Fantasy figures for the British

[Ironclad]

Fantasy figures as shown by these ridiculous battle totals against Napoleon's Grand army in 1806 These numbers would be equally absurd for Britain at any other point in the Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars.

[ATTACH]38009[/ATTACH]

[Ace]

If I am to believe sime other posters, Britain did had such large army, but it remained home for the entire war. Cheaper to spill someone elses blood, I guess

[Aurelin]

The British never put an army that size in the field during the war.

At its peak in 1813, it reached @250,000. But they were deployed all over the world.

http://www.napoleon-series.org/military/organization/c_casualties.html

[Pocus]

You are not taking into account that many of these units are (de)fencibles units, and they were quite numerous at this time.

[Ironclad]

This was a battle on the continent - not in Britain including Ireland where home units could have participated. There was no British expeditionary battle that fielded a non-allied force this huge.

[veji1]

You are not taking into account that many of these units are (de)fencibles units, and they were quite numerous at this time.

A major part of british forces should be locked in the UK and the colonies.. 100 000 brits on the continent in 1813 or later fine, but in 1806, no way...

[Skibear]

As the British commander I can explain a little bit about the context here. 1805 saw the previous French emperor (who dropped, and Ironclad kindly picked up the pbem position) suffer serious setback in South Germany being outfought and outmaneuvered by Austria with Prussia's help. Britain answered the call to assist on the continent and took Vissingen and subsequently Amsterdam against zero resistance. Initially a 5 division expeditionary force of the total 10 Britain is allowed 3 were locked in India and 2 off in South Africa. Landing in the continent so early is a huge risk for Britain. The replacements feed in at an absolute trickle and any lost battle will take years to rebuild. But given that Napoleon was miles away and busy, this was worth a raid to do some damage and relieve pressure on the coalition. Except no French corps were dispatched, so Breda, Antwerp and Brussels fell. Finally in front of Lille a small corps was met and defeated but this was going to be the highwater of the advance as winter arrived.

Over winter France clearly rebuild many of her losses, but gained nothing in Germany and was back where they started, except with the low countries lost. However as Britain I had two choices, completely withdraw in the face of a rebuilt Grand Armee, or try to cause more trouble. Through disbanding the Indian divisions and rebuilding them using troops in Europe I was able to get virtually all the troops in Europe into divisions. But clearly this would not be enough for a battle in open ground so we took our inspiration from Torres Vedras. Antwerp built up to a size 3 fortress, in marsh terrain, with Moore in command. Looks like we were able to Marshall together 100k men. These are high numbers for sure, and it leaves just about no mobile forces in Britain, a strong garrison in Gibraltar, the americas unchanged and 90% of the Indian garrison still there.

Its definitely all eggs in one basket as if defeated in the open thats Britain on island defense for years. But given the strong defenses we decided it was worth the risk to tie down France for another summer. To be honest I didn't expect France to attack, as even a smaller force in this strong position would have held. You can't fit the whole grand armee into the frontage needed to dislodge a well dug in force like this in a marsh. So while the British numbers might be high, the battle result is not unexpected I think. As Britain only being able to field ten divisions is a serious restriction, and the severe lack of replacements means any battle you face at this point has to really be worth it. As it is the 30K losses over 2 battles will take a long time to fill, but given the defenses we were confident that it would be worth it to thwart Frances ambitions for a second summer. If we didn't offer a battle now on favourable ground of our own choosing and abandon the low countries then it would be years anyway before another opportunity presented itself. I think rather than fantasy it is the game giving the player strategic choices.
If France had won their summer battles of 1805 there is no way I would have risked the British army on the continent, but given the reverses they suffered then we are already deep into 'what if' territory I think.
What might restrict Britains ability to conduct this operation would be to not allow the divisions in India to be disolved. However this battle was only with 6 divisions deployed outside the fortress, the other 2 were in the fort in reserve so the numbers actually fightinf were less and the battle would probably have been won with just 5 division. In which case just how small do we want to make the British army before its of no interest to play?

[Skibear]

Here are some wider numbers regarding the situation so far:

GB has lost 95k in her adventures in India, Cape town and now on the Continent.
We have taken 54k Dutch prisoners, 83k Indian prisoners and 81k French prisoners.

Overall French losses against GB, Austria and Prussia seem to be 335k all told.
At the same time Austria lost 133k, Prussia 35k and Russia has done virtually nothing.

This is not Ironclad's fault. He rescued a very badly fought 1805 campaign and turned around the Grand armee over the winter. However here at Antwerp I think it was an attack born out of frustration that would have been doomed against a smaller force. Better to isolate Antwerp and dare the Brits to meet in the open (spoiler alert - they wouldnt ) and divert attention to fighting Prussia or Austria I think.

