Austrian Army Regimental Names

[exNowy]

You clearly aren’t prepared to accept this logic, despite the evidence so I’m flogging a dead horse trying to explain it again.

I do agree, your horse is dead, then try get another one.
You also should remeber that flogging is not the best method to undestand the problems.

You accuse me of nit understanding the ethnic diversity of the Austrian Empire and then do exactly that yourself in misrepresenting the ethnic diversity of the British Empire.
The Irish of this period did not usually speak English, and nor did the Scots or the Welsh.

You really do not undestand the matter.

Do you have any evidence how many Scots, Irish or Welsh in British Army did not speak or did not undestand English at that period? You have not I suppose. I also have not real figures in that matter, therefore I simply generalized in this case, because I was certain that you get in this trap.

Think better, even all this Scots, Irish or Welsh in British Army did not understand English, what is obviously untrue, but I take this example to show you where is truth, they did not spark such big ethnic problems as other nations did in Austrian Army.

These cases clearly shows how you do not understand disputed problems and that's why you can not accept existing ethnic problems in Austrian Army however that were real historical facts mentioned by the most historians.

Bear in mind that Austrian had much more their "Scots, Irish or Welsh" and simple language diversity is not only the matter here. The real matter is in other place, you can find this in national attitude and scale of these ethnic problems.

I cast different languages case to show you where you can find these problems, but it looks that you still do not get a clue. Ethnic problems, including languages differences could do and really did troubles in many armies in the world.

And that’s without considering those regiments recruited specifically from foreign nationals such as French, German, Portuguese, Dutch and African, the British even recruited Spaniards into their regiments during the Peninsular Campaign.

I find it ironic that you are arguing that the British Army had some sort of ethnic Anglo-Saxon conformity in it’s organisation, when traditionally we are constantly being accused of using foreigners to fight our battles.

I knew that British recruited "all scum of the earth" and drilled or trained them as animals.
However foreigners in their army were not in majority. British subjects still formed dominant majority and they really had some sort of ethnic conformity.

That was clrear that even with KGL Legion British army in Europe as entire forces did not recruited more foreigners than British subjects. They did not spark the same ethnic problems as other nations did in Austrian Army. You should know this, but as we can see you do not accept this. That's why I used this big 90% number to flogging your mind.

And again I will repeat that these issues were not unique to the Austrian Empire. They are merely the excuses made by the Austrian Army for the failure of their officer corps.

No, these were not merely excuses, these were real problems.

How about the British Army of the Peninsula (Irish, Scots, Welsh, German, French, Portuguese and Spanish)?

Or the British Indian Army: Punjabi Sikh 19.2 %; Punjabi Muslim 11.1 %; Pathan Muslim 6.2 %; Gurkhas, Garhwalis and Kumaounis 15.0 % (of which 13.1 % were Gurkha’s); Hindu Rajput 6.4 %; Hariana (Hindustani) Muslim 4.1 %; Hindu Brahman 1.8 %; Hindu Marathas 4.9 %; Madrasi Muslim 3.5 %; and Tamil Hindus 2.5%

As I said I knew these cases and these also prove my point of view.
Multiantional British Army in Peninsula suffered with ethnic problems, however their complexity and scale were not similar to these cases in Austrian Army.

Multinational British Indian Army also suffered with ethnic problems and was weakened with this problems without a doubt. I can imagine that they were even bigger than Austrian Army had. Even skilled officers, good leadership, soldiers training, discipline did not solve all these problems. Do not forget Indian uprisings at that time.

Therefore I could say that Austrian Army was better organized, trained and stonger than British India Army. However that is out of disputed European theater or war.

Yeah! Right like the British Army also contained over 90% of English speaking soldiers. I get the impression you like the 90% rule.

Thanks that you get this impression. This 90% rule was pailful with cold water on your head.

