So what would make NTW more historically accurate?

[spanish_emperor]

What would make NTW more historically accurate?

Discuss and give me ideas.

[Rhetor]

What would make NTW more historically accurate?

Discuss and give me ideas.

Just a few:

1. Removing stakes and grenades.
2. Adding skirmish formation to all decent line infantry and all elite infantry units.
3. Removing steam ships, ironclads and other anachronisms (are there machine guns in NTW too?)
4. Adding square formation to light infantry units.

[emperorpenguin]

.
2. Adding skirmish formation to all decent line infantry and all elite infantry units..

No not to all line, just the light-trained line, such as French legere and British lights.


An attack column formation button.
A difference in 2 and 3 rank fire.

[Rhetor]

No not to all line, just the light-trained line, such as French legere and British lights.

Why? The name does not determine tactics employed. French revolutionary infantry regiments fought in skirmish formation pretty often, so the line regiments in 1806/07 or Polish regiments (Grand Duchy of Warsaw did not have specialized light regiments) later on.

In fact fighting in open order requires less training than maneuvering in column or line. The problem was not in training, but in morale/motivation of individual soldiers.

[emperorpenguin]

The majority of line regiments were not trained to act as light infantry, it was harder than acting in unison as a line and required independent thinking. Something most soldiers were not encouraged to do. Sorry but I guess I disagree with you on that one.

[Rhetor]

The majority of line regiments were not trained to act as light infantry, it was harder than acting in unison as a line and required independent thinking. Something most soldiers were not encouraged to do. Sorry but I guess I disagree with you on that one.

"Although in the French Army (...) some elements might be trained specifically for skirmish duties, all were capable of performing this service, so that not just specialist companies, but whole battalions, even whole brigades, might be thrown forward as skirmishers"

Philip Haythornthwaite, "Napoleonic Infantry", p. 76.

Try also George Nafziger's "Imperial Bayonets", pp. 131-132.

[Kolyan]

"Although in the French Army (...) some elements might be trained specifically for skirmish duties, all were capable of performing this service, so that not just specialist companies, but whole battalions, even whole brigades, might be thrown forward as skirmishers"

Philip Haythornthwaite, "Napoleonic Infantry", p. 76.

Try also George Nafziger's "Imperial Bayonets", pp. 131-132.

+1 Rep.

[Randall Turner]

Not the British, though. Only the French, and the SPI games usually allow units like the British Foot Gurads to go skirmish if they need to.

Actually, the French need a hand, from what I've garnered in the campaign game so far. Might not be a bad idea to allow some of their line units to skirmish, though probably shouldn't be all. I'm also partial to increasing cavalry effectiveness and giving the French their historical Cavalry tactical advantages. (and nuke the stakes, I just don't get that, wtf is it with CA and their stake fetish?)

[Rhetor]

Not the British, though. Only the French, and the SPI games usually allow units like the British Foot Gurads to go skirmish if they need to.

Actually, the French need a hand, from what I've garnered in the campaign game so far. Might not be a bad idea to allow some of their line units to skirmish, though probably shouldn't be all. I'm also partial to increasing cavalry effectiveness and giving the French their historical Cavalry tactical advantages. (and nuke the stakes, I just don't get that, wtf is it with CA and their stake fetish?)

Perhaps it would be possible to create two types of French line infantry - one skirmish-capable, more expensive to recruit and to upkeep (and requiring more turns to recruit), and one regular, cheaper kind? When hard-pressed, French player might be tempted to fill his ranks with raw recruits - as was historically the case.

Another idea (if possible) - add only skirmish formation, but not skirmish tactics. That means line troops could deploy in loose order, but, unlike specialized light troops, they won't be able to automatically keep their distance to the enemy.

Infantry trained according to French regulations (Italian, Polish) should also be able to deploy in skirmish line.

[emperorpenguin]

"Although in the French Army (...) some elements might be trained specifically for skirmish duties, all were capable of performing this service, so that not just specialist companies, but whole battalions, even whole brigades, might be thrown forward as skirmishers"

Philip Haythornthwaite, "Napoleonic Infantry", p. 76.

Try also George Nafziger's "Imperial Bayonets", pp. 131-132.

It's page 75 of Haythornthwaite's book, I have it Note he is referring to "specialist companies" meaning the light/voltiguers. Then says entire battalions could skirmish. France had a large number of Legere battalions. They fielded entire brigades and divisions of them. Certainly as casualties mounted the French army deployed fewer and fewer mass skirmishers. At waterloo the Legere brigades fought as line for instance.
But back to my original point most line, meaning all nations, could not operate as skirmishers. You could perhaps as you say allow France a "superior" and "inferior" skirmish option as you suggest, but it should not be applicable to all line of all nations.

Not the British, though. Only the French, and the SPI games usually allow units like the British Foot Gurads to go skirmish if they need to.

