Die Zieten
Sergeant
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2013 9:13 pm

Elite and Line Infantry replacements

Fri Apr 05, 2013 6:59 pm

I suggest the Prussian elite line infantry units changed to take normal line infantry replacements just like Fusiliers.

Some infantry regiments can have more experience in the start, just give them stars, the only "elite" units they had where the combined grenadier battalions.

There is enough work keeping the grenadier battalions manned.

This will only give more value to the grenadier batallions, every time you use those batallions it should be planned IMO.

The right balance is that you can keep them manned if you dont use them the wrong way, the Prussians kept them and raised them again if they got hit.

Now those regular infantry regiments are competing for the same replacements when i would like to fill them with conscripts.


EDIT.

The prussians actually had standards for their regiments and surveyed them annually, other nations couldnt manage this type of uniformity.

I suggest you pick one model, the trained infantry and fusielier stats look like an average of them all combined, and use that for the infantry regiments.

The fact is the Prussians produced infantry from the same pipeline, they where as similar as units today and their average was better than others nations.

User avatar
ERISS
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1955
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 10:25 am
Location: France

Sat Apr 06, 2013 1:16 am

Die Zieten wrote: those regular infantry regiments are competing for the same replacements when i would like to fill them with conscripts.

The prussians actually had standards for their regiments and surveyed them annually, other nations couldnt manage this type of uniformity.

I suggest you pick one model, the trained infantry and fusielier stats look like an average of them all combined, and use that for the infantry regiments.

The fact is the Prussians produced infantry from the same pipeline, they where as similar as units today and their average was better than others nations.

They invented school. The state wanted a people army, but people (peasants) were not disciplined. So prussian state invented National Education to fill the army ranks (and later until now to be a good obedient wage worker for the economical war).

Die Zieten
Sergeant
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2013 9:13 pm

Sat Apr 06, 2013 2:48 am

ERISS wrote:They invented school. The state wanted a people army, but people (peasants) were not disciplined. So prussian state invented National Education to fill the army ranks (and later until now to be a good obedient wage worker for the economical war).


Finland is the same with the discipline and work ethic and life centering around education and work.

No surprise Finland is a Lutheran country with an army that was founded by officers trained by Prussians.. :D

Handling your money is also something that i see separating Europeans today also, i dont think deeper and tightening union is the way to go. :bonk:

User avatar
Charles
Lieutenant
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 3:22 pm
Location: Canada

Mon Apr 15, 2013 7:15 pm

Die Zieten wrote:
The prussians actually had standards for their regiments and surveyed them annually, other nations couldnt manage this type of uniformity.

I suggest you pick one model, the trained infantry and fusielier stats look like an average of them all combined, and use that for the infantry regiments.

The fact is the Prussians produced infantry from the same pipeline, they where as similar as units today and their average was better than others nations.


Its not that clear, from what I had read Prussia under Freddie did have national recruitment of citizens who would turn out 1-2 months a year for training. No other nation in the SYW had a similar system IIRC.

However, IIRC the main pipeline for the Prussian Army infantry was the same as for other nations, namely foreign conscripts/"volunteers" who were recuited by various legit/semi-legit/dodgy schemes. They formed the bulk of the troops in 1756 and were still an important source of replacements during the war. As the casualty list mounted up, Frederick did draw more and more on the "citizen soldiers" and they seem to have formed a majority in the later years of the war.

However, when you look at actual battles, it is not clear that Prussian infantry was substantially better than Austrian or Russian infantry.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

Die Zieten
Sergeant
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2013 9:13 pm

Mon Apr 15, 2013 8:56 pm

Charles wrote:Its not that clear, from what I had read Prussia under Freddie did have national recruitment of citizens who would turn out 1-2 months a year for training. No other nation in the SYW had a similar system IIRC.

However, IIRC the main pipeline for the Prussian Army infantry was the same as for other nations, namely foreign conscripts/"volunteers" who were recuited by various legit/semi-legit/dodgy schemes. They formed the bulk of the troops in 1756 and were still an important source of replacements during the war. As the casualty list mounted up, Frederick did draw more and more on the "citizen soldiers" and they seem to have formed a majority in the later years of the war.

However, when you look at actual battles, it is not clear that Prussian infantry was substantially better than Austrian or Russian infantry.


I would disagree, man to man and in offense, ground suited for linear battle the Prussians would win as a rule.

The Austrian and Russian tactic was to entrench in high ground with superior numbers and guns. They feared battles in the clear where the Prussians could out manouvre and out shoot them.

Both had masses of irregulars also to not get locked in a "fair" battle against Prussians.

Most Austria PBEM players against Prussia do the same. The Prussian player must force them to attack by threatening communications or march fast to get a surprise encounter in clear terrain.