When you can not accepted 22% Germans and big diversity of other nations in Austrian Empire I have to use shock figures in Great Britian case to bring you mind to real matters.

What about:
Foreigners who enlisted in French regiments when they were stationed in foreign territories:

Did you read my post? I was referring to initial, mean earlier and later French Army compositions and their ethnic problems. How many foreigners they had in 1805 and how many they had in 1809 or 1812. Do you recognize these differences?

It is realy funny when you ask about these well known foreign regiments in French service.
Do you think that I do not know this history? Stop it please, it clearly shows your bad behaviours in this discusion.

My point was that some of the battalions they disbanded subsequently served with distinction in the French and British Army. Therefore, proving that the fault was not in the men but their officers.

Even skilled officers can not solve all issues, they need men which could cooparate all together.

Bear in mind that these unskilled Austrian officers with their poor leadership, over regulations etc created and used more light infantry units than British. They in many cases fought well. Their army and officer staff were not so bad, at last these poor Austrians defeated Napoleon long before British did.

Was not it funny that Wellington's the best trained British Army was much more slower in real war than Austrian Army. British needed much more time (five years or so) to evict French Army from Iberian Penisnula. Therefore Austrian Army was earlier in Paris.

We have a saying in England that ‘A bad workman always blames his tools’, and that’s exactly what is happening here.

Yes, you are right you blame tools, in this case Austrian over regulations and their officers, while you do not accept that Austrian had real troubles with ethnic problems.

[Didz]

Ok! well we have been round this loop enough times now to accept that we are not going to agree on anything. I have nothing further to add to the debate hopefully others will learn something from the discussion. For the record I have never suggested that the Hapsburg Empire was not beset by ethnic problems, I merely recognize that their situation was not unique and that other countries coped with the issue more effectively.

[ordoprinceps]

POE,
I am working on an Austrian mod and I am unsure of some of the unit numbers. There is an overwhelming amount of information out there, so I truly appreciate your enormous efforts in the history section! My question at this time concerns the Erzherzog Karl Legion. Did CA just make this up or is that suppose to be the same as the Erzherzog Karl Regiment #3?

Second questions one source indicates that the Erzherzog Karl legion was a result of reforms and numbered 22 battalions; so does this refer to many regiments of line infantry collectively thought of as the Erzherzog (Archduke) Karl (Charles) legion?

Please help me get this clear.

[Didz]

Did CA just make this up or is that suppose to be the same as the Erzherzog Karl Regiment #3?

I wouldn't put too much faith in anything produced by CA, they basically modified the unit names and uniforms etc to make them easier to understand for their US customers.

The unit lists provided by PoE at the start of this thread are properly researched and accurate. You will find he lists the Erzherzog Karl Legion as a Freikorps of 22 battalions raised in November 1800 and disbanded in 1801. So, basically it was a short lived volunteer formation and nothing to do with the Austro-Hungarian regular army regiments.

There's a bit more information here: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=w...lions.&f=false But if you lucky PoE will be able to provide a lot more.

I found a bit more info on a local wargaming blog site:

The 1800 Archduke Charles Legion was raised, obviously, by Karl himself in Bohemia and Moravia. It was intended as a garrison force to release regulars from Bohemian depots for service in the regular army. 20 000 men were organised into battalions of 6 companies, each of 180 men. However, after the defeat of the Austro-Hungarian Army at the battle of Hohenlinden, a further 15,000 men were ordered to assemble for military service, although none of them actually saw action.

Bohemia had many artillery depots which is why the troops ended up wearing the Rehbraun (fawn brown) material for the legion's jacket. The jacket had eight lines of lace sewn horizontally in the facing colour. Cuffs were also faced in the facing colour and turnbacks were either brown or in the facing colour. Leatherwork was black. The troopers wore pike-grey trousers. Since the troopers had to provide parts of their uniforms, a multiplicity of headgear (either corsehut or town-dweller's top hat), mostly black or dark brown, would be seen. Trousers and jacket's shades would also vary.The senior officer would be a major, probably a retired line officer.

