British Hussars

[♔ brucedickenson♔]

Just a short question, I never could understand why Britain could not recruit Hussars, and yet you received some for one of the playable battles?

[♔DoomBunny666♔]

Maybe to give Britain a weakness, they already have the best line, best light inf, and best navy in game...

But personally I think thats a stupid reason...

[TheAussieDigger]

Maybe to give Britain a weakness, they already have the best line, best light inf, and best navy in game...

But personally I think thats a stupid reason...

Best line is Prussia and best light inf is Austria

[♔DoomBunny666♔]

Best line is Prussia and best light inf is Austria

Ferguson Riflemen, I know Windbushce are good but they require a lot of micro management to stop wasting all their ammo...

And Prussia is debatable, British have more accuracy, Prussia mroe relaod, I like accurate marksmanship over ROF ammo is used more effieciently...

[TheAussieDigger]

Ferguson Riflemen, I know Windbushce are good but they require a lot of micro management to stop wasting all their ammo...

And Prussia is debatable, British have more accuracy, Prussia mroe relaod, I like accurate marksmanship over ROF ammo is used more effieciently...

the reason Windbusche run out of ammo is because they fire about every 10 seconds as opposed to every 15-20 like fergs
Prussia and Great Britain both have 40 acc in line infantry

Prussia have better reload and melee attack, Great Britain have better melee defence

[♔DoomBunny666♔]

the reason Windbusche run out of ammo is because they fire about every 10 seconds as opposed to every 15-20 like fergs
Prussia and Great Britain both have 40 acc in line infantry

Prussia have better reload and melee attack, Great Britain have better melee defence

Ah yes, I forget how heavily modified my Brits are, 130 reload skill Coldstreams ftw...

[=HighXplosive=]

Because historically Britain never trained Hussar units. The light cavalry role was filled by Dragoons. And the Hussars you mention in the battle are probably meant to represent allied reinforcements from one of the states Britain fought with who may have trained Hussars.

[clibinarium]

Britian did not as far as I know adopt Hussars until the Napoleonic period.

They did appear in the Brandywine scenario/demo, which would be 1777. Of the German contingents sent to America the only cavalry I can think of were the Brunswick Dragoons (who fought dismounted until their destruction at Bennington in 1777). My guess is that this unit is supposed to represent the Queen's Rangers Hussars, who were a small mounted troop, who seem to have numbered arround 30, attached to the Queen's Rangers as scouts. I'll have to check to see if they were present at Brandywine (I think they were). As scouts I am not sure that they ever fought as a formed unit in any battle. All other cavalry in the americas were styled dragoons, it was thought (probably correctly ) that heavier horse were unsuited to the American campaigns.
Here's a pic, obviously the green is different from the in game unit, but there's little else that fits the bill;

[Valkierei]

the british have fergs and cheap grenadiers with the expansion. but their units don't really pwn. its just really above average.

if you can play the game well you'll find that the generic british is very beatable. no wild tactics like forced melee and grenade with russia, or 1st volley kill all grenzers as austria, or sheer brute prussia or the swiss inf and bulkleys of the dutch and french.

or the mass platoon fire from american marines.

they're just really, average i guess, the british. =)

[l33tl4m3r]

the british have fergs and cheap grenadiers with the expansion. but their units don't really pwn. its just really above average.

if you can play the game well you'll find that the generic british is very beatable. no wild tactics like forced melee and grenade with russia, or 1st volley kill all grenzers as austria, or sheer brute prussia or the swiss inf and bulkleys of the dutch and french.

or the mass platoon fire from american marines.

they're just really, average i guess, the british. =)

Nice clear post, simple and direct, thanks! +rep

I agree with your views on the broad levels you've described.

I prefer to play Prussia.

Hussars should be available by region in some cases -- this gives a reason to take new regions should you want the unit and it acts like an expanded roster.

EDIT: I also think it should be this way for many other units as well.

