|
arundle -> RE: Commander ratings (6/12/2008 12:18:25 PM)
|
Don't forget though, the British never adopted that many continental policies. Most continental armies used large and tight 'blocks' of men to march slowly forward (called an attack column, introduced by the Napoleoinc French), designed to help keep up the moral of the mostly conscripted French army as well as try and break the moral of an opposing army through sheer number of troops. Unfortunatly, this hindered their firing ability (only 2 men could fire from each side).
Britian always fought in 2 stright lines. This allowed them, with their expert musket drill training, to lay down volley after volley agaisnt advancing blocks, and thier superior training and drilling resulted in them not running from such large infantry blocks. Using this tactic (especially if they could hit a flank), the British army didn't actually need large numbers of men, and could still decimate much larger infantry blocks, as they could bring all of their men to fire. Eventually, the column was eventually stopped by its own fallen soldiers. This allowed the small British army to defeat such larger forces.
To bring this back to the topic before we get too far into discussing Napolionic army tactics: I think the problem here is that Wellington's ability would be okay, if this (the above) was taken more into consideration. Unfortunatly, apart from their high moral, the British don't have too many other brilliant combat modifiers, to my knowledge. This does mean that when a smaller army should be quite effective for them (espcecilly on the defensive) they still use exactly the same charts as all of the other continetal armies (not saying that whole new charts are needed), despite the difference in tactics, blunting this effectiveness in the game.
|
|
|
|