20 battalions were raised, with facing colours in sea green, rose red, sky blue, poplar green, dark blue, dark brown, madder red, grass green, violet, sulphur yellow, light brown, black & scarlet.

You can find more information on this unit, as well as plate of an officer, in Austrian Auxiliary Troops 1792-1816

Incidentally, I don't know how true this is but the blog mentions that according to Dave Hollins there was a mix up in uniform plates in the Osprey army book and the uniform of the Legion was actually depicted as the uniform of the Bohemian Landwehr 1809. So, if you have the book then that plate actually depicts a volunteer from the Erzherzog Karl Legion 1800.

[ordoprinceps]

I wouldn't put too much faith in anything produced by CA, they basically modified the unit names and uniforms etc to make them easier to understand for their US customers.

The unit lists provided by PoE at the start of this thread are properly researched and accurate. You will find he lists the Erzherzog Karl Legion as a Freikorps of 22 battalions raised in November 1800 and disbanded in 1801. So, basically it was a short lived volunteer formation. There's a bit more information here: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=w...lions.&f=false But if you lucky PoE will be able to provide a lot more.

Thanks Didz! As always you are so knowledgeable and helpful I truly appreciate it, +Rep! So, do you think for accuracy sake of my Austrian mod I should either rename the CA unit as Archduke Charles Regiment #3 (Erzherzog Karl #3) or just delete the CA unit altogether?

[Steph]

Since Austria had no guard and not really elite, I'd just remove it.

[Prince of Essling]

I wouldn't put too much faith in anything produced by CA, they basically modified the unit names and uniforms etc to make them easier to understand for their US customers.

The unit lists provided by PoE at the start of this thread are properly researched and accurate. You will find he lists the Erzherzog Karl Legion as a Freikorps of 22 battalions raised in November 1800 and disbanded in 1801. So, basically it was a short lived volunteer formation and nothing to do with the Austro-Hungarian regular army regiments.

There's a bit more information here: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=w...lions.&f=false But if you lucky PoE will be able to provide a lot more.

I found a bit more info on a local wargaming blog site:

The 1800 Archduke Charles Legion was raised, obviously, by Karl himself in Bohemia and Moravia. It was intended as a garrison force to release regulars from Bohemian depots for service in the regular army. 20 000 men were organised into battalions of 6 companies, each of 180 men. However, after the defeat of the Austro-Hungarian Army at the battle of Hohenlinden, a further 15,000 men were ordered to assemble for military service, although none of them actually saw action.

Bohemia had many artillery depots which is why the troops ended up wearing the Rehbraun (fawn brown) material for the legion's jacket. The jacket had eight lines of lace sewn horizontally in the facing colour. Cuffs were also faced in the facing colour and turnbacks were either brown or in the facing colour. Leatherwork was black. The troopers wore pike-grey trousers. Since the troopers had to provide parts of their uniforms, a multiplicity of headgear (either corsehut or town-dweller's top hat), mostly black or dark brown, would be seen. Trousers and jacket's shades would also vary.The senior officer would be a major, probably a retired line officer.

20 battalions were raised, with facing colours in sea green, rose red, sky blue, poplar green, dark blue, dark brown, madder red, grass green, violet, sulphur yellow, light brown, black & scarlet.

You can find more information on this unit, as well as plate of an officer, in Austrian Auxiliary Troops 1792-1816

Incidentally, I don't know how true this is but the blog mentions that according to Dave Hollins there was a mix up in uniform plates in the Osprey army book and the uniform of the Legion was actually depicted as the uniform of the Bohemian Landwehr 1809. So, if you have the book then that plate actually depicts a volunteer from the Erzherzog Karl Legion 1800.