[AUSSIE11]

according to wiki (please prove me wrong) the Saucy Seventh formed in 1690, the lillywhite eleventh in 1715 and the 3rd in 1685!!! so historically (and yet again this is wiki so tell me if im wrong) CA has no excuse any way

[emperorpenguin]

according to wiki (please prove me wrong) the Saucy Seventh formed in 1690, the lillywhite eleventh in 1715 and the 3rd in 1685!!! so historically (and yet again this is wiki so tell me if im wrong) CA has no excuse any way

You really should read those articles properly.....

Those regiments were formed as Regiments of Horse in those years but didn't become Hussars until 1806. Britain converted a number of Light Dragoon regiments at that time.

[Capt. Fozdike]

The British Military did not start recruiting and training Hussars until around the Napoleonic Era.
They had the Light Dragoons and so on to fill their cavalry positions

[Inhuman One]

The Dutch might also be a contender when it comes to a good line.

Their normal line infantry is average, but the recruitment of 4 scottish regiments and 6 swiss regiments quite early in the game does help them out a lot. The Swiss being better at range, and the scots being stronger in melee.
But their strenght lies in the Guard infantry. The Holland's Guard are the most accurate guards, and the Blue Guard is an improved version of that. Sure its just one unit, but it does mean they have 7 guard regiments with 55 accuracy.

[♔ brucedickenson♔]

Technically what IS a regiment of horse? Is it a bunch of standard hatmen mounted with sabres, filling a heavier role than Dragoons?

[clibinarium]

Good question. I usually think of "regiment of horse" as a British term reffering to everything in the Household troops, the Guard dragoons and the dragoons. Not sure if it includes the light dragoons and later the hussars. I tend to think of cavalry as three different types; heavy, medium and light, looking at their armament and function, because not all the designations mean the same thing to all nations.
Heavies are the armoured cavalry, cuirassiers who are supposed to descend from knights as protected armoured horsemen capable of delivering a decisive charge. Popular in the Prussian and Austrian service, less used by France and Britain.

Medium probably describes the majority of 18th century horsemen; unarmoured men, also capable of delivering a descisive charge, but in danger of being otherthown by the heavies in a head to head engagement (though this is certainly up for dispute; is it better to he armoured and heavier or unarmoured and more manoeuvreable?) Most types of dragoon.

Light would be hussars and other light horsemen, adept at skirmishing and screening armies, but able to take thier place in the line of battle (though usually on the flanks where they can manoeuvre)

When you look at it this way you can get past sometimes confusing designations. British light Dragoons are more like hussars in function, their dragoons are line of battle medium units. French Chevaulegers while litterally "light horse" are actually medium cavalry (it has something to do with an arcane comparison with knights being "heavy horse"), and within them the odd regiment like the Cuirassiers du Roi used the brestplate are better thought of as heavies.
Also it depends on the time. Early in the 18th Century the dragoons are more like a cross between light and medium horse; they skirmished and fought dismounted, whereas by the mid century his role had largely been assumed by the hussars of most nations.


This is just a general idea, and there are always exceptions, but looking at the role cavalry performed is tells you more than their sometimes misleading names.

[Valkierei]

there was no medium cavalry i think.

you either wore armor or you don't.

[N3rull]

there was no medium cavalry i think.

you either wore armor or you don't.

There is a significant difference between wearing a light leather shirt as your only armor (light cav), a full set of mail armor with a lance and sword+shield (medium cav) or being housed somewhere inside a plate box that covers every inch of the rider and most of the horse (heavy cav).

[♔DoomBunny666♔]

There is a significant difference between wearing a light leather shirt as your only armor (light cav), a full set of mail armor with a lance and sword+shield (medium cav) or being housed somewhere inside a plate box that covers every inch of the rider and most of the horse (heavy cav).

Maybe in medieval times...

[gary]

The game is not historical the british only started using Hussars from 1806, before then all our cavalry were dragoons.