British - A Bit Underpowered?

Users who are viewing this thread

Banastre

Sergeant
No, this isn't like the other thread on them being "insanly underpowered" as the title said, this is a logical criticism of sorts that is made without complaining.


I've fought battles with allied British soldiers, and I do think they're a bit underpowered. Though historically they had the best infantry in the world (Prussia did at first until its downfall in the 1750s), they seem to be rather lousy shots in the mod, and despite the British historically being known for their bayonette charges, British troops seem to be lacking melee ability. For example, 15 British units, some regulars, militia, and Black Watch, charged 4-5 Cossack infantry and got cut down. I realize it's a known issue that the Cossacks are unrealistically overpowered in the game, but still, 15 - 5 shouldn't result in such losses.

My suggestion is to simply give the British more competence. We had the largest empire in history, the best navy, and the best army, and I think it would be good if the mod could make the British a bit more powerful as it would be both realistic and historically accurate.
 
Well, have you used the bayonet fix in the bug reporter's room? The problem in vanilla RoR is that the bayonets have 0 reach, making them pathetic. Of course, I'm changing all this in the next version of my add-on. In my latest test, I lost most of my cossacks (comprising my entire army as I edited parties.txt to give me 100 cossacks) to a British force of about 20 less on full difficulty, 250 battlesize. I only won because I stabbed the surviving cacadore who was reloading.
 
The truth is, Britain never had the best army, the french army were always better, and also periodically the Swedish, Prussian, Russian and Austrian armies were better during the 18th century, their infantry were not the best either.
The infantry best known for charges into melee during this age were the Swedish and the Russian btw.
 
yes to my knowlegde the British did not become "omfg hax" awsome till later on, in the era this is set in its around the days of French awsomeness, as well as the rest of mainland Eruope.
if this were set around 50-70 years later we would have british regulars tearing up everything they see.

but in gameplay aspects yes the british are a bit underpowered so that why i now lead Russian troops
 
Well each faction in all has its own advantage, but the British one isn't that clear because of how inaccurate the muskets are.
 
ya.. I actually said to myself. That the mod needs more accurate weapons...
And that we shall have. My first plan was to not let the Range effect the gameplay to much. But apperantly I overdid it.. I need to reconsider of how to do this...
 
In 18th century. British was strong because they line were highly trained and they had fast reloading , high skills in defence , high morale . But french army was under Louis rules and French main army was Guard inf and they had high skills in melee attack. Swedish not too strong because of the experience of their unit in battle. Prussia they have the best army in 18 century till Napoleon Era they were under Frederick rules that he's a military genius and Prussia expanded to the Holy Empire of Germen States. Austria they had bad heavy inf because it put in light inf and cav training.

And i would like to say (strongest to weakest):
Prussia > British > French > Swedish > Austria > Russia
 
What I think:

France>Britain>Russia>Prussia/Sweden/Austria.

Well, the French were relatively well led, by both the Marshals and Napoleon, many were experienced and had high morale. Although, there were conscripts. The French tactic of attack column kinda increased morale and aimed to trash the enemy morale but we don't have formations yet. Also, they didn't adopt rifles.

The British had good reloading speeds because they trained with live ammo, and decent morale. Punishment was a bit much more than the continental powers. e.g. Flogging/Whipping. But then, their large empire and allies, as well as their innovations, did help.

The Russians scored many a victory on the French, and although they had pathetic shooting skills, they took much pride in the bayonet. And of course Napoleon said: [quote author=Napoleon]"Cossacks are the best light troops among all that exist. If I had then in my army, I would go through all the world with them."[/quote] Also a load of other comments said that the cossacks were wily, good etc.

Prussia wasn't really as good since Frederick the Great due to deteriorating quality etc and they got trashed at Jena-Auerstedt. But the Prussians got back against the French.

Sweden kept switching sides from Neutral-French-Coalition-Neutral, but it did have a part at the Battle of Leipzig, where its Crown Prince was actually a French marshal who was adopted by Charles XIII.

Austria did hold off the French for a long time with their troops, but apparently not all troops could speak a unified language (e.g. German/Austrian). They were certainly brave, and apparently the Grenzers were the most enthusiastic troops, but they did suffer a string of defeats and Landwehr aren't the best of troops, but Austria did have some good troops.
 
Great summary there. That's what I think too, though maybe Prussia + Austria > Sweden (not to make Sweden look bad but in the Napoleonic times, things were going bad for them. Though they had their part in Leipzig...)

JDeNef13
 
Another thing I noticed is that British troops seem to be rarely recruited. Russia has armies of over 100 troops each, France has high-numbered armies (70-100+), with Svea having moderate numbers (50-90), but most British armies I see have low amounts of troops (20-50), with the highest (around 120) being the King's party. Doesn't seem fair that Britain's stuck with 40-man armies while nations like Russia get several armies of 100s of troops each.
 
Venitius said:
Mind you, the Swedes fought off many French invasions....when Bernadotte was Crown Prince.
Ya swedes rocks!

but I do not understand why you put Sweden so far down on the list.
I mean. bad infantry? For god sake. we hade the Carolines. We had the Royal Guard.
We where a pretty well trained faction. Specially the Carolines. But we did not have those gaint armies as the rest of europe had. I think that is the reason why we did not preform the best. and that we just resently finished of two gaint wars.

And Prussia.. Well they are good but not the best. Neither are they qualified to be in the bottom.
I actually think the powers of Britain, France and Prussia where quite equal...

But still. I guess you guys know alot more of history than I do..
 
Well the Swedish might have not fought as long as the other factions, the quality or even the existance of the Caroleans might have decreased/gone, and Bernadotte kinda didn't continue fighting the French but instead fought the Danes and the Norwegians. And the king before Carl XIII lost Swedish Pomerania and Finland before being shoved out in a coup d'etat.
 
ya ya ya.. details details.. but in my history books does it say that we swedes kicked ass. and that we now days own 99% of the world...

 
History books here aren't that good. One of my textbooks I had to read/use when we were studying the Napoleonic Wars only had 4 pages on that subject. And one those pages was on "Was Nelson good and did he die a hero?" Eh? I mean, Trafalgar was important, but everything else was on Napoleon's stature and that he got thrashed in the Russian campaign. 2 Paragraphs on Waterloo, nothing on Austerlitz or Jena-Auerstedt except a map showing where they are in Europe, and nothing on the Peninsular War and very little on the Russians, Austrians and Prussians with nothing on the Swedes, Wesphalians, Polish, Portuguese, you get the idea.
 
Well, I can't complain about Belgian history books/magazines. I buy every month a bunch of Napoleonic magazines. They're very good. Very detailed (all regiments, troop numbers, number of attacks/routs, uniforms, paintings, images, weapon explanations...).

JDeNef13
 
Back
Top Bottom