Good stuff - some additional material from Enrico Acerbi's excellent articles on "The Austrian Imperial-Royal Army (Kaiserliche-Königliche Heer) 1805 – 1809" on the Napoleon Series Forum:

The Legion Erzherzog Carl had this name since 1794. Units which gave origin to this Corps were:
1792 the Limburg Volunteers (Limburger Freiwillige) which was in Luxenbourg near Rochefort outposts, when they took prisoners the French general Lafayette together with other 2 generals, 2 colonels and 2 Adjutanten.
1794 was called Legion for the first time and took part to the combat at Verviers.
1795 (October 29) in the vanguard of the 1st Column, 2 companies of the Legion seized the entrenchment of Mainz.
1796 it distinguished itself during the clash of Aschaffenburg (September 6) under Hauptmann Johann de Meys.
1798 it was disbanded and changed into 2 Light infantry battalions (2nd and 14th).
The former uniform was completely dark-grey with crimson facings and white buttons.
November 1800 the Legion was raised again (with one Jäger Corps and 22 Militia battalions) but it never fought.
1801, after the Luneville Treaty it was again disbanded and re-raised in 1809.

In 1809 six battalions were raised in Bohemia and each consisted of four normal companies armed with the musket and two jäger companies. The First Battalion, raised from students of the Prague University, wore the bicorn hat with national cockade and red-over-white plume, the Jäger companies wearing the “Corsehut” with yellow-and-black pompon and the normal companies wearing the new 1806 Shako. Coats were tobacco brown with scarlet collar, cuffs and turnbacks and piping and decorated with scarlet braid on the breast. Breeches were sky-blue and worn with black leather knee boots. All belting was black leather and as for the line infantry or jägers. Officers wore the “Schiffhut” and coats of infantry officer pattern with facings and decoration as for the men. The officers of this Legion were permitted to wear the waist-sash.

I Battalion or Wattrich Jäger Battalion (students of Prague; Prager Jäger or Böh¬misches Jägerkorps; Watterich or Watrich Jäger) . It was a Jäger battalion, dressed in the Feldjäger fashion.
II Battalion – Recruitment: from the Bohemian Landwehr districts Beraun and Rakonitz.
III Battalion - Recruitment: from the Bohemian Landwehr districts Chrudim and Königgrätz
IV Battalion - Recruitment: from the Bohemian Landwehr districts Bidzow, Bunzlau, Leitmeritz, Saaz.
V Battalion - Recruitment: from the Bohemian Landwehr districts Klattau, Pilsen, Prachin.
VI Battalion – Recruitment: from the Bohemian Landwehr districts Budweis, Caslau, Kaurim, Tabor.
The Lobkowitz Jägerkorps - Organization: at Prague, raised in May among the city’s garrison. Their uniform was similar to the Feldjäger.

[ordoprinceps]

Thanks PoE Wow, there is so much data. So, this is definitely different than the Archduke Charles regiment #3.
How did they decided to call it a Legion? Is it because there were more than 3-4 battalions?

[ordoprinceps]

Thanks Steph.btw I have posted a new thread on ammunition.

[Didz]

Thanks Didz! As always you are so knowledgeable and helpful I truly appreciate it, +Rep! So, do you think for accuracy sake of my Austrian mod I should either rename the CA unit as Archduke Charles Regiment #3 (Erzherzog Karl #3) or just delete the CA unit altogether?

I've never wasted my money on the CA unit DLC's because they are really poorly researched, but assuming in this instance that the model we are talking about it is the one shown below.


Then that is a soldier wearing the uniform of the Erzherzog Karl Legion 1809, NOT the Infantry Regiment Erzherzog Karl Nr3


The uniform of which looked like this:


The text provided by CA for the legion model depicted is completely misleading suggesting that this was some sort of elite formation when in fact is was formed by drafts from the Bohemian Landwehr and thus would have been a second line formation wearing hastily commandeered equipment (hence the fact that they are wearing second hand artillerymens brown jackets.)

