The †roll Cave ®™

Majority of the armies the Continental army faced were very well trained well equipped veterans of the French and Indian war so they were very good British troops not fourth rate armies as you are saying.

They loyalists were trained to the standard of the other British troops which was the best at that time and they were much better equipped. The bulk of the fighting force was still British troop though not loyalists

You had 56 thousand troops in North America you were desperate to keep the colonies. Most were fighting the rebels. America attempted to invade Canada once with it first being successful with the capturing of fort Jean. How ever the Continentals were under equipped and the harsh winter killed almost half of them off. The attempt to capture Quebec was failed because of the heavy toll the winter attrition took on the Continentals. When the Continentals fought the British they were usually out numbered 3-1 with no artillery and horrible equipment. Most Brits like to claim that they didn’t care about the colonies because they cant face the cold hard facts that the “best trained troops” were beaten by farmers.

There were plenty of forests in the colonies and far more ports that Britain needed along with many farms. Britain remained the number 1 buyer of cotton from southern farms up until the civil war.

Not really you already had a huge number of troops in the colonies so you cant use that excuse.

The French gave us terrible guns we’ve already gone over this. The army was almost always under supplied and attrition was the main killer so Spain and France didn’t help us much in that area. As for training and advising most of the Continentals were ex British officers so they did not need much help with advice from the French or Spanish. Marquis de Lafayette was a big help although he was like Washingtons son and pretty much considered himself American later in the war. The biggest help with training came from a Prussian officer who trained the troops at valley forge.

They may have been traitors and separatists but they were not by definition terrorists.

No hate to burst your bubble but it was a draw both countries signed a treaty to agree to stop the fighting but that didn’t stop Andrew Jackson and his much smaller force from beating the shit out of the much larger british force a few months later.

You occupied Washington for less than a day before a hurricane blew in and sent you running. We burned down the Canadian parliament building so that made things equal.
The fact that the Continentals won any battles against the British is amazing. The continentals were under feed under equipped and had next to no training. The British armies as i said earlier usually out numbered the continentals by a significant number. If you Britain really didn’t care about the colonies as you are claiming they would not have sent nearly 40,000 troops to crush the rebellion and re take the land. The revolution was a bitter loss for Britain you just need to admit that its the past it doesn’t affect your “honor” hell we weren’t even alive then. I just hope to god they aren’t teaching in British schools that Britain didn’t lose and Britain didn’t even try to put down the revolution because it couldn’t get farther form the truth. 1812 was a stale mate plain and simple neither country reached their objectives and both suffered loses. The Battle that occurred in New Orleans is considered a separate engagement which was a crushing defeat for Britain.

Fair point how ever the majority of the lands you conquered like India, Africa, the colonies, many islands in the Pacific were thousands of years behind you. You cant really expect naked pigmies with spears and blowguns to really do much against rifles and artillery can you? Even a few vickers machine guns were used on the Zulus who had nothing but spears maybe a black powder rifle if they were lucky.

Which America usually dominates at :wink:

Would love to see this in person i wish i had a time machine to go back and see cornwallis cowering and the American troops streaming over the fortification and defeating the British once and for all. :smiley:

you got a source to back that up ?

90% of the troops stationed there were born there and part of the militia , . what you faced was militia forces and loyalist , not even england its self was defended by 1st rate troops so to say america was in bullshit and factually wrong , you faced americans who had joined the British army as colonials , e.g 2nd rate troops , and miltia 4th rate troops as well as armed loyalist .

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:289, topic:21032”]
You had 56 thousand troops in North America
[/quote] . the actual numbers were
7,500 british colonial troops (2nd rate commanded by inexperienced officers and 10,000 German Hessians. the rest were militia

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:289, topic:21032”]
There were plenty of forests in the colonies and far more ports that Britain needed along with many farms. Britain remained the number 1 buyer of cotton from southern farms up until the civil war.
[/quote] i did not say the colonies were barren land with nothing we wanted , but they dint have as much as other places in the british empire it was a choice we took to give up the colonies as we didnt have the numbers to stamp out the revolution for good . simples .