[veji1]

thanks for the explanations Skibear. I still think Britain should have a really really hard time mustering troops to fight on the continent, it should take time and really the Brits should hardly be able to send 30 000 men on the continent in the first couple of years : in the first years the Brits should NEED to pay the other countries to fight for her : she should have lots of troops blocked around the globe, but not free to fight.

The dissolving of the indian units was clever, but Imho, and really imho, an exploit of the engine.

But really thanks enough for the transparency !

[RickInVA]

I am more amazed by the 5371 cannon of the British force. The allies had ~1500 cannon at Liepzig, which if not the most at any one battle has to be close. Did the British take all the cannon off the Royal Navy ships?

[Skibear]

I am more amazed by the 5371 cannon of the British force. The allies had ~1500 cannon at Liepzig, which if not the most at any one battle has to be close. Did the British take all the cannon off the Royal Navy ships?

That does seem high doesn't it? But no nothing landed off ships. Moore's army has 236 cannon, the force in the fortress of Antwerp has 206 cannon including the fixed batteries. However there is a major fleet in harbour (just in case evacuation needed) with 4900 cannon but I'd be surprised if that counted in the fighting.

[Skibear]

thanks for the explanations Skibear. I still think Britain should have a really really hard time mustering troops to fight on the continent, it should take time and really the Brits should hardly be able to send 30 000 men on the continent in the first couple of years : in the first years the Brits should NEED to pay the other countries to fight for her : she should have lots of troops blocked around the globe, but not free to fight.

The dissolving of the indian units was clever, but Imho, and really imho, an exploit of the engine.

But really thanks enough for the transparency !

In 1805 then I'd say around a stack of 30K troops under Moore was about what I used to take Holland and Belgium, just before winter Lord Hill arrived with 2 divisions back from the Cape, and in spring we built 2 more from the reserves in Britain and they just arrived as the garrison/reserve in the fortress. As said the confidence to commit further troops is born out of French defeats in the first year. Originally all I hoped/planned for was to skirmish, cause havoc, divert troops from Germany and retreat in one piece and ideally hold on the the island of Vlissingen in the end. But this is very much an alternate history now...

[Ace]

It seems to me Skibear did what every competitive PBEMer would do. Strip Britain bare of troops, and protect Home turf with the Fleet,not with stationary force. The question is should the game allow it. I think there should be some penalty (VP) for the Brits if they leave GB and Ireland bare of troops. Either that or old fashion locked troops. Otherwise, the French are at a disadvantage in PBEM if everyone teams against them. But that's just my 2 cents.

[Skibear]

To further clarify there are still at least 25 mobile units in Britain and Ireland in addition to the static brigades and batteries. Gibraltar received a boost to discourage Spain (now at peace). The India's sent home a couple of brigades following the fall of Jaipur, and the Americas are unchanged. So I guess the original point is should Britain have enough ability to field 8 division on the continent in 1806? I think the context still is that in open battle against the French they would be defeated, and never have the replacements to rebuild. As the French in another game I would welcome the chance, but I wouldn't full frontal assault a Torres Vedras type position and expect to get good result. Overall the context here is France lost big in 1805 even before this battle, with morale at 95% and a quarter million losses already. Whereas British losses previously relatively light and morale at 130+ from a string of victories and conquests. If France had beaten Austria in 1805 you'd be crazy to commit the British army to the continent even if you could bring all ten divisions. They can't fight as joined up army and the most you can stretch to is 6 divisions in an army if you use Moore + army HQ for 25cp. But use Moore and fail and he dies and you risk not enabling the Army reforms and never getting the corps system. Antwerp here was a bit gamble by a parliament who were confident in the circumstances that Austria and Prussia were very much in the fight but needed as much help now as possible, not in a few years time, and that if it did go wrong the fortress was there as a backdrop and the fleet ready to evacuate.
I think any reduction or fixing of Britain needs to be careful to avoid making her toothless, or at too much risk of not being able to respond to invasion, but also giving some options for an expedition.

[GraniteStater]

I just got the game and know zippo, but that's a cogent analysis.

[arsan]

Intresting game!
Just a little clarification: the 150k british men and 5000 guns that is shown on the first screen includes all the sailors and guns in the fleet at port in the region, that didn't fight in the battle.
On the battle report everyhing a nation has on a region in accounted for whereas it actually take part on the battle or not.

I bet Moore had a much more reasonable number of men in the army... 60k? .. Skibear can you confirm?

Regards!

