Earth 1790 AD
- Thread starter Lokolus
- Start date
Glad to hear it. Did you have a chance to look at Ekmek's and mine alternative versions? I think he has a point regarding Marseilles - or rather Toulon, which was the French Mediterranean naval base (although I can see why you chose Lyons instead). Also, as I mentioned in my post posting my version, the interior of Brazil, as well as Africa and the American "Wild West", was still largely unexplored.
Ekmek
on steam: ekmek_e
and the race for Africa and the great game in Central Asia! This will be a sweet scenario!Some considerations for 'historical' game play (and I know that that is Utopian).
When France annexed the Lowlands, England had only 20,000 men under arms. Remember, after the American Revolution (Revolt, point of view I suppose.) The hired Hessian's went home in disgust and largely unpaid. On the other hand the levee en masse was beginning to exceed 300,000 and it's training rate was ramping up quite quickly. Prussia was not an important player. Austria was, by manpower at any rate, but her training was 20 years old. Now comes a startling development. The French Grande Armee, and Napoleon. Combined Arms, Mobile supply and medical depots, and the flying column with fixed bayonets for shock value.
My point? The era is unplayable. No combination of countries could withstand the Grande Armee and the Marshals. Only Napoleon could lose the war, no one else could win it. Spain and Russia. The two mistakes. If you do not make this type of mistake the continental system should bankrupt England and Russia. If Napoleon keeps Alexander in his camp, nothing will stop him.
How do you make this situation playable on a grand scale?
Random events? slimy way out.
When France annexed the Lowlands, England had only 20,000 men under arms. Remember, after the American Revolution (Revolt, point of view I suppose.) The hired Hessian's went home in disgust and largely unpaid. On the other hand the levee en masse was beginning to exceed 300,000 and it's training rate was ramping up quite quickly. Prussia was not an important player. Austria was, by manpower at any rate, but her training was 20 years old. Now comes a startling development. The French Grande Armee, and Napoleon. Combined Arms, Mobile supply and medical depots, and the flying column with fixed bayonets for shock value.
My point? The era is unplayable. No combination of countries could withstand the Grande Armee and the Marshals. Only Napoleon could lose the war, no one else could win it. Spain and Russia. The two mistakes. If you do not make this type of mistake the continental system should bankrupt England and Russia. If Napoleon keeps Alexander in his camp, nothing will stop him.
How do you make this situation playable on a grand scale?
Random events? slimy way out.
Sounds depressing
, but seems to be not quite accurate. Sure, the French got a headstart in conscription (and training!), but the other nations were quick to follow. (Just like Germany's innovation of the Panzer Corps in WWII.) In the end, true enough, the Coalition got big enough to stop the War. Fact is, revolutionary France started at war with Austria, Great Britain, Spain and Russia. By quick action (he had his spies!) Napoleon was able to defeat the Austrians before the Russians joined up with them. After the desillusioned Russians returned home, it was mainly a matter of diplomacy. Invading England was unrealistic (hasn't succeeded since 1066) and why do would-be-Alexanders want to invade Russia? Megalomania, I suppose.
, but seems to be not quite accurate. Sure, the French got a headstart in conscription (and training!), but the other nations were quick to follow. (Just like Germany's innovation of the Panzer Corps in WWII.) In the end, true enough, the Coalition got big enough to stop the War. Fact is, revolutionary France started at war with Austria, Great Britain, Spain and Russia. By quick action (he had his spies!) Napoleon was able to defeat the Austrians before the Russians joined up with them. After the desillusioned Russians returned home, it was mainly a matter of diplomacy. Invading England was unrealistic (hasn't succeeded since 1066) and why do would-be-Alexanders want to invade Russia? Megalomania, I suppose.I cant make this scenario 100% accurate without making this a mod and I dont have the knowledge of adding events. the scenario is balanced and I cant have France at war with all of Europe, it will kill it by time, 6 European states can build more soldiers than France and the Netherlands.
Sounds depressing
I really do not want to be seen as arguing with you.
At the outset, France was at war with no one.
Until Louis' head came off, England was officially neutral, Pitt was officially Isolationist, the Tories were playing a waiting game and the Whigs were rabidly pro-revolution. The execution of a Monarch shook England a bit as the Tories began to speak of intervening by action in the West Indies, but not on the continent. This spread to the Whigs with the annexation of the Lowlands, (this loss of trade was seen as a direct threat to the Whigs power base in the Merchant class) but they argued that the small size of their army made it necessary to keep the army at home to guard against invasion.
The other nations were anything but 'quick to follow'.
Austria was defeated in a series of small sharp actions in the Po valley.
Austria was soundly defeated again at Ulm (perhaps the most classic example of sur la derrier), Vienna, and with the Russians at Austerlitz.
The Prussians were rapidly subdued and placed into vassal status in a series of quick battles of maneuver. The Palatinate , Bavaria and Bohemia came easily, Poland willingly.
After Alexander's peace with Napoleon, he (Alexander) saw the future as a Russo-Franco joint rule of Europe. He was disillusioned by future events.
The Grande Armee was never equaled by any nations formal training or standing army. It was defeated by "General Winter" and the Spanish irregulars. The great coalitions put together with England's money all were defeated in turn. The mistakes were, once again, Spain and Russia. This two front war was too draining to be supported. The populace was finally to war-weary to support the regime, and it fell.
