Sam,
I'm curious as to how you determine conscript, trained from veteran? Judging from Grande Armee and Lasalle, it would appear it is more of a morale factor determining your judgement rather than actual experience in combat. Am I right here?
General Design Question
(12 posts) (6 voices)-
Posted 1 year ago #
-
I'm assuming that you are working on converting historical OOB to Lasalle terms. In that case, I would begin by looking at the origins of the battalion in question. If they are Marie Louises, or something similar, then you might as well categorize them as conscripts. Veterans would be the rest of the army in Spain (although that doesn't accurately portray every battalion in the theater, for the most part, those guys had at least one campaign under their belts), the majority of the Grand Armee, and the units involved in Egypt/Syria. I would categorize everyone else as trained. I am making huge generalizations, but it would be a fairly good and quick way to categorize troops.
EdgarPosted 1 year ago # -
Edgar,
Sure, I had assumed that much already. My issue was more with the British ratings. I'm curious as to how units that never saw combat are still rated as veteran. Many of the battalions never fired a shot in anger yet are still rated as veteran (mostly this category) or trained, while French counterparts (and allies) are given the short end of the stick. I know morale must play a role in this determination because experience doesn't seem to be the major determining factor here.
Conscript conjures up an image of a Marie-Louise 1813 boy rushed to the front. Seeing troops who have been in Spain fighting guerillas for months or years rated as conrscript or simply trained, seems a bit of a stretch to say the least. Anyways, just curious as to why this approach was taken when most of the battles lost were due to lack of scouting and second rate officers repeating foolish mistakes.
Posted 1 year ago # -
If you're doing your own historical scenarios, then obviously you have a free hand to customize the ratings any way you like.
The issue to consider is how the rating affects game play. The difference between Veteran and Amateur is a 17% decrease in the ability to React, to Rally, and a decreased agility when changing formation.
If you feel that units deserve those penalties, then rate them "Amateur."
Posted 1 year ago # -
In the nineteenth century "veteran" meant simply a soldier who had serve a long time with the colours - not necessarily soldiers who seen many battles. I suspect Sam is using the Napoleonic definition of veteran.
Soult, Ney and Victors' Corps in 1808 were all Grand Armee veterans. But an army trying to operate in the Peninsula without a proper commisariat suffered relentless attrition, and the cavalry in particular were badly affected. In 1812 the Army of Portugal was still mainly veteran but brought up to strength with recent drafts, and to mount the cavalry Marmont had to commandeer artillery draught horses and officers' ponies. Soult's army in 1813-14 was extremely uneven quality, with large numbers of increasingly reluctant conscripts. The 'Peninsula French' list conflates and avergaes out all those different armies together.
With regard to the British, remember that all the British battalions sent to the Peninsula were so-called "first choice" battalions (with the exception of the second battalions sent to Wellesley in 1809). These were "the fittest part of the army", composed of long-service professionals, and many had earlier seen action in Egypt.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Biggreenbugeyedmonster,
Sure, I am aware of these things. I'll have to vehemently disagree with you about the "first choice" battlaions as there were only recruiting battlaions at home in almost all cases. It would appear from Sam's response it was game play oriented and not historical in nature (as would appear to be the case with Grande Armee from my experience).
As far as drafts go: we must remember cadres were sent back for newly forming battalions (especially for officers in those battalions, NCO's and picked men for elite companies). It seems these men are basically forever conrcript/trained even into 1813 when drafts had not been forthcoming for quite a long time due to Napoleon's need for men during the Russian campaign. I was just inquiring why this was rated as such and I have my answers. Thanks everyone!
Posted 1 year ago # -
vive: "I'll have to vehemently disagree with you about the "first choice" battlaions as there were only recruiting battlaions at home in almost all cases. "
You probably ought to read Charles Oman "History of the Peninsula" vol.I and Charles Oman "Wellington's Army" (especially pages 178-191).
Posted 1 year ago # -
Biggreenbugeyedmonster,
Own and read them. Changes nothing.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Vive,
I guess that the ultimate answer to your original question is 'game balance'. It was interesting to see Sam's mathematical response, though!
EdgarPosted 1 year ago # -
Vive: "Own and read them. Changes nothing."
Oman writes how British regiments generally consisted of two battalions and a depot, the 1st battalion for active service with the fittest men, the 2nd battalion of the younger lads from the depot and less effective men for home defence. And Oman writes how in 1808 Moore's army was formed from "the fittest part of the army" in 1st battalions already encamped under Wellesley in Ireland and Moore for the Baltic.
So I am intrigued as to why you "vehemently disagree" with those facts.Posted 1 year ago # -
I believe this is a case of brit bashing, however, british troops, even the worst and newest regiments, still perfomed better under battlefield conditions than most nations green troops.
This is why probably why Sam has rated them at worst trained.
Ok the discipline of said regiments on campaign would have been poor, but the training
they received was longer than most nations and did result in more cohesiveness than a similarly green french unit.
Its why the British army is still one of the best armed orces in the world, we train harder and longer than anyone else, and it shows.BTW im an ex british soldier so i AM a tad biased.
Posted 1 year ago # -
They were also one of the only armies that drilled and practiced musketry with live rounds, giving men a taste of the smoke and sound of battle.
Posted 1 year ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.