Line Infantry (compare)

[Mechstra]

Yes, as far as I know, successful hits of any kind in Empire mean death for all troops. There's no armour rating to negate damage, which is why using your general as a combat unit is often rather risky.

[sabaku_no_gaara]

As a brit I formally apologise for industrialising the world.

Also I don't agree that Monty was the greatest WW2 general, the German generals were very very skilled. Having said that I havn't seen any other general wear what look like pyjamas and a beret with badges from the paratroops and SAS (which annoyed the regiments). So he wins for being strange

I saw some poster say 'why does CA suck Britain's dick'.....well probably why they 'sucked' Rome's penis in Rome Total War, developers tend to back the nation with the largest empire. If this was Empire:Total War USA edition then all it would be is the French and Americans vs the British - we all know that eventually the USA gained independence..not that it is that special seeing as pretty much every nation has been granted it since, they could have waited a few years and got it without bloodshed

But Brittain didn't gain her vast empire through military superiority alone, recently, on this forum I found out India was conquered through bribery more then through military prowess.

Brittain was crap now that I think of it, you where beaten by a bunch of zulu's with spears and shields, and you couldn't deal with the Boers untill you used despicable tactics like concentration camps

[Lupu]

Early or late ottoman line?

[libertarian4321]

I assume you mean the American Revolution, in which a large amount of troops fighting for Britain, were German conscripts.

The British used German mercenaries, loyalist militia, and native American troops, but the vast majority of their troops were, in fact, British Regulars.

And I would hardly call their opponents peasants with homemade weapons.

Correct. While the Americans didn't always have first rate weapons, they weren't peasants. By 1776, the American colonies had considerable wealth and the average colonist had a higher standard of living than the average British citizen. A common American farmer was wealthier and healthier than the average British commoner, many of whom lived in squalor, eeking out a meager existence in the large English cities (these were the folks that made up a good portion of the British military, as well).

The disasterous campaign in the carolinas was the downfall of Cornwallis, disease and starvation had more to do with defeat than American brilliance.

Why were they starving? A good commander doesn't let his troops starve. Maybe they were starving because the Americans continually attacked the British supply lines? Francis Marion (the "Swamp Fox") was primarily responsible for this, and was always two steps ahead of the British military who simply had no answer for him. Marion was brilliant, the British were plodding and foolish, failing to secure their supply lines (a basic tenet of warfare).

BTW, only a small percentage of the troops (~20%) who surrendered at Yorktown were veterans of the Carolina campaign. Most were fresh reinforcements who joined Cornwallis after the Battle of Guilford Courthouse.

The 10,000 French Regulars and Naval Blockade certainly didn't help matters.

Actually, less than 8K French, but yes, the French did help.

Lets examine the reason the French were there. They only got into the war once it looked like the Americans could win- largely based on the American success at the battle of Saratoga.

You remember the Battle of Saratoga, where an entire British Army surrendered to the Americans? That was an Army consisting primarily of British Regulars, defeated by a 100% American Army (and a lot of it militia, at that).

It's no small wonder when the U.S. invaded Canada with 5-1 superior numbers they failed miserably repeatedly.

I know of only ONE major attempt by the US forces to invade Canada- Benedict Arnold's siege of Quebec in 1775-1776. Most of Arnold's Army had died or melted away when he foolishly tried to invade Canada in the winter with inadequate supplies and equipment, over rugged terrain. By the time he got there, he had a tiny Army, full of sick and half starved men. Despite that, he still managed to lay siege to Quebec for months, despite have a force less numerous than the British defenders of Quebec?

Where do you get this "5:1 superior numbers" stuff?

All the other incursions into Canada were minor operations involving small militia forces, and generally limited to the border area.

Can you tell me about the "repeated attempts," because you must know about some battles that aren't generally recorded in the history books...

The British Army enjoyed many victories in this era and was blessed with countless brilliant leaders spread across the empire.

Perhaps, but it was also cursed with a good number of incompetent leaders and embarrassing defeats. The American Revolution certainly points that out.

Lest we forget, the British Army Regulars, these soldiers that you consider so vastly superior to the rest of the world, lost REPEATEDLY to largely amateur American forces on the battle field. Not just at Saratoga and Yorktown, but Monmouth, Princeton, Boston, Guilford Court House, Cowpens, etc.

Twice, these "superior" soldiers surrendered en masse to the Americans (Saratoga and Yorktown)- yet the British never managed to make a large American Army surrender.

The British enjoyed a lot of success early in the war when they were fighting largely untrained, lightly armed rabble (1775-1776), but after that, they hardly looked like world beaters.

The British Empire was built on the backs of it's Infantry Regiments and Fighting Ships, and to dismiss these men as merely average is a mistake in my opinion. It's not nationalism or patriotism to say that Britain had excellent Infantry, it's history.

If you "pick and choose" your history, you can make that point. Its also easy to show the British looking pretty average (or worse) if one chooses to do so. The reality is, they had some good soldiers/commanders, and some that were very bad.

I'm not buying the myth that the British soldier was inherently superior to any other soldier. I'll go along with the fact that their navy was top notch, but I'm not so sure about their army.

Being a Infantryman in the modern British Army, obviously my opinion means absolutely nothing, so I'm not sure why I just wasted all this space. Please resume your semi-ficticious rambling about Washington and his peasants, and historical observations based on nothing more than the Patriot and a Grade School level american history textbook.

I'm an old soldier (USA- though my ancestors were still in England at the time of the Revolutionary War). Military history is just a hobby of mine. All my college degrees are in more challenging subjects.

[coman]

All my college degrees are in more challenging subjects.

God, could you possibly come off as more of a tired old bore?

You're giving me a run for the 'pompous tool' title.

[libertarian4321]

God, could you possibly come off as more of a tired old bore?

You're giving me a run for the 'pompous tool' title.

If you were less obtuse, you'd realize I was fending off any comments similar to the ones he made in his previous post, where he essentially dismissed another poster as being uneducated.

[coman]

If you were less obtuse.

You did it again. It's kind of nice around here, please make every effort to maintain that.

[matarreyes]

It`s rigth that History be wtitten by winners ¿eh?
Yes, Brittish and then Us were the two poweres favored in politics til Seven years War to actually but risk to repeat somethig said up ( I didn`t read all carefully) I wan`t give some information. The Really power of Britain is their island condition and their fleet, we all know this. Now review all conflicts of English forces. The only in that they be the main force result as defeat, the American Revolution. The rest of victorys were diplomatic game supporting Prussia (Seven Years) or Spain, Austria and Prussia against Nappy for example. A Great army of brittish never be determinant in Europe until WWI. Seven Years War brittish victorys were in America helped by the Great Naval superiority. In Europe be Prussian, the best army of the moment the main force helped by Hannover english dominions against the weak Austrian Empire. This was confirmed in the flagrant defeat against US-French-Spanish forces in American Rev. There the skilled militians (veterans in anglo-french war for Canada) defeated regular brittish some times. A few regulars and a legion of farmers. Brittish forces, brave men weren`t the better in Europe. French, Prussian and maybe crazy russian tactics were best infantry that English one.
And against Napoleon Brittish only take the upper hand in Waterloo when no less than 4 coalitions fought before against an French army full of childs and old people recruited quickly. Prussia again, spanish Guerilla and Russian winter where the real land enemy of Napoleon. England always use their fleet. No one great brittish army fought in Europe alone.
Now... Why they are the best infantry in game. They were skilled colonial troops against a few indian, sudaneese chiefs... no an 50.000 French army commanded by someone names Murat or Ney; or and ultra disciplined Line of Prussian Infantry.
If CA make brittish ships with 8.000 fire power skill i only could say "true". But land it`s another thing.
Sorry for be boring by like spanish i hate the adapted history wrote by winners like "The Black Legend" that french, dutch and mainly English told about our modern history.

[Trikome]

Only an american can think that British had just one time in history a good infantry. Tell me a clue, without the Prussians coming, they loose Waterloo, they had a great win in Azincourt using advanced tactics and they kick some peasants in America. Okay, what else ? near nothing, that's really few. For all europeans British Army in history is just a good joke, i don't understand why you consider it like the best infantry in history Oo It's because Mel Gibson kick them ?

Seriously, open an history book, on the ETW period if it interest you, and you will fastly understand that on these times, French "Grande Armée" and his emperor, were just unbeatable.

I don't understand why they give British a great infantry, perhaps for some marketing reasons (i don't think a lot of you take France hehe ), it's not important, i much more regret that the French "Old Guard" is not better

[guerra]

What may I ask, does IR and ETR stand for?

[coman]

Tell me a clue

I have systematically studied social economic political war theory for about 20 years. About 15 years ago I started visiting battle sites, following wars. I have been to Europe many times, Greece, Persia, even Afghanistan.

I have not been deep into Russia yet. That's what I'm doing next, by car. With lots of bodyguards.

ANYWAY.

There really is something to be said about national anecdotes because they do, seriously effect the way that we perceive each other on a homogeneic level.

Britain has been present at more miracle wins than any other recorded history. Several more even than the entire Roman empire's legacy.