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:289, topic:21032”]
The French gave us terrible guns we’ve already gone over this. The army was almost always under supplied and attrition was the main killer so Spain and France didn’t help us much in that area. As for training and advising most of the Continentals were ex British officers so they did not need much help with advice from the French or Spanish. Marquis de Lafayette was a big help although he was like Washingtons son and pretty much considered himself American later in the war. The biggest help with training came from a Prussian officer who trained the troops at valley forge.
[/quote] like it or lump it you would have been able to fight as you did without the french , spanish and Netherlands

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:289, topic:21032”]
No hate to burst your bubble but it was a draw both countries signed a treaty to agree to stop the fighting but that didn’t stop Andrew Jackson and his much smaller force from beating the shit out of the much larger british force a few months later.
[/quote] i hate to burst yours but no such thing as a draw in war , one side is always in a stronger position at the negotiating table that side is normally the side winning asnd the one to claim victory , as it was the americans who requested peace and the americans that started the war without accomplishing a single objective its fair to say you lost . you failed at the entire war you lost , just face it the fact that you won a decisive victory after already signing your surrender in the war is irrelevant.

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:289, topic:21032”]
You occupied Washington for less than a day before a hurricane blew in and sent you running. We burned down the Canadian parliament building so that made things equal.
[/quote] i think you will find you burnt down the candian parliament first the washinton was our revenge , we never planned to take the city over we planned to burn the entire city to the ground but as you say a hurricane came in which happens to be the strongest hurricane the states has ever seen its fair to say you either had someone on your side or shit lucky as it forces us to pull the ships away from danger

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:289, topic:21032”]
If you Britain really didn’t care about the colonies as you are claiming they would not have sent nearly 40,000
[/quote] please provide a source to back that up .

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:289, topic:21032”]
. The revolution was a bitter loss for Britain you just need to admit that its the past it doesn’t affect your “honor” hell we weren’t even alive then.
[/quote] it was a bitter loss yes however it hardly dented the empire at all.

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:289, topic:21032”]
British schools that Britain didn’t lose and Britain didn’t even try to put down the revolution because it couldn’t get farther form the truth.
[/quote]not taught in british schools at all .

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:289, topic:21032”]
1812 was a stale mate plain and simple neither country reached their objectives and both suffered loses.
[/quote] errm our objective was to defend our land we succeeded so we won , you came running to us for peace not the other way

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:289, topic:21032”]
defeating the British once and for all
[/quote] i think you will find there were countless other encounters after this one that ended in the americans backing down from fear of another war . we were nearly at war with eachother as recent as the 1930’s .

.

at the offset of the revolution the british army was at the smallest it ever has been the entire british army only numbered 50,000 and 10,00 designated to defending the colonies (18 regiments stationed in the americas ) this was due to a complete failure in the british army on recruiting after the seven year war by 1778 the british army was back uo to 194,000


Loyalists were British regulars those who still considered themselves British. They were trained and equipped to the standards of the British military. Many veterans from the French and Indian war fought against the continentals.

They were trained by the British military to the standards of the British military and were very well equipped. 20,000 free men and 20,000 free slaves. In addition General Howe set sail with 30,000 regulars from Europe to put down the revolution in the end, though, the British were able to ship Sir William Howe an army of 32,000 officers and men to open a campaign in late 1776. It was the largest force the British had ever sent outside of Europe at that time. That is a quote directly out of the source.

Your numbers are off by a long shot. 20,000 loyalists the same number of free men 30,000 German troops and 13,000 natives stationed in North America.

It was developed and gave you a great foot hold onto the continent. You did not give up the war because the colonies weren’t as valuable you were beaten. Your entire southern army was captured along with Cornwallis and that forced you into surrender. Britian lost the revolution despite having superior training, numbers and equipment.

They were seriously considering arming the troops with bows so we would have had to fight without guns. This would have made it to where our entire force would have just gone Guerrilla and we would have harassed you until you gave in anyway.

Neither side was wining. Both sides had equal wins and losses it was a draw get over it.

What objective did you accomplish besides losing men and burning down the white house but we burned down the Canadian parliament building so one had the upper hand. New orleans is a different story. British forces were absolutely wrecked by Andrew Jacksons force.

