Training Levels for the various armies'

Joined: 08 May 2006 Posts: 9

Assuming that we are staying with the ranking system that BF came up with, my question now is what would your thoughts be on the starting varying training levels for the armies'?

'Early War 1798 - 1805'
???

'Mid War 1806 - 1811'
French Infantry [Veteran or Elite??]
English Infantry [Veteran??]
Russian Infantry [Trained??]
Austrian [Trained??]
Prussian ???
Spanish ???
Turkish [Conscript??]

Artillery ???

Cavalry ???

'Late War 1812 - 1815'
???

Site Admin Joined: 03 Mar 2006 Posts: 174

Just off the top of my head and kind of in general ...

British, French & Portugese - Confident Veteran
Austrian & Prussian - Confident Trained
Russian - Fearless Conscript
Spanish - Reluctant Conscript (maybe trained?)

Of course guards units would be fearless (or have the guards rule from FKoC), and other specific units/periods would have their allowances.

Again, I certainly don't have the expertise in these areas that some of you have but above is the impression I get of them.

Joined: 04 May 2006 Posts: 3 Location: Philadelphia, PA USA

The ratings would vary a lot depending on the time period. For example, French troops from the revolutionary period would be either conscripts or trained depending on if they were new levies or old regiments from the royal army. Motivations for the levies would be like the "8 Million Bayonets" rule from the Italian army so they could range from fearless to reluctant. When you get into the 1803-1809 period, French troops would mostly be confident veterans. In the 1813-1814 period they would mostly be confident trained with a few conscript and reluctant troops thrown in. For the 1815 campaign they would mostly be back to confident veterans. Guards would mostly be fearless veterans through the whole war.

That's just a few examples, but you get the idea.

Posted: Sat May 20, 2006 6:19 am

It isn't easy to say one class for one army in one period.
For example : French 1805-1811. The soldiers are not the same in Iena, in Spain, or in Wagram. And if the scale is one division, in Baylen ( 1808 ), the bataillons in the Cassagne Brigade are not the same than bataillons in the Lefranc brigade or Dufour brigades. Confused

Site Admin Joined: 03 Mar 2006 Posts: 174

My thought is that it would be wise to establish our basic system using a fairly generic soldier (or group of generic soldiers) armed with muskets, canons or swords before we start to develop inclusion of specific national or period details. Any thoughts on that?

Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 8:55 am

I agree with that. Very Happy

Joined: 20 Jun 2006 Posts: 5 Location: Oz

The aim being to have a competative points based game means you must unfortuniately generalize a bit Sad

I would like to see players given a limited chose and they decide and pay the points for the better rating
I like scotts take on the "8 million bayonets" maybe that could be used a lot more often for suspect troops in different periods e.g revoluntary french, 1814 french conscripts, Landwher, Spanish etc regards mic

Joined: 25 May 2006 Posts: 17 Location: Oslo, Norway

I like miccog’s idea of players being able to choose ratings to a certain degree. That would certainly make it more fun to play certain armies.

However, I think, like Nicofig and Dillingham, that perhaps these details are better left until we have sorted out the basic rules. Starting with generic infantry seems the best option to me at this point.

Jonas