By comparison the Erzherzog Karl Regiment Nr3 was a German regular regiment raised in lower Austria.

Also based on PoE's description the uniform is wrong anyway as the guy is wearing white leather equipment when it should be black.

On a more general note Archduke Charles is the english translation of Erzherzog Karl, they are in fact the same person sometimes also written as Erzherzog Carl, so whether you opt to use the exact German names or the english translations is really up to you. The only thing I would say is that from experience some of the German unit names don't really translate very well into English, and I've seen some horrible attempts to to so in the past. Of course the problem with sticking to the German names is that some of the characters required are available in most English font sets, so both choices create challenges.

However, whichever you opt for I would suggest you try and be consistent rather than swapping back and forth between the two.

[ordoprinceps]

Thanks Didz,
yes you are right about CA's very poor research and very few of their customers probably know.

I don't mind buying the DLC's. Less than $10 US for a pack doesn't bother me. I don't know how to make Unit cards so I appreciate the art (when its right).

Yes the write up with the Archduke Charles Legion is very misleading. If I keep the unit in my new Austrian mod at all I will make it a landwehr regiment. I never liked that uniform and I concur with you that it certainly doesn't look worthy of an elite unit.

I wish CA would have provided helmets for the Austria infantry more like what you have posted above because I was forced to use the German Cav helms provided by CA and they of course are not accurate for the infantry.

I will retain English versions of names. I do not speak German ( I have a working knowledge of it) so since English is my first language, its simply easier for me. Perhaps in a future version of loc I will do it but most players globally of CA games I would bet are English speakers. That's a guess, I could be wrong.

[Steph]

Unit cards are easy to do. I think units DLC for NTW are a big joke since you can get much better for much cheaper (like 0) from modders.

Now, if they would make a DLC map... Dreaming....

[ordoprinceps]

Unit cards are easy to do. I think units DLC for NTW are a big joke since you can get much better for much cheaper (like 0) from modders.

Now, if they would make a DLC map... Dreaming....

Wow yes a DLC map! Too bad CA doesn't support this game anymore, particularly with the advances they have made now with RTW2.

I may try unit cards. Right now I am trying changes than playing to see how they work and then changing again. Something's I thought I would do are no t practical when I play; example I was going to set unit limits to historical levels but because the CA software doesn't have a way to reflect actual unit sizes that's not working out for me. Well seemed like a great idea before. Like Cavalry... 8 regiments of cuirassiers but really they should be reflected as squadrons I think. Does what I am saying make sense they way I explained it?

[Steph]

Problem is if you use squadron, then at the end you have virtually no limit. If you introduce a limit, it's because you want, for gameplay, to have a feeling of rarity for the best units.
That's why I'm using roughly half the historical number of regiments as total limit.
So for cuirassiers, instead of 8, my limit would be 4. And not 32 if you use squadrons.

[ordoprinceps]

Interesting Steph,
I see two problems that you probably already worked through.
1. First is the way CA set up the numbers and called every named unit a regiment. If every unit that has a unit delineation is a Regiment and you stack 20 than you have a coprs essentially. However the numbers are disproportionate; that is to say 45 vs. 90 vs. 120 don't work out numerically to represent a squadron, battalion and regiment respectively. 45 Cavalry are still called a regiment by CA.

2. The way I like to play I set each group of 20 units with one unit of Light, one medium (e.g. chevaulegers), one dragoon and one heavy (usually cuirassiers). Working on my Austrian mod if I use historical numbers I have only 8 cuirassiers, 7 Chevaulegers, 4 Ulans and 12 Hussars. Building (corps) to fight on all fronts I quickly run out of cavalry. My last attempt (testing out unit changes) I found myself as Austria being attacked by Russia, Ottomans, Spain, Switzerland and of course the Master himself; Napoleon all at the same time, because I honoree a treaty commitment to a protectorate when it was attacked by Russia. By setting unit limits I was in trouble. Simply not enough cavalry to build effective corps on all fronts. I don't know how I could do it if I used half the historical limits as you do in MOE. But...I haven't played MOE yet.