Actually, the French need a hand, from what I've garnered in the campaign game so far. Might not be a bad idea to allow some of their line units to skirmish, though probably shouldn't be all. I'm also partial to increasing cavalry effectiveness and giving the French their historical Cavalry tactical advantages. (and nuke the stakes, I just don't get that, wtf is it with CA and their stake fetish?)

Agreed. Again the "Napoleonic Army Handbook: French Army and Her Allies" mentions that "many French Line Infantry units were theoretically capable of breaking out into skirmish order" pg129.

Agree with you both on the stakes btw!

[The Gallant Forty-Twa]

Allow there to be more than just 120 Black Watch soldiers in a regiment. (This also applies to other unique units too, who I'm sure also had more than that amount)

[Rhetor]

It's page 75 of Haythornthwaite's book, I have it Note he is referring to "specialist companies" meaning the light/voltiguers. Then says entire battalions could skirmish. France had a large number of Legere battalions. They fielded entire brigades and divisions of them.

Certainly Haythornthwaite is not talking about Legere regiments when he writes "entire battalions". Marian Kukiel writes that in 1812 the difference between Line and Light regiments was mainly that of name and uniform, not of tactis employed. And again, Grand Duchy of Warsaw from the very beginning had only "infantry regiments", and these regiments often deployed entire battalions as skirmishers. The same applies to Vistula Legion (Recruited in Poland, but not a part of Grand Duchy's army)

Certainly as casualties mounted the French army deployed fewer and fewer mass skirmishers. At waterloo the Legere brigades fought as line for instance.

But back to my original point most line, meaning all nations, could not operate as skirmishers. You could perhaps as you say allow France a "superior" and "inferior" skirmish option as you suggest, but it should not be applicable to all line of all nations.

Agreed, even though I would not be so sure about eg. the Prussian volunteer units of 1813. We both agree that loose formation was not a matter of specific training, but motivation and morale of individual soldier.

And the stakes have to go ASAP

[emperorpenguin]

Allow there to be more than just 120 Black Watch soldiers in a regiment. (This also applies to other unique units too, who I'm sure also had more than that amount)

That is a scale issue. All battalions in the game SHOULD be more than 120 men, about 600 was the typical number on campaign.
So you'd need to increase every infantry unit by a factor of 5, likewise the cavalry. You'd have a very crowded battlefield!

[Jihada]

We've had this infanterie legere argument in ETW forums. The French light infantry regiments were not capable, in later years at least,of breaking down into skirmishers, Except the light company as in line regiments. They were no different except for uniform from ordinary line.Plenty of sources for this in French and English.First sentence here....

http://uniform1812.ifrance.com/ligne...m?4&weborama=5

I agree with Randall however that the French need beefing up a bit They havn't managed to defeat Austria yet by 1808 in my GB campaign.Austria just captured Provence but the French got it back.

[Rhetor]

We've had this infanterie legere argument in ETW forums. The French light infantry regiments were not capable, in later years at least,of breaking down into skirmishers, Except the light company as in line regiments. They were no different except for uniform from ordinary line.

This also proves that line infantry could break up into skirmishers when the Napoleonic infantry was still well-trained and motivated, and that with the decline in quality and 'moral fibre' the light regiments have lost this ability along with the line infantry.

Campaigns of the Revolution, of the Consulate and early campaigns of the Empire would be certainly characterized by the tactical excellence of the French infantry. That means - universal ability to deploy in skirmish chain. One might discuss whether French infantry has lost it in 1807, 1809 or 1812.

[vadik_1st]

at leest one ore two uniq units for each faction even emergent.

[Randall Turner]

This also proves that line infantry could break up into skirmishers when the Napoleonic infantry was still well-trained and motivated, and that with the decline in quality and 'moral fibre' the light regiments have lost this ability along with the line infantry.

Campaigns of the Revolution, of the Consulate and early campaigns of the Empire would be certainly characterized by the tactical excellence of the French infantry. That means - universal ability to deploy in skirmish chain. One might discuss whether French infantry has lost it in 1807, 1809 or 1812.

Rhetor, it "proves" nothing of the sort. Jihada is wrong, the French never lost the capability, and the statement that French line and light lost their distinction refers to the fact that both were used as general skirmishers in the French army. And we've had this discussion before, provided the same quotes before, and by this point reached the conclusion that you should disregard everything Jihada says on the topic.

Dupuy writes: "The important point about the French skrimishing action during this period was that it was performed not by the special light troops but by integral parts of the regular bodies. Infantry became more flexible and to some observers it appeared as if specialized light troops would soon be eliminated by one all-purpose infantry."

Oman specifically states the same thing Jihada does, that the French didn't deploy entire units in the Imperial period. Oman is also mistaken about this point. He writes:

"I do not remember any case in the Peninsular battles where whole battalions were broken up into skirmishers...Nor do I think that it occurred often, if ever, in any of the imperial battles".[25]

Arnold, in his excellent paper on Napoleonic tactics, goes out of his way to call Oman on this as an example of Oman's lack of understanding of Napoleonic warfare. He replies: http://www.napoleon-series.org/milit.../c_maida1.html
"In the Peninsula at the Battle of Busaco a French participant recounts how an entire brigade in Ney's Corps dispersed into skirmish order as they fought along the ridge slopes.[26] Following the Battle of Salamanca, the French under General Souham engaged in heavy skirmishing with Wellington. At the forefront of the action was Colonel Béchaud who provides a detailed account: "the two left flank companies fired upon the advancing enemy columns...the remainder of the 15th dispersed into skirmish order...after twenty five minutes...the enemy turned our left...and our cloud of skirmishers were forced to retreat".[27] The 15th then reformed into two deep line and opened fire. Later in the day the eight companies of the 15th and 66th again broke into skirmish order.

Similarly, many French units fought in imperial battles while in skirmish order. In 1806, the report of the 16th Légère at Jena describes how, "the third battalion advanced into the woods in skirmish order".[28] Throughout the Ratisbon phase of the 1809 campaign, the French made extensive use of massed skirmisher tactics.[29] Even in 1813 the French were capable of deploying entire units in skirmish order. The Russian general Langeron recounts how the French left at Lutzen launched its counterattack in skirmish order.[30] During the retreat from Leipzig, when the French encountered the Austro-Bavarian army at Hanau, MacDonald placed two battalions of Old Guard Chasseurs in skirmish order, supported them with Old Guard Grenadiers, and attacked.[31]

In and of themselves these examples are not of surpassing historical importance. Skirmish order was merely one available formation that French commanders could select from the tactical tool box. However, the fact that the French were routinely capable of deploying entire units into skirmish order challenges Oman's expertise in French small unit tactics."

I can just keep on going. Elting and Griffiths say much the same thing. Barbero states d'Erlon's corps fought the second half of Waterloo "en tirailleur". Etc, etc. The fact is that Jihada does not want the French troops to have a capability that the British do not. And by this time he should know better. And frankly I'm tired of following around behind him correcting disinformation on the topic.

[Swerg]

I'd like to see stats rebalanced. Y'know, so the British aren't the best faction in the game, whose ability to thrash France on turn 3 isn't only mitigated by the English Channel, which, by my knowledge, was what prevented the French from taking London, not the British from taking Paris.

[Rhetor]

Rhetor, it "proves" nothing of the sort. Jihada is wrong, the French never lost the capability, and the statement that French line and light lost their distinction refers to the fact that both were used as general skirmishers in the French army.

Thank you for a very informative post. +rep

[Jihada]

Well all I can say is that the quotes I can provide are from French sources not English,as above, which negates any anti French bias. The terms 'en tirailleur' or 'en debandade' do not really mean recognised skirmish order but more a wider spacing of a unit front. Even elite light units such as the Light Division didn't break down into full skirmish order for the whole unit ,Obviously in broken terrain or built up areas a looser formation had to be used ,house to house fighting at Fuentes de Onoro for example. The reason often given for the inability of the French light infantry to use skitmish order was the lack in later years (not 1806 Randall) of enough skilled marksmen to fit the role.
But we must agree to disagree on this. French musket training of ordinary recruits was notoriously short or non existant, while the British had specialised training camps ,for the Rifles and others at Shorncliff and even ordinary line infantry had adequate training.
As far as NTW is concerned I can see the French need a bit more help as they are nowhere near attaining their historical expansion in my game.

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

Oman has been shown to be wrong on various points but Hofschroer et al, the modern gurus of the Napoleonic wars, quote fron anti British late 19th cen German and other writers, knowing the average English speaker won't check their sources.I think we just disagree and I can't be bothered quoting Chandler,Rothenburg or a host of other writers.

I 'm not referring to early period French LI by the way but later units. I can find many English references but Randall would accuse me of pro British bias.
http://www.1789-1815.com/W_infant_lg.htm

Les carabiniers étaient à l'infanterie légère ce que les grenadiers étaient à l'infanterie de ligne. Et comme il n'y avait plus vraiment de différence effective entre ces deux types d'infanterie, les carabiniers, qui n'étaient plus armés de la carabine, mais du fusil d'infanterie du modèle général (de 1777) peuvent être définis comme étant les soldats de compagnie d'élite de taille élevée, comme les voltigeurs l'étaient de celle de petite taille

'...as there was no effective difference between these two types pf infantry....'

Anyway I'm sure there are always exceptions and who really knows exactly what formations were used in any particular circumstance.I hope I make clear I refer to later light infanterie,post 1812 when France had lost many of the earlier skilled tirailleurs.
Sorry if this is a bit confused. English is not my first language.