Die Zieten
Sergeant
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2013 9:13 pm

Mon Apr 15, 2013 9:06 pm

And im not against the decline in quality of troops trough losses, im talking about reducing elite units for Prussians.

Fredrick broke his own maxims in Prague, Kolin, Zorndorf and Kunersdorf.

Without those losses he would have had more veterans in his army.


I have been thinking that he was sensitive romantic prone to fatalism so that explains those lapses of judgment.

User avatar
Charles
Lieutenant
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 3:22 pm
Location: Canada

Mon Apr 15, 2013 10:29 pm

The Prussian Army winning most of their battles had more to do with the quality of the officers/generals; planning, aggressiveness of Frederick, lack of a killer instinct by his opponents. This is already reflected in the general's stats.

On the officers, the Prussian Army did have a higher proportion than most of native officers and they seemed to have had better schooling than most in the art of war, although some of his best generals like James Keith was Scottish.

My comment was more that one company of Prussian infantry is probably as good as one company of Austrian, Russian, British infantry.

Agreed that the Elite/Regular replacement dichotomy is probably more trouble than it is worth.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

Die Zieten
Sergeant
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2013 9:13 pm

Mon Apr 15, 2013 11:51 pm

Charles wrote:The Prussian Army winning most of their battles had more to do with the quality of the officers/generals; planning, aggressiveness of Frederick, lack of a killer instinct by his opponents. This is already reflected in the general's stats.

On the officers, the Prussian Army did have a higher proportion than most of native officers and they seemed to have had better schooling than most in the art of war, although some of his best generals like James Keith was Scottish.

My comment was more that one company of Prussian infantry is probably as good as one company of Austrian, Russian, British infantry.

Agreed that the Elite/Regular replacement dichotomy is probably more trouble than it is worth.


I would still disagree, they where better trained and everyone at the time agreed, that is the reason Austria got the huge coalition together.


Now the Austrians had some very good units and they have them in the game, but we are talking in average here, they also had very bad ones.

The Russians where, as they historically have been, very good at holding a defensive position but their generals did not want to engage a Prussian force same or bigger size and especially anywhere with a flat and clear terrain..

British had very good standing units and i would class them close to the Prussian but even British officers noted the Prussians abilities.


And the reasons is not only the officers, the drill and general orders where different and better, later copied by others.

Now they have this already in the game, the rate of fire and marching speed but some stats i would like a notch up.
Like discipline value from 7 to 8 in line infantry, now they have units ranging from 7 to 10 because of different models and not unit experience.
Picking one value to make an average line infantry unit is what i am suggesting, they had standards and inspected them annually so that they actually met them.

The elite replacements for grenadiers is good, they where that and that is why they gathered them as separate battalions.
Making the grenadiers the only units receiving elite replacements could be done by removing one elite depot battalion and converting it in to a regular depot battalion.

I would be happy even if the lowest stats are used as the average as long as the elite line infantry is removed from the game.. :bonk:

The biggest weakness for the Prussians was not keeping the line infantry battalions in good drill, it was keeping them manned, drop in troop quality should come from loosing troops with experience points.

User avatar
Charles
Lieutenant
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 3:22 pm
Location: Canada

Tue Apr 16, 2013 3:20 pm

Die Zieten wrote:I would still disagree, they where better trained and everyone at the time agreed, that is the reason Austria got the huge coalition together.



That is not really accurate. After the War, many Armies thought the Prussians had some secret formula which many European armies tried to ape, but none with the same success.

The Prussians imposed brutal discipline on their infantry, partly because many were foreign soldiers. On the march, guards were always posted around the army to prevent desertion. Attrition rates in the game are generous compared to real life. The Prussians took the position that a soldier would desert he he was not forced to stay in the line, not a sign of good morale/motivation. At Kunersdorf, the entire army routed when the battle when against them, again not a sign that discipline was the key. The Austrians used less brutal discipline, although still very harsh by modern standards, but their desertion rate does not seem to have been appreciably worse than the Prussian army.

In terms of firing rate, the standard issue prussian musket was worse and less reliable than the standard issue Austrian musket. From tests done at and immediately after the war, the accuracy of all troops was very bad by modern standard since no one actually aimed their musket. I have reference books at home which give the details although I have not looked at them for some time.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

Die Zieten
Sergeant
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2013 9:13 pm

Tue Apr 16, 2013 3:50 pm

Charles wrote:That is not really accurate. After the War, many Armies thought the Prussians had some secret formula which many European armies tried to ape, but none with the same success.

