|
Post by [gg] Drake on Oct 13, 2006 16:18:47 GMT -5
all I have to say about the French Middle Guard is god D!@# them to an eternity of suffering. I am the only one fed up with the power of the French Middle Guard!!! ? I know they were important but should they be as powerful as the old guard? The Old guard were so powerful for reasons like experiance and quality of weapons. They served as the Emperors guard. The middle guard were regular soldiers with more experiance. I know this entitles them to some increased power, but as much asa the old guards? i think not. The only other thing i have to say is why do British troops break so easily? Werent the British renown for having some of the most disciplined troops in the world. I know they were not as powerful as they were 30 years earlier , or as powerful as they would be later but still shouldnt there be some respect for the worlds best army?
|
|
|
Post by [GG] Tuncarl on Oct 13, 2006 16:29:37 GMT -5
I reckon so Drake. Problem is that all British troops are grouped as "Line" etc. However in the Line troops were regiments like the Connaught rangers (Devils Own) who were not really likely to run from anything (they became more famous during the Crimea war).
And how about the 57th Middlesex regiment (The Dies Hards) who earned that name at Albuera (May 1811), where they were given the order to "Die Hard" and they did. The casualties were 420 out of the 570 men in the ranks and 20 out of the 30 officers.
Marshal Beresford wrote in his dispatch, "our dead, particularly the 57th Regiment, were lying as they fought in the ranks, every wound in front". Even after this savage fight and such appalling casualties, the regiment were eager to advance with the remainder but Beresford called out, "Stop, stop the 57th, it would be a sin to let them go on!" Later when the battlefield was viewed it was seen that the dead of the 57th were lying like a pack of cards that had toppled over.
|
|
|
Post by [gg] Drake on Oct 13, 2006 17:26:54 GMT -5
but still generally the British army was incredibly disciplined. This cannot be understated
|
|
|
Post by [GG] Lord Ashram on Oct 13, 2006 18:27:03 GMT -5
Yes, generally it is accepted they were. However, there is currently a bit of a backlash against British troops for some reason, with people thinking that many other troops, like the French and KGL troops, were their equals. Personally, from what I have read, this isnt true, not just of shooting but also of morale; the British generally stood very firm. You can still count on them to perform on the field, of course.
As for the Middle Guard, early on they were ferocious, almost on par with the Old Guard. By Waterloo they weren't as powerful, as Napoleon put them back together after his return from Elba and required only 4 years service, and at Waterloo many of them hadn't served together. They may get tweaked, of course, in the next release, but they will remain ferocious troops. If you are having troubles with them, shoot them up; they are best up close, so keep them afar!
|
|
|
Post by [GG] Tuncarl on Oct 14, 2006 3:35:21 GMT -5
This is where the problem lies.
The "Brit" pack/patch is vaguely based on the British troops at Waterloo. We all know that most of the veteren units had been posted elsewhere and the British troops at Waterloo were not the best Britain had to offer.
On the other had, the French troops in the game are the elite French forces of 10 years earlier !
So it is a bit unfair on the Brits really. The Waterloo battle will be interesting for the above reasons unless the French are toned down a bit or the Brits vamped up a bit.
Personally I think it's a shame that the old way of giving units valour/morale and combat bonus's (as in NTW1) is not in NTW2 as this gives a lot more scope for creating experienced Line units and inexperienced Guards etc.
|
|
|
Post by [GG] Tuncarl on Oct 14, 2006 3:53:43 GMT -5
Hey Ash I've come across people saying how rubbish the british troops were compared to the rest of Europe, well in the Lordz forum anyway. I wondered what basis they had for this as I was always under the impression that they were pretty good. Some of the officers were a bit useless but in general they were tough gits. True a lot joined the army as criminals, but I have heard the same of France. I was under the impression that British training was better than most ? and the firing skills were better. As mentioned above (the 88th Connaught Rangers) the Irish, Scots and Welsh were famous for their fearlessness and they always wanted to fight. So much so that they would fight against each other if bored for too long. The English themselves were reknowed for the steadfastness if not so savage as the Celtish regiments. The cavalry at Waterloo left a lot to be desired but the peninsular Cavalry was initially very good and very well led. Looks like I am going to have to start a campaign for people to recognise the heroism of the British army. Got a couple of books of personal accounts etc. But I reckon everyone says the British army was not that good as they can't say that our Navy was rubbish
|
|
|
Post by [gg] Drake on Oct 14, 2006 6:44:08 GMT -5
Also you have to consider that Most of Napoleon's army at Waterloo was conscripts. Yes there was some very good troops (Old Guard) but the majority of his army he had just raised in a time of emergency. Remember this was part of Napoleon's 100 days after he returned from Elba and he didnt want to restart his conquest wars. People were still loyal to him but the army only took up a certain percentage of that. Napoleons troops at waterloo werent as good as they once were. While the Britsh on the other hand had some of the best trained troops even for new recruits.
|
|
|
Post by [GG] Lord Ashram on Oct 14, 2006 10:16:13 GMT -5
Yeah, there is definately a backlash against British troops... I think there is some feeling that the Brits take all the recognition for defeating Nap and leave their allies out. Personally I am a bit annoyed that KGL troops have better morale than regular British troops and Highlander troops, and that is why we see massive armies of KGL infantry in NTW2 and very little British troops. Blech.
|
|
|
Post by [GG]SirDabrowski on Oct 14, 2006 11:54:59 GMT -5
The game's poorly balanced between the French and British!?