Regards

[vicberg]

Britain has about 5000 CBT unrestricted at start. In base game, Britain gets drafts so you'll quickly be able to build up. This shouldn't be happening as Britain didn't draft and they only expanded their army by 120,000 men over the entire duration of the war.

At any point, at least 1/3 of their army was doing foreign duty (India, US, etc..). The rest just sat around in Britain. In truth, Britain only provided for a 50k contingent to be used on the continent, with the rest being held in perpetual reserve.

In WON , the British are relatively unrestricted. It's a long game and the British player should have fun.

[veji1]

To further clarify there are still at least 25 mobile units in Britain and Ireland in addition to the static brigades and batteries. Gibraltar received a boost to discourage Spain (now at peace). The India's sent home a couple of brigades following the fall of Jaipur, and the Americas are unchanged. So I guess the original point is should Britain have enough ability to field 8 division on the continent in 1806? I think the context still is that in open battle against the French they would be defeated, and never have the replacements to rebuild. As the French in another game I would welcome the chance, but I wouldn't full frontal assault a Torres Vedras type position and expect to get good result. Overall the context here is France lost big in 1805 even before this battle, with morale at 95% and a quarter million losses already. Whereas British losses previously relatively light and morale at 130+ from a string of victories and conquests. If France had beaten Austria in 1805 you'd be crazy to commit the British army to the continent even if you could bring all ten divisions. They can't fight as joined up army and the most you can stretch to is 6 divisions in an army if you use Moore + army HQ for 25cp. But use Moore and fail and he dies and you risk not enabling the Army reforms and never getting the corps system. Antwerp here was a bit gamble by a parliament who were confident in the circumstances that Austria and Prussia were very much in the fight but needed as much help now as possible, not in a few years time, and that if it did go wrong the fortress was there as a backdrop and the fleet ready to evacuate.
I think any reduction or fixing of Britain needs to be careful to avoid making her toothless, or at too much risk of not being able to respond to invasion, but also giving some options for an expedition.

Thanks, very interesting observations, and indeed there shouldn't be excessive knee jerk reaction either. But your game is in mid 1806, not 1808 or 1809, so I still think imho that even though you took big risks, you were able to take them too early in the game.

[vicberg]

The limiting factor for the British should be conscripts, IMO. Restricting their troops is overkill. I've removed British Draft cards in my mod, which means that Britain can land anywhere with a sizable force but won't be able to sustain their operations for a long period of time. They need to carefully conserve conscripts over a long period of time in order to build up their replacements prior to landing in force on the continent.

The issue I see in base game is that the British have major drafts available, which then enables them to 1) land at any time with almost any force level, and 2) build up to almost French army size by late game. I've mentioned this in prior posts. The British in base game are way overpowered. The navy is understandable. The large land force and ability to build up/replace it isn't.

[veji1]

The limiting factor for the British should be conscripts, IMO. Restricting their troops is overkill. I've removed British Draft cards in my mod, which means that Britain can land anywhere with a sizable force but won't be able to sustain their operations for a long period of time. They need to carefully conserve conscripts over a long period of time in order to build up their replacements prior to landing in force on the continent.

The issue I see in base game is that the British have major drafts available, which then enables them to 1) land at any time with almost any force level, and 2) build up to almost French army size by late game. I've mentioned this in prior posts. The British in base game are way overpowered. The navy is understandable. The large land force and ability to build up/replace it isn't.

Makes sense : give the british player the freedom to land a 100K army in Europe in 1806 if he does all he can to maximize his forces, but then this army will slowly wittle down and he will have a very hard time refilling his units. Or he can be more conservative, use smaller armies later but with the ability to reinforce them with actual units regularly to replace units getting depleted OR slowly refill them with its trickle of conscripts.

[Offworlder]

How about freezing the Fencible Regiments? They were garrison troops raised to relieve the regulars for overseas service. They could then be released if someone invaded either England (for regiments present in England and Scotland) or Ireland (for those regiments on Ireland). There are something like 5 divisions of them or more present, and they add a lot of troops to the army.

[Ebbingford]

The limiting factor for the British should be conscripts, IMO. Restricting their troops is overkill. I've removed British Draft cards in my mod, which means that Britain can land anywhere with a sizable force but won't be able to sustain their operations for a long period of time. They need to carefully conserve conscripts over a long period of time in order to build up their replacements prior to landing in force on the continent.

The issue I see in base game is that the British have major drafts available, which then enables them to 1) land at any time with almost any force level, and 2) build up to almost French army size by late game. I've mentioned this in prior posts. The British in base game are way overpowered. The navy is understandable. The large land force and ability to build up/replace it isn't.