[Steph]

1. That's an old horse beaten to death. A French batallion has 1 company of grenadier, 1 voltigeur and 4 fusiliers. So if a unit was a batallion, it would include the 3 kinds of troops. Since a unit only has one kind of soldier, it cannot be a batallion but must be a company. In that case, an army, made of 20 units, correspond to roughly 3 batallion,so 1-2 regiments. Since a whole army cannot be made of only 1-2 regiments, it means a unit cannot be a company.
So a unit must be a company, and a company cannot be a company. Logical conclusion ? The truth is elsewhere. Where? This philosophical discussion will be pursued in tomorrow episode!!

2. So basically, you are complaining that has a general who started war on too many front at the same time, you had to make hard decision to know where you could send your precious cavalry units? That's exactly the point: learn to fight with different type of troops, and more importantly to fight with what units you have here.

[ordoprinceps]

Hi Steph,
Yes this is a horse that has been beaten to death on this forum. The problem is the desire for realism in a game that is not fully designed to achieve it. I don't know that I want to go into the loc and rename every unit from every country as a company; even so as you point out that doesn't actually work either.

As for using different units to win the fight; I think we have all done that, but in reality would there have been a battle of significance without any cavalry at all? I am sure there were examples put it doesn't seem likely that it would be common. Squadrons of cavalry were the eyes and ears of the armies, whatever their size.

If for whatever reason I engage line or light infantry with an opposing force without cavalry support, winning is an option of course but how often would that have happened? I am still learning the history of the Napoleonic wars, but I am very well versed with the American civil war and they were essentially still using Napoleonic tactics. Only rare or small engagement occurred without cavalry support in that war. Robert E Lee stumbled into the Union army at Gettysburg because his cavalry was off ravaging the country side instead of screening for him as was their duty. The Union gained the advantage because 1 brigade of Union cavalry doing their duty properly spotted and engaged Lee's advanced guard long enough for the Union army to get into position and gain strategic geographical advantage. They dismounted and fought as light infantry with their horse artillery to support them. They did a fine job in holding off Lee's army while Lee had no idea what he was facing because hi cavalry was no where to be found until late that evening. It wasn't until the next day that Lee's cavalry could give him an idea of the tactical situation, by then the Union army was in place and ready for battle. So for both sides the cavalry was crucial.

Most of the time you are able to give excellent and accurate answers to questions for members on this site but this is not one of those cases. I do not wish to beat a dead horse Steph, its a circular conversation; there is no hope of accurate resolution. The Bottom line I guess is that this is a game, not reality, and the limitations of the software design won't allow us to accurately reflect unit sizes and composition. At least that's my observation.

[Steph]

Exactly; Since it is a game that doesn't allow realism in everything, it has to be seen as an imperfect abstraction, and somewhat a dynamic and changing one.

For example:

- I personally consider the unit to be a company in battle, but more or less a regiment in campaign (far from perfect, I know). So when I move an army on the campaign map, I imagine I'm moving regiments, while when I move units in a battle, it's companies. there is an obvious gap in size between both levels, but I think I more or less subconsciously solve this by imagining that in a battle, I don't move the whole army, but I follow only a part of the action, the crux of the battle where things are decided.
So, depending on what part of the game I play, the historical equivalent of a unit changes. That's why I don't name the units "1st regiment", or "2nd company", but just "fusiliers de ligne", because this way it is easier for me to "mentally" add the regiment / company depending on the situation.
Of course, it would be much better if CA implement the idea I sent them of two levels of units (regiment recruited and moved on the campaign map, automatically deployed to several companies during battle).