The Prussians imposed brutal discipline on their infantry, partly because many were foreign soldiers. On the march, guards were always posted around the army to prevent desertion. Attrition rates in the game are generous compared to real life. The Prussians took the position that a soldier would desert he he was not forced to stay in the line, not a sign of good morale/motivation. At Kunersdorf, the entire army routed when the battle when against them, again not a sign that discipline was the key. The Austrians used less brutal discipline, although still very harsh by modern standards, but their desertion rate does not seem to have been appreciably worse than the Prussian army.

In terms of firing rate, the standard issue prussian musket was worse and less reliable than the standard issue Austrian musket. From tests done at and immediately after the war, the accuracy of all troops was very bad by modern standard since no one actually aimed their musket. I have reference books at home which give the details although I have not looked at them for some time.


So lower the Prussian rate of fire also?

I dont care, im happy if the elite line just goes. :)

Die Zieten
Sergeant
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2013 9:13 pm

Tue Apr 16, 2013 4:14 pm

I went and opened the game.

With a quick look you can see that the average line infantry for the Austrian player has stats of 8 off, 8 def and discipline 8.

The Prussians have many units with 7 as the value for those, they have the higher rate of fire 3 but now that is put to question also. :blink:

And i dont think Kunersdorf is a very good example of lack in Prussian dicipline but the complete opposite..

We just have to agree to disagree. :)

User avatar
Charles
Lieutenant
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 3:22 pm
Location: Canada

Wed Apr 17, 2013 6:09 pm

Maybe I did not explain myself properly, I did not mean to imply that the Prussians were worse than others. They are at least as good, probably better.

The problem is that unlike a more popular subject like WW2, little is written, in english or french, about Frederick's or Maria Theresa's army. There seems to be more in German, but I don't speak the language.

Since I have an interest in 18th century warfare in general and in the Seven Year's War in particular, I have tried to read what I could over the years.

At the level of the basic recruit and basic infantry units, i.e. companies, training/motivation appears to have been about the same for Prussian, Austrian or British infantry which are the three I am most familiar which. These are regular infantry, not Grenadier or Guards units. The French and minor German states seem to have been worse, although I have not looked at them. There seems to be very little written about the Russian Army as well.

Where the Prussian Army had an advantge was in its officers which of course has an impact from the regiment all the way up to the King. In all armies back then, officers could buy their commissions and received on the job training. However Frederick and his father made an effort to make sure that most officers had a basic level of competence and setup basic training programs and schools to provide a basic military education, so in general all Prussian officers were more competent than their English or Austrian counterparts. The Austrians also had an additional handicap, namely language. The Austrian empire had many nationalities and recruited officers from all over Europe, so you often had issues where a general or colonel could not even communicate with his troops without a translator. In general, it was the superior quality of its officers that gave the Prussian Army the edge in battle, you saw that at Prague, Rossbach, Leuthen, Torgau where decision taken by officers on the spot were crucial in winning the battle.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

Die Zieten
Sergeant
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2013 9:13 pm

Wed Apr 17, 2013 7:12 pm

Charles wrote:Maybe I did not explain myself properly, I did not mean to imply that the Prussians were worse than others. They are at least as good, probably better.

The problem is that unlike a more popular subject like WW2, little is written, in english or french, about Frederick's or Maria Theresa's army. There seems to be more in German, but I don't speak the language.

Since I have an interest in 18th century warfare in general and in the Seven Year's War in particular, I have tried to read what I could over the years.

At the level of the basic recruit and basic infantry units, i.e. companies, training/motivation appears to have been about the same for Prussian, Austrian or British infantry which are the three I am most familiar which. These are regular infantry, not Grenadier or Guards units. The French and minor German states seem to have been worse, although I have not looked at them. There seems to be very little written about the Russian Army as well.

Where the Prussian Army had an advantge was in its officers which of course has an impact from the regiment all the way up to the King. In all armies back then, officers could buy their commissions and received on the job training. However Frederick and his father made an effort to make sure that most officers had a basic level of competence and setup basic training programs and schools to provide a basic military education, so in general all Prussian officers were more competent than their English or Austrian counterparts. The Austrians also had an additional handicap, namely language. The Austrian empire had many nationalities and recruited officers from all over Europe, so you often had issues where a general or colonel could not even communicate with his troops without a translator. In general, it was the superior quality of its officers that gave the Prussian Army the edge in battle, you saw that at Prague, Rossbach, Leuthen, Torgau where decision taken by officers on the spot were crucial in winning the battle.


For me the only issue is what type of replacement chips the line infantry units use. :)

The Prussians gathered their grenadiers in battalions, they should use elite chips.

All the musketeer battalions should use the regular chip and IMO the values of the present regular chip should be a notch better.

The end result is the same combat power or even lower for Prussians but will help organizing their forces and keeps them in historical composition.

Return to “Help to improve RoP”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest