Line Infantry (compare)

**mesor** · March 30, 2011, 01:18 PM

If you'd like to look at the history of the british military especially in this period u come across 1 inescapable fact.

In every battle the british fought they either won the battle or if they lost the caused so many casulties amongst the enemy that they couldnt continue the advance anyway.

The british army was in that period arguably the most professional infantry fighting force on the planet.
They were better trained had better discipline reloaded faster and had greater accuracy.

All due credit to the french they did very well for a long time but in the end there war ended due to 1 thing.

They were completely incapable of breaking the morale of british forces durin battle.
They discovered as nearly all other enemies did the only way they were going to take ground from the british was kill them where they stood british army's were always 80% or more dead before they would break and run anything below that and they would stand there ground and make there enemy pay an extremely high price to take the ground from them.

Also as people have mentioned the colonial war ive got 1 little fact to add to it

.

Outnumbered by miles with no reinforcements and limited supply's the colonial army's losses were far higher then british losses were by the time they finally won they'd lost around 20-30x as many men as the british.

So hardly a glorious victory for the colonial army they effectively won by burying the british forces under there own dead and even then if the french hadnt helped them its unlikely they would of won in the end.

Other nations did have effective professional army's but in terms of line infatry the british were by far the most feared by any other nation.

A single british line infatry solider was a match for 3 of most other nations line soldiers.

And that continues upto this day on average the british military is definatly a strong contender for having the best soldiers in the world man to man against any other nation theres maybe 3 other nations on the planet who can match them man to man and since one of them is australia its only really 2 since a large ammount of australians are decended from british to begin with and the australian military's training methods is based on the british.

Sorry for pore spelling.

**coman** · March 11, 2009, 10:11 AM

Montgomery was a flatulent moron.

**upsettingshorts** · March 11, 2009, 11:13 AM

Also here is the American line infantry in the 4th Chapter of RTI:
Men: 120
Range: 70
Accuracy: 45
Reload Skill: 25
Ammo: 10
Melee: 8
Charge Bonus: 5
Defense: 13
Morale: 9
Upkeep: 280

They're the same as Sweden.

**InfUA** · March 11, 2009, 11:18 AM

Since in 18 century infantry was trained not aim but shoot fast, (maybe you saw in film that some soldiers watch away if shooting) is there no way to be the fastest but also one with the most accuracy.

**coman** · March 11, 2009, 11:46 AM

The two greatest Western style Armies at the time were France and England.

The French were vicious in their charges and quite capable foot soldiers. The English were known for their order, stoicism and ability to stay united and fighting long past where most national infantry collapse.

The stats show this and accommodate for the flavor of the period. I like it.

**paw** · March 11, 2009, 11:46 AM

why is austria's infrantry the weakest of the lot and have the biggest number ??
are they really the weakest?
i thought hungarian infrantry were said to have good morale and is full of spirit

**coman** · March 11, 2009, 11:59 AM

Individual spirit and praise for success are wonderful and fine. I'm comparing institutional success and focus. England and France held long standing, highly trained line infantry regiments. Especially England.

Other countries had great generals, good success, but not the same organizational and cultural focus on line units.

**Nack** · March 11, 2009, 12:34 PM

CA needs to stop sucking britain's penis. Sure, they are british themselves, but damn.

Also, I like the charge bouns russian troops get.

**coman** · March 11, 2009, 12:46 PM

Originally Posted by Maximus Tiberius

CA needs to stop sucking britain's penis.

It's hard to not want to fellate Great Britain. They were just that good.

**blank** · March 11, 2009, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by coman

It's hard to not want to fellate Great Britain. They were just that good.

:hmmm:

Um. No. Do not want.

**Praetorian_Mossop** · March 11, 2009, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by blank

:hmmm:

Um. No. Do not want.

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

**blank** · March 11, 2009, 04:44 PM

Originally Posted by Praetorian_Mossop

As a brit I formally apologise for industrialising the world.

Apology accepted.

**~~sabaku_no_gaara~~** · March 14, 2009, 04:47 PM

Originally Posted by Praetorian_Mossop

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

**british_general** · March 17, 2010, 10:23 PM

Originally Posted by Praetorian_Mossop

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

You are right. Sometimes I remember the fact that If there were as many Germans, Japanese and Italians in the world as French, British, Commonwealth-ish, American, Russian, Polish and every other allied country in the world, we would ALL be speaking German(But for my case, I am Singaporean, so I'll be speaking Japanese.Bleurgh.)

And as for your second paragraph your'e right. They just wanted to go with the flow with history(which I think sucks) but look on the brighter side! If you are good enough at the game, you can win the campaigns other than the British!!! But remember, there is an expansion pack of E:TW which is about Native Americans. And when you think about CA literally sucking the Native American's dick, that sound a tad lot worse than the previous two

**Nack** · March 11, 2009, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by coman

It's hard to not want to fellate Great Britain. They were just that good.

Nah. The british think too highly of themselves.

**Praetorian_Mossop** · March 11, 2009, 06:26 PM

Originally Posted by Maximus Tiberius

Nah. The british think too highly of themselves.

Its called patriotism, the americans also think too highly of themselves

**HellFell** · March 11, 2009, 06:31 PM

Originally Posted by Praetorian_Mossop

Its called patriotism, the americans also think too highly of themselves

When it goes for Russians, you guys call it nationalism

seems that only the Brits deserve to have the best infantry and the right to be patriotic.

I like that Russkies get their charge bonus. Urrrraaaaa!

**eatme** · March 11, 2009, 12:43 PM

To be expected that British infantry is pumped up

**JaM** · March 11, 2009, 01:24 PM

If I was responsible for unit stats, line infantry of 18.century would definitly had lower accuracy (30 max), more ammo (at elast 20-25 rounds) and 2x higher reload speed...