Be wary of removing the British draft rgds. If you play with historical attrition on then these are very much needed by GB just to try and keep up with replacing the loses from attrition.....

[vicberg]

They have volunteers and a factional mod that can increase their conscript pool. The goal was to make sure that GB can only slowly increase it's army over the 10 years of war. We are still playtesting it. If I've gone too far, I'll increase the volunteer RGD cards for Britain.

[Skibear]

Intresting game!
Just a little clarification: the 150k british men and 5000 guns that is shown on the first screen includes all the sailors and guns in the fleet at port in the region, that didn't fight in the battle.
On the battle report everyhing a nation has on a region in accounted for whereas it actually take part on the battle or not.

I bet Moore had a much more reasonable number of men in the army... 60k? .. Skibear can you confirm?

Regards!

Regards

Yes, you are right the navy has circa 50k, there were 25k in the fortress in reserve, and thus about 75k in Moore's field army. 6 Divisions. Still relatively large of course. I think however restricting the flow of recruits is not the answer alone. There is no evidence that there were no fresh recruits coming through to rebuild battalions. But agree it should be a steady flow of volunteers and pressed men rather than mass drafts like on the continent for sure. However new men came to the colours, and without them you just get the situation of regiments evaporating to nothing. Rather if the initial field army is thought to be too large, and it probably is a little, then reduce a few battalions pehaps. I'm not sure what basis the number was set by but historically most regiments had 2 battalions, one depot/home service and one (or more) in the field. This more fixed garrisons is perhaps the answer. This likely accounts for much of the disparity between what Britain deployed overseas and what in game is possible. But I suspect that France all nations have a problem in game between what they can raise and what can be put in the field by ignoring garrisons. I can't see what France managed to do over winter in order to come back with and army of nearly 200k in just Antwerp after having lost more than that number the previous year in Germany but I think you can bet that if I land another division in Toulon or Brest or Bordeaux the cupboard will be very very bare aside from the fixed batteries... Ideally there probably should be home service only brigades for all nations, with VP penalties for going outside (though many don't care much about VPs (I do ). This giving mobility to defend where the player likes, but only at home. Or more fixed units that release when the enemy enters a province or region.

[greenleader84]

Hi. Pardon me for asking, but how long dose a pbem game last and how many rounds pr day do you guys take? It sounds amazing, and somthing i would love to try.

[vicberg]

It depends. With our group we are trying to do a turn a day. At that rate it will be around 2 years of playing. But with smaller groups and a couple turns a day, it can go faster. PBEM is definitely the way to play this.

[Skibear]

The game released in 3 months ago so I very much doubt anybody has completed a pbem for the full campaign yet unless they all locked themselves in a room to grind through relentlessly

We have reached may 1806 or thereabouts in both games I'm in, so pretty much 18 months of turns will take 3 months in real time give or take a bit. But each turn doesnt take more than a few minutes mostly so its a low impact long term project really.

[loki100]

It seems to me Skibear did what every competitive PBEMer would do. Strip Britain bare of troops, and protect Home turf with the Fleet,not with stationary force. The question is should the game allow it. I think there should be some penalty (VP) for the Brits if they leave GB and Ireland bare of troops. Either that or old fashion locked troops. Otherwise, the French are at a disadvantage in PBEM if everyone teams against them. But that's just my 2 cents.

thinking about this, one solution is Ireland ... it was very rebellious in this period and local nationalism fused with French support. One way forward could be to give the British player a choice - meet a substantial garrison or face rising discontent. So you can trade off.

Second solution is its a myth that Britain was united in the war against France. Especially in the north, there was substantial low level unrest ... again too low a garrison and this could explode.

The final bit is harder to capture but its the mindset of the British establishment. They were more afraid of internal revolt (ireland and/or political .. just possibly from Scotland) than of French invasion.

The ideal would be to capture that lot, so yes a British player can strip the home islands but run a real risk of massive revolt?

[vicberg]

I think that would be a great option

[Montbrun]

thinking about this, one solution is Ireland ... it was very rebellious in this period and local nationalism fused with French support. One way forward could be to give the British player a choice - meet a substantial garrison or face rising discontent. So you can trade off.

Second solution is its a myth that Britain was united in the war against France. Especially in the north, there was substantial low level unrest ... again too low a garrison and this could explode.

The final bit is harder to capture but its the mindset of the British establishment. They were more afraid of internal revolt (ireland and/or political .. just possibly from Scotland) than of French invasion.

The ideal would be to capture that lot, so yes a British player can strip the home islands but run a real risk of massive revolt?

Garrisons would be an excellent fix for this problem.