Even after Napoleon returned from exiled during the 'hundred days, the Grande Armee system worked and worked well. At Waterloo the Battle was lost only because Grouchy failed to push the Prussians east and allowed them to 'march to the sound of the guns'.
As to your final question? With Russia under his control the Continental System would have a final stranglehold on England and it's 'Shopkeepers'.
Lokolus, You can't make it historical. That was my point. It just has to be an enjoyable 'What if'. It will have to played with-out any serious effort to put it 'right'. If you do then only a fool could lose as Napoleon, and only against a fool could anyone win as anything else.
I really do not want to be seen as arguing with you.
At the outset, France was at war with no one.
Until Louis' head came off, England was officially neutral, Pitt was officially Isolationist, the Tories were playing a waiting game and the Whigs were rabidly pro-revolution. The execution of a Monarch shook England a bit as the Tories began to speak of intervening by action in the West Indies, but not on the continent. This spread to the Whigs with the annexation of the Lowlands, (this loss of trade was seen as a direct threat to the Whigs power base in the Merchant class) but they argued that the small size of their army made it necessary to keep the army at home to guard against invasion.
The other nations were anything but 'quick to follow'.
Austria was defeated in a series of small sharp actions in the Po valley.
Austria was soundly defeated again at Ulm (perhaps the most classic example of sur la derrier), Vienna, and with the Russians at Austerlitz.
The Prussians were rapidly subdued and placed into vassal status in a series of quick battles of maneuver. The Palatinate , Bavaria and Bohemia came easily, Poland willingly.
After Alexander's peace with Napoleon, he (Alexander) saw the future as a Russo-Franco joint rule of Europe. He was disillusioned by future events.
The Grande Armee was never equaled by any nations formal training or standing army. It was defeated by "General Winter" and the Spanish irregulars. The great coalitions put together with England's money all were defeated in turn. The mistakes were, once again, Spain and Russia. This two front war was too draining to be supported. The populace was finally to war-weary to support the regime, and it fell.
Even after Napoleon returned from exiled during the 'hundred days, the Grande Armee system worked and worked well. At Waterloo the Battle was lost only because Grouchy failed to push the Prussians east and allowed them to 'march to the sound of the guns'.
As to your final question? With Russia under his control the Continental System would have a final stranglehold on England and it's 'Shopkeepers'.
Well, I stand corrected. Thx for the detailed info. ( One issue remaining, though: the Grande Armée was only formed to defeat Russia. (And there it utterly failed, as you point out. What you call "Russian winter", was actually Russian tactics: Napoleon was finally outmanoeuvred - despite several victories.) Napoleon's basic innovation was the army corps - or rather, division. Initially, in the Italian campaign against Austria, Napoleon repeatedly had to fight numerical superior forces. (Against Russia, he changed tactics and lost). Besides that, in general, he was a tactical military genius. As you pointed out, his strategy was flawd. (But then again, so was Nazi Germany's, which tried the opposite , applying Blitzkrieg - Napoleonic tactics on the 20th century battlefield - and failed as well. So maybe Sid's Tip: "Never fight a land war in Asia" should read "Never fight a winter war in Russia".)And by "quick to follow" I mean conscriptionwise; that they could not match Napoleon's tactics is another matter - he was a master at that. His ultimate defeat, and I agree with you here, was political: he finally overplayed his card. (One can win all battles, but loose the war, as Pyrrhus proves.)
You claim, basically, Napoleon was never defeated militarily; he was -but apparently his myth lives on. (Paraphrasing Sun Tzu one might say: "Every army can be defeated; one just needs to find the way.")
And why exactly don't you want to be seen arguing with me?
Argument is, to me at least, a negative approach to discussion and I did not want you to perceive it as such.
I will grant you the difference between the corp and Grand Armee names. I used the latter because I felt it was more familiar. However, the Grand Armee was only a collection of corps, which were a collection of divisions and so on. It was the concept of combined arms with the mobile supply and medical corps that I was trying to highlight. I do not claim even 'basically' that Napoleon was never defeated. Indeed on a few occasions he was, at a tactical level.
BUT WITHOUT his involvement in Spain and Russia, neither one of which was necessary, let alone advisable, he would have been unassailable, at least within his lifetime.
I will grant you the difference between the corp and Grand Armee names. I used the latter because I felt it was more familiar. However, the Grand Armee was only a collection of corps, which were a collection of divisions and so on. It was the concept of combined arms with the mobile supply and medical corps that I was trying to highlight. I do not claim even 'basically' that Napoleon was never defeated. Indeed on a few occasions he was, at a tactical level.
BUT WITHOUT his involvement in Spain and Russia, neither one of which was necessary, let alone advisable, he would have been unassailable, at least within his lifetime.
Ekmek
on steam: ekmek_e
I guess Vietnam is gone b/c of the french so that opens up a player. Will that let the confederacy in?
Since there is only a max of 18 players I guess a lot will have to be shuffle. Maybe a new thread is needed?
Since there is only a max of 18 players I guess a lot will have to be shuffle. Maybe a new thread is needed?
Ekmek
on steam: ekmek_e
sounds good. how are you going to manage south america. i was thinking that you could divide the states by giving them to spain, portugal (brazil), and maybe the austrians (as a catholic power). I figure this version will have a lot more barbarian cities.
Similar threads
