Line Infantry (compare)

[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.

[alexfleming]

Why's everyone talking about britain anyway, aren't the prussian troops statistically the best according to this table?

[Lupu]

Where are the late ottoman ones?

[Gamey]

Why's everyone talking about britain anyway, aren't the prussian troops statistically the best according to this table?

Many historic disagreements between the lot of us. Taken horribly out of proportion (Guess I shouldn't have reignited the argument with my selective history:mainly the beginning and not middle or end of the revolution)
But yes I myself have also noticed that there is nothing on Prussian troops, and the abscence of late game Ottomans (I believe a form of Janissary)

Since I was there for the American Revolution

Not wanting to arise another argument. The revolution began about 1781 and ended in roughly 1783 wouldn't that make you almost 226 years old.

[mir24]

I'm sorry dude but as proud as I am to be British I'm afraid that is wrong. The British were not a land power, we were a naval power (arguably the best).

El Alamein was a grand battle indeed but what about the D-Day invasions, the Battle of Stalingrad, the Battle of the Bulge or the Battle of Iwo Jima? These I'm sure were much more pivotal in the war. Montgomery was not the greatest general, look at Operation Market Garden which was an absolute disaster. If it wasn't for the RAF cutting off German supplies it is likely that Rommel would have beaten Monty at El Alamein. If anything George S. Patton was the best general during the war.

Agreed. There are other battles to compare to. Mind you, after the war, Von Rundstedt was asked by the Russians which battle he thought was the most decisive of the entire war. They expected him to answer "Stalingrad". Instead, he replied "The Battle of Britain".

During the Napoleonic Era, Naopeon was arguably the best general. Wellington even said that himself. Just look at the Peninsula War. Even though Wellington had vastly superior supply lines it still took him several years to force the French out of Spain, although the number of french troops did heavily outnumber those of the allies. You also have to remember that Napoleons only real tactical slip-up (at least to my knowledge) was at the Battle of Waterloo and it is debatable whether the Brits would have won had the Prussians not turned up.

Another interesting point is that, having conquered Prussia, Napoleon visited the tomb of Frederick the Great and said to his generals, "Gentlemen, if this man were aline, I would not be here."

In retrospect, perhaps compliments and praises are best given (and accepted) by those most deserving and qualified to give them. And what better praise than that given by one's opponent (especially after he's trashed your army to bits)?

[mir24]

Britain had a leg up in every conceivable way over other countries by 1750. By 1800 that lead was enormous and the old fears of relinquishing sea carrying and cargo power faded and Britain became one of the first modern world powers.

Socially, religiously, economically Great Britain was in the lead during the Empire Total War period. You can argue until you're blue in the face about this unit, or that unit, but her people were better fed, clothed, educated, trained, paid and had more rights and enlightenment than any other country.

Certain countries had aspects of, even exceeded Great Britain in areas we can discuss, but the whole, the macro picture of the century was that Great Britain was truly a super power ascendant.

I agree with you here, Coman. In the 18th and 19th centuries, British power was in the ascendant. It is quite remarkable to say the least - a country with a population of 19 million controlled a quarter of the globe (in the 1800's). If anyone is interested in Victorian Britain, I suggest Brian Farwell's Queen Victoria's Little Wars. It's a history of Britain's armies from 1830 to 1901 and gives a good idea of the breadth and scope of the British Empire, its conflicts and its generals and soldiers.

I believe part of the reason for her success was that Britain was able to utilise the people of conquered territories and enlist them in her armies to fight for her. Sikhs, Pathans, Gurkhas to name a few. But above all, it was her trade and economic power that kept her above all the rest.

As for the soldiers, one can argue all one likes but I believe that this applies to all nations and peoples:

Where there are great leaders to lead his people into war, there will surely be victory. The quality of the troops can vary but it is the measure of the general that determines victory or defeat.

One can have the most elite of elites in an army led by a complete idiot and that army will be lost. Yet, one can have a brilliant charismatic leader of a small ragtag band and he will bring victory in the face of overwhelming odds.

[mir24]

PS. To the OP, great guide! REP to you.

Could someone please do the same for cavalry and light infantry/skirmishers? A guide for the elites would be useful too.

And as an Ottoman Empire player, I'm confused as to which of my infantry are the "standard" line infantry. My Isarelys are labelled as irregulars(!). And my Nizam-i Cedit infantry are many, many years away...

[coman]

Mir,

You made the same point that others have in this thread. You liken the success of the country to her wealth and her military successes on her leaders.

With one or two exceptions Great Britain suffered from mediocrity compared to France, Prussia and Sweden's military land leadership.

The point I make is that her PEOPLE, her society are the roots, trunk and limbs of Great Britain's mighty power.

coman

[Gen. Sherman]

Great Table, and very useful too. I feel the debate and inquiry as to the British troops statistics is being observed from the completely wrong angle. The game was designed in the UK and who else is better at viewing themselves in a greater light huh? (ok so before someone decides to flip out remember this is a joke haha) Also thanks for anyone who pointed out a useful book, good resources rock.

[Palandiell]

s 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.

