts.

[coman]

Since I was there for the American Revolution:

1. American forces fought traditional battles after they received organizational training and some semblance of trained officers, courtesy of European advisers.

2. The general observation that American's fought a guerrilla war is the result of early and then continual experience with non-yeoman militia and countryside revolutionaries that neither had the power, training or understanding that they were fighting 'insurgency style'.

3. We cannot appreciate in the modern age how important basic training is; we assume, and since we've all played America's Army and have watched action movies that an Army must suck to lose.

The reality is that in this time and age there were very few in the English colonies of America who had organized military experience. The concept of "covering fire" and "bounding over watch" simply did not exist in the mass consciousness of the people. By comparison, a youth with literally no experience in military organization, tactics or quite probably no expectation or insight into what war on the British level meant.

Compared to your average 17 year old in any country today has a much higher grasp of these things by age 10. The reason why the Americans won the revolution is as much about their will to win against a foe that was not committed to the total suppression and defeat of the revolution, as it was to any General or battle of the war.

For every military victory of the revolution there are 15-20 other factors involved and independent of said victory that made the revolution possible for the Americans.

It's much easier to kill an organized Army and blow up and bayonet a soldier when he's in the "uniform of the enemy". Such organized schadenfreude was simply not possible in a colony made up of like peoples, farmers, relatives distant and near.

America had supremely effective politicians and public leaders. Their General officer corps were so-so with few exceptions. Their greatest, most experienced assets were lawyers, merchants and sailing captains or by and large borrowed or volunteers from other foreign powers.

So quit this back and forth. If you weren't there, don't make value judgments. Washington was a brave, competent General who doubted himself by the moment and ultimately ground his own teeth out of his mouth in worry. He carried that weight of responsibility from the start until the end of the war and through his term in office.

He was clearly up to the job of beating Howe and Cornwallis because he ultimately did. That does not make him better, or them worse because in the end they are not heroes or villains in the Revolutionary War, only actors with a part.