France has been present at more horrible tragic losses than any other nation in recorded history.

America is viewed as "pulling off" more clever attempts, wins, loses or draws than any other nation in history and of pushing the envelope.

Of these three great powers, none of these anecdotes really describe the nature of the national military's or their total sum of history, but should highlight popular perception. When I hear people make statements about them that fall in line with these anecdotes, I know for a fact, they lack an understanding of history. Likely both of individual events and campaigns and most certainly of the entirety of the picture. Saying the French are cowards, is stupid. Calling the British a great military, is naive. Saying the Americans are prone to violence and rule breaking in warfare, smacks of colonialist revolutionary biases that probably run in someone's culture and locality for many generations.

The fact of the matter is that France was a dominant land military power in the western hemisphere for several hundred years before the Capetian line even started and held pretty constant through World War I - that's nearly 1300 years. Britain of course, became the largest transporter of world goods and built a navy to protect it but their land Armies have never needed to be at the level of French infantry, cavalry and artillery.

The Americans revolted and quickly surpassed Britain in her naval shipping power and Great Britain's naval power unwound in 20 years. While still a force to be reckoned with, the decline was sudden, pervasive and lasted nearly 130 years. France's situation changed in just 10 years following World War I. America's is happening now before our eyes.

We all like to assume stereotypes and denote this, or denote that, but in the long view War is an ever decreasing means and method of employing power and improving people's lives. Great Britain learned this earlier than most, followed by France.

Wherein the last 80 years have shown war to be an intensely profitable venture, for the first time in 5000 years of written history, war is not entirely about acquisition of territory, cash riches, silks, furs, spices and slaves. It has become about capital expenses and operational expenses and expeditiously fueled national spending.

We will never see another grand conflict, a world war. Sure there will be fights, but never a truly multi-national vs multi-national boots on the beach kind of war.

I babble, no coffee yet.

[Hard Sarge]

How come these units are listed as having atleast 120 men? Every line infantry unit I recruit, I get 40-50 men. Can someone explain?

[Kahn89]

How come these units are listed as having atleast 120 men? Every line infantry unit I recruit, I get 40-50 men. Can someone explain?

Unit scale size in the graphics options. It changes how many men are in a unit, which can increase performance or graphics.

[Ulysseslotro]

I believe the brits need to be toned down. Can't have best everything and lose 20+ battles againt militia forces during the Revolutionary War and you can't be that great if you come back for a second can of whoopbrits arse during War of 1812 where they had a dozen more defeats.

[Kahn89]

I believe the brits need to be toned down. Can't have best everything and lose 20+ battles againt militia forces during the Revolutionary War and you can't be that great if you come back for a second can of whoopbrits arse during War of 1812 where they had a dozen more defeats.

Considering that the greatest American victory of the War of 1812 was fought after the war technically ended, and then only after the British routed all the forces defending Washington and burned it to the ever loving ground. (or started burning, it rained.)

[Double X]

The small difference in stats do not matter too much - what really matters is tech. The fact that playing as Prussia, most people go the historic route and blitz for fire by rank makes Prussian troops the best. Prussia starts off with plug bayonets as well, so they also get a head start on the British for tech. So I would still say the Prussia troops are better.

I think France's melee should be slightly higher and their troop cost should be slightly lower - oh well.

[aronnov]

how can the range be upgraded? techs like carbine?

[Terafis]

how can the range be upgraded? techs like carbine?

Only light skirmishers and archers get greater range than 70

I assume native musketeers are considered light skirmishers, although the game calls them irregulars (80 range)

[AP49]

Most important is, that we enjoy the game and I still enjoy the game with a little bit of british CA-patriotism in it.

Yeah, the reason CA made British infantry the best is because they're oh so patriotic.

[Rogue]

Considering that the greatest American victory of the War of 1812 was fought after the war technically ended, and then only after the British routed all the forces defending Washington and burned it to the ever loving ground. (or started burning, it rained.)

Just because it was fought after the treaty was signed (but not ratified by Congress, which it had to be...) doesn't say anything about the battle of New Orleans, other than ships were slow and the Atlantic is big.

And the army that burned Washington had a bit more trouble at Baltimore...

If you want to point to American incompetence in the War of 1812, how about the invasion of Canada? Not only did it fail decisively but we ended up losing Detroit through most of 1813... So clearly we ought to make British militia super-powered. Or, you know, recognize it was caused by superior generalship on the British/Canadian side and not magically better troops.

Anyway, the minor differences in stats don't really seem to affect much - my infantry of several nations tend to do equally well against all nations when used correctly, and equally badly when used incorrectly. I'd agree with the poster who claimed tech was more important.