Austerlitz to Borodino...where's Jena/Auerstadt???

Hi All,

This might be a minor issue to some, but it was a big disappointment for me when I saw this picture:

http://www.gry-online.pl/S055.asp?ID=180671

As you can see, the battle scenarios go directly from Austerlitz to Borodino. So, where's the battle of Jena/Auerstadt?

Jena/Auerstadt was one of Napoleon's most famous victories. It clashed the modern military marvel of France against that of the traditional great military power of Prussia. I just can't believe CA overlooked this.

Yes, I might also add that Wagram not being there is a loss. Nevertheless, we do have Austerlitz that makes up for it (in terms of France v. Austria).

Isn't this disappointing? Do you guys think that Jena/Auerstadt might be added post-release date (like they way they added Rossbach to ETW)...

You know something? I don't think Jena/Auerstadt "fits" CA's implementation.

Jena/Auerstadt was the validation of France's reforms vis a vis their tactical system vs. "line" infantry. From what I can see in the reviews, France is still going to have trouble beating good line infantry, and the game is still line-infantry centric.

Originally Posted by Randall Turner

You know something? I don't think Jena/Auerstadt "fits" CA's implementation.

Jena/Auerstadt was the validation of France's reforms vis a vis their tactical system vs. "line" infantry. From what I can see in the reviews, France is still going to have trouble beating good line infantry, and the game is still line-infantry centric.

I think you're right about the tactical system reason. However, I just hope that the ordre mixte/corps/column system is included in some shape or form in NTW.

These 'tactical' systems are, to me, what made Napoleon different than the century of warfare preceding him. It would be a shame to have Napoleon's Grande Armee just lining up, shooting, and bleeding the enemy to death.

Perhaps something like this: when you order the column formation, the unit gets morale boost or the enemy looses morale when it approaches the enemy's line formation. Many different military authors have discussed the importance of being able to see and be near to your fellow soldiers on a battlefield where so much destruction is going on. This was one of the challenges of the later era where individual fire squads were formed to scatter and shoot at the enemy (at the cost of command and control and morale---often).

IT'S A CONSPIRACY! CALL THE TINFOIL MANUFACTURERS, WE'RE GONNA NEED HATS!

Well, the central tactical difference in the Jena/Auerstadt campaign was the effectiveness of French light infantry moreso than their use of deep formations. They basically lined up and shot the Prussians to bits.

I think they did implement the column morale advantages, just not the marching speed bonuses.

Strategically, is there any march speed difference at all for Napoleon's corps system? I haven't heard anything in the reviews. Not very Napoleonic, is it?

Originally Posted by Erkli Pasha

Hi All,

This might be a minor issue to some, but it was a big disappointment for me when I saw this picture:

http://www.gry-online.pl/S055.asp?ID=180671

As you can see, the battle scenarios go directly from Austerlitz to Borodino. So, where's the battle of Jena/Auerstadt?

Jena/Auerstadt was one of Napoleon's most famous victories. It clashed the modern military marvel of France against that of the traditional great military power of Prussia. I just can't believe CA overlooked this.

Yes, I might also add that Wagram not being there is a loss. Nevertheless, we do have Austerlitz that makes up for it (in terms of France v. Austria).

Isn't this disappointing? Do you guys think that Jena/Auerstadt might be added post-release date (like they way they added Rossbach to ETW)...

There was quite a few battles between Austerlitz (1805) and Borodino (1812) like Jena and Auerstadt but also Eylau (1806), Friedland (1807), Aspern Essling and Wagram (1809) plus a number of smaller ones in Spain. Additionally Jena/Auerstadt is not one but two distinct battles that happened on the same day on different battlefields so they would have to pick one or the other.

As you can see from my avatar, I am very much interested in Auerstadt but it seems that CA decided to represent a very small amount of historical battles. Members of this forum could deliberate till the next millenium before a concensus is found on which battles are the most important, not only in terms of historical importance but also gameplay.

Speaking for myself I would love battles with multi-nations, as such I would go with...
Leipzig, Dresden, Waterloo and Austerlitz

They're probably off in the same place as Suvorov and the Russian forces in Italy. And the Russian Mediterranean fleet. I imagine they're having tea.

Originally Posted by Swerg

They're probably off in the same place as Suvorov and the Russian forces in Italy. And the Russian Mediterranean fleet. I imagine they're having tea.

Heh, nice one!

I agree that you need to be selective a bit with regard to which battles to choose. However, I guess personally I would have loved to see one of the most epic struggles of the Napoleonic era: Jena/Auerstadt.

I mean, if Arcole made it in, I think the addition of this battle (and Leipzig too I guess) shouldn't have been too difficult to put in.

Btw, where can I find the source that talks about the new implementation of the column/corps formations in NTW? I'm sincerely hoping that these at least are done correctly.