???
Britian in WWII? you mean that country that only survived because it was an island and recieved constant support from its allies? what about 1939-40 where the BEF was harrassed in europe? and if you compare your chart, you will see that prussia has +2 charge and -1 defense then that of the british so its about the same. please spare me with some nationalistic crap, i do not care if you are british and you think your country is the greatest natio in the world
here some facts for you

British Empire
53,000 Killed, Wounded, or Captured

Germany:
12,808 killed
Unknown wounded
101,784 + captured

the reason for the german loss was that for one, operation torch opened a second front and two the americans came into the equation. also the italians were beginning to crumble. stick with the facts or leave it

[dulsin]

I have no problem with Britain having the best infantry in the game. They are an island nation and they needed the few troops available to be as good as possible.

If you want to make it more realistic the brits should have an even larger edge for their infantry but be severely limited in the numbers of units recruitable in England. There is no way the British could have fielded even half as many troops in the field as France. That is why they put so many Hesshans in the field and relied heavily on local allies.

[Schu]

I know this thread is months old but I just want to comment really quick on the conversation in the beginning about British line infantry...

The British under Wellington won the vast majority (all but one in fact) of their battles on defense. They would park behind the crest of a ridge (out of the line of sight of French cannons) and wait for the French to come to them. Yes, they were highly trained with their Brown Bess muskets but they were also facing French conscripts that didn't know how to shoot for the vast majority of the Peninsula Campaign.

The French had dominated the continent with column attacks that broke every nation that faced it. Their tactic was to have their tirrulaires lighten up the main line of infantry, move their columns up, fire one volley and then charge. And it worked! Time and again, from Jena to Borodino it made enemies flee before them. Against the British in the Peninsula it did not work because of the strategy that Wellington employed. I mentioned the ridge crests, but what really set them apart and made the French lose repeatedly was the use of more and better skirmishers than the French had coupled with rifles that the French skirmishers never adopted (Yes, in the game they have rifles but in reality their tirailleurs were armed with smoothbore muskets, the same as the line infantry.). So instead of the British lines being lightened up before contact, it was the French who were being decimated. And last, but not least, it had more to do with the 'thin red line' than anything else. While most European nations were lining up in half columns 5-6 ranks deep, the British stretched their ranks out further and went only 2-3 ranks deep. This extended their line (as they were usually outnumbered) and it also allowed them to curve the edges around any column that approached.

While the French relied on manpower and brute strength in their columns to push them to victory, the British relied on every man being in a position to actually use his weapon as intended, shooting it.

If anyone is curious and wishes to read more on the subject I highly recommend "Wellington in the Peninsula 1809-1812". I forget the authors name, I haven't read the book in a good 12 years Google it

Edit - To sum it up, there wasn't anything inherently special about the British soldiers as a whole. Wellington in fact described them as 'the scum of the earth'. What set them apart was how Wellington employed them. He maximized their strengths and minimized their weaknesses. Under a lesser General (and the Brits had absolutely appalling Generals) they would've been kicked out of Portugal after the first battle and history would've turned out very different.

[Duke of Orleans]

Great Britain is best I think... i thought that best will be Prussia or France...

The French are always the best come British feel are muskets

[Duke of Orleans]

No one sayed anything about Prussia they can challenge French and even Britain. Plus the French Will kick the British ass

[Alf]

hello there,

For 8 pages it has been discussed whether British were that good or not and so on, but in that list theres something awkward and nobody seems to notice that. Accuracy levels for every line infantry is wrong people...

I checked this twice since I wanted to be sure and excluding Austria, Russia and Ottoman Empire accuracy among line infantry was 40 not 45...OR my game has an interesting file that keeps my line infantry accuracy in 40...

[43rdFoot]

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.

You need to stop thinking The Patriot is accurate, because nearly everything you've said is false.

It's true American militia would often break, but that was due to poor leadership. Besides that, Continental regulars, following the winter of 1777-1778, could absolutely stand up to British regulars. They did so at Monmouth, Guilford Courthouse, Cowpens, and many other battles. They did so too at Brandywine and Camden, until left in absolutely untenable positions where they were forced to withdraw.

BTW, Cornwallis cornered himself at Yorktown, after being dragged around every swamp in the Carolinas. He a good general (and one who was not responsible for Cowpens, that was Banastre Tarleton), but no Hannibal. Also, he was not in command at Brandywine. That was William Howe.

[TheAussieDigger]

hello there,

For 8 pages it has been discussed whether British were that good or not and so on, but in that list theres something awkward and nobody seems to notice that. Accuracy levels for every line infantry is wrong people...

I checked this twice since I wanted to be sure and excluding Austria, Russia and Ottoman Empire accuracy among line infantry was 40 not 45...OR my game has an interesting file that keeps my line infantry accuracy in 40...

CA changed all the stats for line in either patch 1.1 or 1.2 for balance issues

[Aeohjie]

Mother Russia does not need accurate marksmen. Mother Russia needs only bayonets.

[♔DoomBunny666♔]

--------------------------------------
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.

Surely sir you forget yourself, the best general of WW2 has Herr Field Marschall Rommel The Desert Fox!

El Alemain was not the Greatest battle that has to go to either Kursk for the sheer firepower involved, or the battle for Berlin one of the bloddiest of the war

But I agree on the Wellington point, simply due to the fact he had the balls to stand with the men and get shot at.

Its is however interesting how Austrias line gets more men CA's reasoning behind this is unclear if it is to balance their bad stats then surely russia must benefit from this first...

[Sharpe]

Mother Russia does not need accurate marksmen. Mother Russia needs only bayonets.

Aye, I usually go for the ol' one volley and charge tactic.