Grande Armée and balancing.

[Brain_in_a_vat]

I'm worried. During the Napoleonic period, La Grande Armée was the best there was. They had a perfect balance of elite infantry (Imperial Guard grenadiers) heavy cavalry, (Curassier), light cavalry (Hussard, Dragoon, Lancers etc), light infantry and superb artillery. Will CA make the game so historically accurate as to make the French unmatched in it's military might and therefore unbalance the game? Or will they carry on as they have and make the French army a generic, typical European horde portrayed in Empire?

Same goes to the British. We all know the British didn't possess the greatest army by any standards, will CA make it this way in N:TW?

[Dynamo11]

CA has to be balanced fairly, however they have already announced that the same unit for different factions possess different stats.

[Ter]

They did it to some extent in Empire, so I'd say yes.

[Darsh]

I'm worried. During the Napoleonic period, La Grande Armée was the best there was.

[A1_Unit]

I think the unit rosters will have plenty of varity.

[Brain_in_a_vat]

Never mind, sorry.

[CK23]

To some extent I personally think that, since the Grande Armee was the best of the time, they should have an edge over all other factions, not a huge edge but a somewhat noticeable one.

[johncage]

if you have lower expectations, you'd enjoy the game more when it comes out.

something i learned from my experience with the etw fiasco.

[Society]

Uhr, while the Grand Armee was impressive in size and had some very capable units, it wasn't the units that made them strong, it was their leadership. Officers and Generals were in their stations due to ability, not heritage, which was almost unheard of in most nations militaries (partial exceptions for Prussia, which was semi class based, semi merit based)...

France didn't outfight its opponents, it out-thought them. It won by advances in tactics more than anything.

GB and Prussia still had superior infantry to france, for example... But their military leadership was flagging badly.

[René Artois]

I don't think they sould unbalance the game, because i assume that they will want to portray Napoleon as clever i.e. they won because of his tactics, not just because of good units

EDIT: hehe already said, thank you society

[CK23]

Then that should mean that the French Generals should get some sort of bonus against opponents maybe? Again nothing major but something to represent their ability.

[Deathofjams]

Remember, the French army wasn't always the best. Early in Napoleon's career, during the Italian campaign, for example, the soldiers were numerous and enthusiastic, but not brilliantly trained. Later on, the units fighting in certain theatres (the Peninsula, for example), were of a lower quality, and Napoleon's armies after 1812 increasingly declined in standard over time. The same goes for other armies; whilst in the 1790s and 1800s the French artillery was undoubtedly the best, by 1812 the Russian artillery was considered by some to be even better. The Austrian heavy cavalry, too, were very highly rated and might have outclassed that of the French (although as heavy cavalry were becoming increasingly defunct this didn't really mean much), and British riflemen outclassed some Napoleonic light infantry, who usually had smoothbores. And I know it's always dangerous to compliment the British on these boards, but they did stand firm in the face of the Imperial Guard at Waterloo, and drove them off. In a similar vein, Russian troops were complimented for the stubborness and steadfast bravery in the face of the enemy (part of the reason Borodino was so bloody).

As such, there's enough wiggle room to have the French armies not necessarily being automatically better in every respect.

[Randall Turner]

I think the game will be a tougher challenge than some of you might appreciate. The French are outnumbered significantly. One misstep and Napoleon's Imperial career will come to an abrupt halt.

In the War of the Third Coalition (1805, Austerlitz) vs. the British, Austrians and Russians: the French managed to defeat the Austrians and Russians in a series of engagements that kept them from completely merging their armies, and ended the war quickly before Prussia could intervene. If Austria and Russia had been able to join forces before the onset of hostilities the French probably would have been defeated, and likewise if the Prussians had entered the war before Austerlitz. The British forced the French to keep a sizeable army in northwest Europe.

In the War of the Fourth Coalition (1806-07, Jena-Auerstadt) vs. the British, Prussia, Russia, Sweden and Saxony: Prussia made the ill-advised move of unilaterally opening hostilities, and once again the Russians were caught in-transit. Napoleon defeated the 250,000 man Prussian army with 160,000 French troops, then pushed a similarly sized but dispersed Russian army out of Eastern Europe and forced a peace. Again, if the Russians and Prussians had joined forces before hostilities, the French would have almost certainly been defeated.

I think the French will need every advantage they have. Against a human opponent in the campaign game, I'd bet heavily on the Allies. Against the AI, well, I'd expect winning as either side will be interesting but not that difficult.

[Brain_in_a_vat]

Remember, the French army wasn't always the best. Early in Napoleon's career, during the Italian campaign, for example, the soldiers were numerous and enthusiastic, but not brilliantly trained. Later on, the units fighting in certain theatres (the Peninsula, for example), were of a lower quality, and Napoleon's armies after 1812 increasingly declined in standard over time. The same goes for other armies; whilst in the 1790s and 1800s the French artillery was undoubtedly the best, by 1812 the Russian artillery was considered by some to be even better. The Austrian heavy cavalry, too, were very highly rated and might have outclassed that of the French (although as heavy cavalry were becoming increasingly defunct this didn't really mean much), and British riflemen outclassed some Napoleonic light infantry, who usually had smoothbores. And I know it's always dangerous to compliment the British on these boards, but they did stand firm in the face of the Imperial Guard at Waterloo, and drove them off. In a similar vein, Russian troops were complimented for the stubborness and steadfast bravery in the face of the enemy (part of the reason Borodino was so bloody).

As such, there's enough wiggle room to have the French armies not necessarily being automatically better in every respect.

Indeed it is dangerous to compliment the British! Perhaps certain departments of certain European nations such as Austrian cavalry, Prussian line infantry and British riflemen should be significantly superior to those of La Grande Armée, while the French shall maybe be the jack of all trades, master of none. I know it's not entirely accurate, but at least people won't be able to criticise CA more than they would normally.

[VVILHELM DUX]

I'm worried. During the Napoleonic period, La Grande Armée was the best there was. They had a perfect balance of elite infantry (Imperial Guard grenadiers) heavy cavalry, (Curassier), light cavalry (Hussard, Dragoon, Lancers etc), light infantry and superb artillery. Will CA make the game so historically accurate as to make the French unmatched in it's military might and therefore unbalance the game? Or will they carry on as they have and make the French army a generic, typical European horde portrayed in Empire?

Same goes to the British. We all know the British didn't possess the greatest army by any standards, will CA make it this way in N:TW?

Tell that to the Russians. Raw Forse isnt everything.

[Lord Zimoa]

and British riflemen outclassed some Napoleonic light infantry, who usually had smoothbores

Oh please, the "Sharpe Syndrome" again. The epitome of light infantry tactics and mass use of skirmishers was one of the most typical French innovations. Yes, the the two 60th and 95th Baker rifled regiments where something special. But do not compare that with what the French Army did with whole divisions.

The Baker rifle has an advantage in accuracy and range, but it is a very vulnerable weapon, if it was not maintained and handed properly. There is a reason why not all British light infantry where handed one, a good weapon in the right hands. A smoothbore Charlesville`s armed Voltigeur or Tirailleur was certainly a match, a higher rate of fire and a very robust and easy to maintain weapon and they where very well trained in light infantry tactics.

And the French had a multiple of light infantry especially between 1805-1809, the Grande Armee had no real match.

Like always in later year things changed, as Napoleon stated, do not battle the same enemy too much as he will learn your tricks. The allies learned, but only after some devastating defeats in the early years.

For those interested in the Grande Armée, get J.R. Elting`s Swords Around a Throne: Napoleon's Grande Armée. A joy to read.

Cheers,

Tim aka LZ

[Brain_in_a_vat]

Actually I've never watched Sharpe, although I hear it is quite good. I made that assumption because of the superior equipment, and also, if you'd have bothered to read my post carefully, I suggested the most powerful aspects of European armies (the riflemen of the British were more comparable to those Prussia, France, British cavalry on the other hand was mediocre) should be slightly exaggerated in order to balance out the game. I think you've got a more severe case of British-army-sucksitus than I have of Sharpe syndrome.

[Lord Zimoa]

Not at all, just pointing out I do not agree on the importance of the British Rifles on the grand scale of the Napoleonic Wars, besides that they were unique, good and rare. But not in the light in comparing them to French Light Infantry achievements and tactics.

One of the best books about it I think is Brent Nosworthy`s: Battle Tactics of Napoleon and his Enemies. I recommend it.

I suggested the most powerful aspects of European armies (the riflemen of the British were more comparable to those Prussia, France, British cavalry on the other hand was mediocre) should be slightly exaggerated in order to balance out the game.

Totally agree, to make a fun game, they should.

Cheers,

Tim aka LZ

[Bose]

GB and Prussia still had superior infantry to france, for example... But their military leadership was flagging badly.

any sharpe novel will prove that.

[Jihada]

The Napoleonic Wars had various stages and the French started with the best organisation,strategy and battlefield tactics,In the 1790s the British in Holland .Prussia and Austria,were poorly led and did not do as well as later.In later years the allies gradually caught up with the French and through various reforms could match them in battle.The French certainly had some excellent generals apart from Napoleon,Davout,Soult,Ney,Lannes etc.To suggest the British had poor generals is not correct.Wellington was the equal of Napoleon,Beresford,Picton,Crauford etc were all capable generals.The others ,Prussia,Austria,Russia all learnt their lessons and after the Grand Armee disaster in Russia Napoleon was doomed,although it took a few more years to finish him off.The French attempts to hold on to Germany and save France in 1813-1814 cost France thousands of lives and achieved nothing.