No way.
I never would have suspected that. I'm sorry if I sound mean, but the balancing in this game is just done poorly. And the whole firing blocks? I remember discussions back in the Lordz forum about everyone posting about how they weren't going to use it. Oh no! It's dishonourable!
Wait! What's that I see in battle!? Eight squares of Jaegers firing at me from close range!?
What's this? Oh, wait, I have cavalry! Just swing these in on those jaegers and eat them right.. wait! Something's wrong! The disorganized forces of the lights are slaughtering my Polish Guard Lancers! Oh no! This is totally unsuspected!
If the game looked half as beautiful as it is, yet had the balancing set just right, it'd be perfect. Wait! I think I found a game like that! NTW1.
I'm still absolutely curious as to why KGL Dragoons and British Dragoons cost the exact same, yet the KGL Dragoons are almost twice as good.
|
|
|
Post by [gg] Drake on Oct 14, 2006 18:25:19 GMT -5
I am in the same situation. I dont think its right that lights and jaegers/riflemen easily defeat some medium/heavycavalry. The other day i sent my British Dragoons against some Voltigiuers, in line and not supported by line infantry or any thing else, and my Dragoons were SLAUGHTERED to a man. This wasnt even against a human player. this made me want to go cry in a corner and never come out. I find this to be incredibly unrealistic. I hope that when the Waterloo package comes out that these problems, along with the balancing of French vs British troops. I also pray every day that the Prussian units will be given the correct Historical judgement that they deserve.
On a completely random note, who else thinks there should be a package for the battle of Leipzig ;D
|
|
|
Post by Davout on Oct 17, 2006 1:57:36 GMT -5
I think the game is balanced between countries. You just have to know what to buy, how much of it, how and when to use it. Everyone dies by musket fire and everyone routes.
Btw I play many matches per day and almost never see a GG online. When do you guys play?
|
|
|
Post by [GG] Tuncarl on Oct 17, 2006 3:40:08 GMT -5
I am on GMT 7pm to 11pm but not alwaysall the time. I usually get 2 or 3 games a night.
Got to agree with Davout after my last 4 games (and wins)
Defended twice as French against Brits and won with firepower. Attacked twice with Brits vs French then Russians and won by attacking with firepower.
So its not unbalanced you have to know what to take and how to use them.
|
|
|
Post by [GG] SeaDogg on Oct 19, 2006 19:05:43 GMT -5
Frankly, Im havent been a British subject for nearly 400 years, but Im pissed off and insulted by the inequity between the Brits and the French in this game. The game should be more balanced than this. I think there was somthing fisshy going on when the mod was being completed and you guys should figure it out and do something abt it.
On the other hand, you might put yourself in my place over the lack of play given to to AWI. The fact that some of you guys have joked that you dont want to play it because the brits lost in america sheds new light on how easy it might be to skew this game experience one way or the other. Im dissapointed on this from both directions. I think that subtle differences in the individual units could be kept, but that the strenght of each side could be balanced better and the result would be a good, playable game that both sides have a relatively equal chance of winning if they handle their units properly. As it is now, the game is devolved into a pathetic money game, its what you buy and not how you fight that matters. I wont stop playing it, but Im sick of the crappy attitudes and the politics.
One last parting shot on this: WHY in h*ell does the British Army NOT have 12 pnd artillery like the french? This is an absurd thing in this game. For one thing,from what Ive read, both sides had much the same calibers since guns were captured, re- captured etc and both armies had an equal opportunity to produce 12s, 9s, 6s and others.
I KNOW for a fact that the staple caliber of British frigates included 12 pound guns. Its absurd that the army would not also have them in the field. Furthermore, the British ''Long Nine" was favored as bow and stern chasers because it was more accurate and had greater range than the 12. I find the increased range of the french 12 pounder also suspicious in NTW2.
I can provide plenty of documenttation if any of you do not believe me abt the statements made above on Naval guns relating to the 12pnd vs the 9 pnd. Can anyone out there PROVE that the Brits did not have 12 pounders in the field and that only the French and Russians did>? Cough it up if you do.
COme on guys, lets make this mod worthy of the fine tactical fighting that took place during this period. These inconsistencies smack of immaturity and ignorance.
|
|
|
Post by [gg] Drake on Oct 19, 2006 19:13:35 GMT -5
I agree with you Seadog. The British army DID have access to 12pnders. Also the British army should be able to use troops from their (yes i know it wasnt as big) colonies such as Canada and Jamaica and even India. Im not sure what the Canadians could do... but you get the point. I do know that the likely hhood of Sepoy troops fighting in Europe was slim but indian style of cavalry did have influence on the British. Also British tactics should be adapted to be more advanced but thats my oppinion. My biigest concern is (again) why are British troops so un-disciplined. I noticed that probably half of the French troops are disciplined while only British troops are. I whope that the issues will be fixed in the next release.
|
|
|
Post by [GG]SirDabrowski on Oct 19, 2006 19:21:32 GMT -5
British less disciplined than French conscripts that were forced in to columns because they'd usually run like Hell if they weren't in the nice, snug column?
Sounds absolutely normal to me.
|
|