Originally Posted by Erkli Pasha

Btw, where can I find the source that talks about the new implementation of the column/corps formations in NTW? I'm sincerely hoping that these at least are done correctly.

The most informative review on that was, I believe, Nuccio's over on the official forum. Quite long, and the info I believe was in the followup q&a posts. Upshot, though, is that there is a tactical modifier to morale when in column.

No corps formation modeling at all, as far as I know. Someone else might know more, I am of course just going off review posts.

Edit: @Davout - I always consider the "big 3" to be Austerlitz, Jena/Auerstadt, and Borodino. National battles vs. Austria/(russia), Prussia and Russia, respectively. Agree Jena and Auerstadt need a micro-campaign or some such.

They prolly saved some battles for DLC, don't you think?

Where Marengo! One of Napoleons greatest victories alongside Austerlitz! And Aspern Essling would have been an epic map!

Napoleon claimed to have fought 40 major battles in his lifetime, with more that took place without him, many of which were epic. We're going to have to be used to CA not adding all of them into the initial release. I'm sure some will be added later as DLC/expansion and the rest might be left to the modders.

That's all true, there were probably dozens larger than Waterloo, our usual Western litmus.

I have the usual ulterior motive for wanting to see Jena/Auerstadt. (Yes, broken record time, sorry.) It illustrated the effectiveness of the reforms initiated at Vaisseux by deBroglie and company. It should be impossible for the French to win at either Jena or Auerstadt without a simulation that fairly accurately portrays the tactical reforms of the Grande Armee. In other words, if we had a chance of recreating history, NTW would be Napoleonic. Linear Frederickian tactics would be exposed, and in the most dramatic instance by a French commander not named Napoleon - ie, it's the Grande Armee tactical system, not just the genious of one man.

Let's be honest fellas, we who 1) read a ton of history and 2) play alot of TW games, are no strangers to factors in real life military that won't translate well into the TW engine.

In the case of Napoleon, one of his advantages was his use of the Corps system. The advantages of this system were most noticeable when commanding large armies. What's the big deal with large armies? Well, Napoleonic armies were, numerically, a league above most armies of the 18th century, especially with the levee en masse. When armies that used to be in the tens of thousands were now typically well over 100,000, a system that utilized the Corps (typically 20,000+ men), would be far more wieldy than ones that didn't (ie one army of 20 divisions VS Napoleon's army of 5 corps, each led by one of his superbly capable marshals).

How might something like that translate into the game? Theoretically we might give the French a different way of grouping their units. However, this would be imbalanced and, in any case, unfair because later on the Allies picked up on this and other concepts and the advantage gap significantly closed.

Originally Posted by Stellerex

Let's be honest fellas, we who 1) read a ton of history and 2) play alot of TW games, are no strangers to factors in real life military that won't translate well into the TW engine.

In the case of Napoleon, one of his advantages was his use of the Corps system. The advantages of this system were most noticeable when commanding large armies. What's the big deal with large armies? Well, Napoleonic armies were, numerically, a league above most armies of the 18th century, especially with the levee en masse. When armies that used to be in the tens of thousands were now typically well over 100,000, a system that utilized the Corps (typically 20,000+ men), would be far more wieldy than ones that didn't (ie one army of 20 divisions VS Napoleon's army of 5 corps, each led by one of his superbly capable marshals).

How might something like that translate into the game? Theoretically we might give the French a different way of grouping their units. However, this would be imbalanced and, in any case, unfair because later on the Allies picked up on this and other concepts and the advantage gap significantly closed.

I agree and yes there are a lot of missing battles, but i never expected them to put in all battles

what theyve done is include 2 battles form each of the smaller campaigns (Nile and Pyramids, Arcole and something else in Italy)
then theyve done 6 in europe (Trafalgar, Waterloo, Ligny, Dresden, Austerlitz and Borodino)
id say they had restricted themselves to 10 and though those 6 were more important than Jena/Auerstadt.
You also remember that Jena/Auerstadt was more about strategic genius as opposed to tactical genius taking nothing away from Ney's performance. CA have to choose whats best tactically.

I'd like to see Valmy too, even if Napoleon himself wasn't involved...

Originally Posted by TheAussieDigger

You also remember that Jena/Auerstadt was more about strategic genius as opposed to tactical genius taking nothing away from Ney's performance. CA have to choose whats best tactically.

That you think Jena/Auerstadt was a strategic vs. tactical (ala Ulm, I assume) victory is exactly why the battle(s) should be included. It was a vindication of the reforms undertaken by the French army after the embarrassing defeats of the Seven Years' War. This isn't well documented in British histories.

The heavily outnumbered French attacked the Prussians frontally at Jena, and won due to superior small-unit tactics and firepower. The even more heavily outnumbered French at Auerstadt defeated a force over twice as large as theirs using the entire Napoleonic spectrum of defense and advance in squares, column & line maneuver, and agressive tirailleur attacks.

Ney was the goat of Jena, Lannes was the hero.