- For the cavalry limit, if I have an army without cavalry, it doesn't necessarily mean they are no cavalry at all. But more that the number of cavalry men is not significant to have a real role, compared to the other units present in the army. If you have no cavalry at all, then fight with an army with a very small screen of cavalry, not enough to mount a large charge for example. So, where are the scouts? They are the invisible guys that allow you to watch the other side of the map although none of your units has an actual line of sight to it .
Beside, even with limitation, you can still manage to have some cavalry with your army. But you cannot have cuirassiers everywhere. Sometimes, your only cavalry will be some chasseurs.

Just have a look at the order of battle at Austerlitz for example.

French III, IV and V corps: only light cavalry.
French II corps: only dragoon.
The cuirassiers were only in the reserve.

As for the coalition, the 3rd and 4th column had no cavalry.

[ordoprinceps]

Exactly; Since it is a game that doesn't allow realism in everything, it has to be seen as an imperfect abstraction, and somewhat a dynamic and changing one.

For example:

- I personally consider the unit to be a company in battle, but more or less a regiment in campaign (far from perfect, I know). So when I move an army on the campaign map, I imagine I'm moving regiments, while when I move units in a battle, it's companies. there is an obvious gap in size between both levels, but I think I more or less subconsciously solve this by imagining that in a battle, I don't move the whole army, but I follow only a part of the action, the crux of the battle where things are decided.
So, depending on what part of the game I play, the historical equivalent of a unit changes. That's why I don't name the units "1st regiment", or "2nd company", but just "fusiliers de ligne", because this way it is easier for me to "mentally" add the regiment / company depending on the situation.
Of course, it would be much better if CA implement the idea I sent them of two levels of units (regiment recruited and moved on the campaign map, automatically deployed to several companies during battle).

- For the cavalry limit, if I have an army without cavalry, it doesn't necessarily mean they are no cavalry at all. But more that the number of cavalry men is not significant to have a real role, compared to the other units present in the army. If you have no cavalry at all, then fight with an army with a very small screen of cavalry, not enough to mount a large charge for example. So, where are the scouts? They are the invisible guys that allow you to watch the other side of the map although none of your units has an actual line of sight to it .
Beside, even with limitation, you can still manage to have some cavalry with your army. But you cannot have cuirassiers everywhere. Sometimes, your only cavalry will be some chasseurs.

Just have a look at the order of battle at Austerlitz for example.

French III, IV and V corps: only light cavalry.
French II corps: only dragoon.
The cuirassiers were only in the reserve.

As for the coalition, the 3rd and 4th column had no cavalry.

Thanks again Steph,
Very enlightening about Austerlitz.
Yes, you are right; we have to use our imaginations a lot in this game. That is part of the fun, imagining the circumstances.
Interesting solution about naming units too.
You are also right that you can't have cuirassiers everywhere (too few and too expensive in real life).
As for line of sight, one of the techs is to increase line of sight. Is that on the battlefield? Is that movement of units on the map? Is it spies?
Lastly, I must strongly commend you for your command of English. Your posts are written better than many native English speakers. I probably don't know 50 words in French. I took one semester in middle school more than half a century ago. I know the basic rules of your language and remember just a phrase or two here and there. French is a truly beautiful language. Fewer than 20% of Americans speak more than one language.

[Didz]

I will retain English versions of names. I do not speak German ( I have a working knowledge of it) so since English is my first language, its simply easier for me. Perhaps in a future version of loc I will do it but most players globally of CA games I would bet are English speakers. That's a guess, I could be wrong.

Thats fine, as I said the main goal should be to stay consistent. So, if you decide to use the english translations then try to stick with that decision throughout. It will get a bit awkward at times because some regiments have names that don't really translate correctly into English. Even the term 'Landwehr' has no direct and accurate translation into English, about the closest is probably 'Militia', but in practice there were subtle differences. 'National Reserve Unit', 'Territorial Army' or 'State Reserve Regiment' might be a more accurate translation, whilst the literal translation is something like 'State Defence Unit'