Well im not sure if you believe in a divine being but that was some pretty incredible luck.

To say it didn’t hurt the empire is incorrect. It opened the gate way for many eventually revolutions that happend in your territory. People realized you could be beat and that you weren’t invincible. Plus Britain lost thousands of subjects and territory. It had a very bad effect on the empires economy.

Hmm well when ever i have debates with other brits they seem to think that Britain didn’t care about losing the colonies and that Britain won the war

You didn’t keep Washington the British thought they might be able to claim their old land back. We didn’t get Canada neither country made any ground during the war. But the U.S did stop the impressment of sailors and won several victories at sea. After you rejected our first peace offer (it was not a surrender there for you did NOT win the war) you then reached out for peace with us. Every single historian will say the same thing the war was a draw.

I sent you my sources. General Howe set sail from Europe with 30,000 additional troops to crush the rebellion. Read up on any battle of the war. The British would out number the Continentals 9/10 times. Not to mention the British had far more artillery pieces which made beating the British all the more difficult.

What’s all this talk about the American Revolution about?

Let’s get off topic, post old songs.

Have you heard the of Venezuelan Crisis? It took place in 1902 when the British were demanding the Venezuelans pay up the debt they owed to them. We sent a huge fleet to make the European powers back down. After you that you respected the Monroe doctrine because like it or not the European powers feared America due to its size. In the late 1800s the American military was far ahead of the European ones in Technology with Repeaters revolvers, gattlings, and iron clads. (it went down hill quickly in the early 1900s) and would have been able to take any European army in a war in the 1870-1880s. The war in the 1930s would never have happend. Roosevelt was very good Friends with winston church hill who would become prime minister in 1940. Roosevelt hate hitler and many Americans felt closely tied with Britain due to the common ancestry. The plan was never approved and the President has control over the troops and there fore would never order them to attack Canada.


His face totally says i got away with making a song about sex in the 1950s

1 Like

Well the German Empire has a rather large chance to beat the US in a straight up battle. It depends on how the US army rifle stands up to the Mauser Model 1871.

He looks so smug.

1 Like

The U.S Calvary would be armed with Repeater rifles and revolvers. Gattling guns would definitely be a game changer on the battle field. Some infantry would be armed with revolvers as side arms somthing that would be extremely helpful if a melee was to happen. For infantry its hard to say. The U.S army switched weapons many times within that time period. The Spring field carbine model 1873 could be one such weapon but it was used heavily by Calvary as well.
I have no idea what the equipment the German military used it seems the numbers of the armies would have been relatively equal. It would probably be an interesting match up but I’ve been debating for a few days now and it gets tiring so ill just have to take your word for it. All i know is that the American Army was concern for European territory in the western hemisphere.

The Germans might have access to a gun similar to the Gatling.

As for the 1873 Springfield carbine, if it has a range of 600 yards like I found with a quick google search than the German rifle would have a slight (but small) range advantage.

Frankly I think it would be two very similar armies facing each other and perhaps we would see Trench warfare like WWI appear a few decades earlier.

1 Like

I as well really hope that hunting is t he next big thing added in, I am really excited to see some animals. I am also ready to have anything at all die when I shoot.

Would be really sweet if in the next update we can start out with a bow and some arrows and then maybe earn more arrows competing with the master archer. I don’t have anything to spend the groshes on and its kinda odd that this dude has a fortune to spend losing to me.

1 Like

Yeah the civil war didn’t go so well death wise with them fighting with rifles and all this new technology with them still marching in lines it would have been a shit show. If you ever want to play a game with weapons from that time period shogun 2 fall of the samurai is a very good game. Its fun to steam role samurai with Gatling guns cannons and then have British, French, or American marines in your army that rape everything.

1 Like

This is behavioral tree of a sheep. I think that AI of animals will be very detailed. :slight_smile:

4 Likes

nope thats wrong , they were equipped as well as possible yes but the training would have been to the standard of a colonial regiment not a British born one much like a roman auxually .
nice to see you use solid sources . try another saurce thats gets any where close to the numbers ypu propse conserdering the entire british army numbered 49,000 in 1776 we grew it to just over 100,000
http://www.shmoop.com/american-revolution/statistics.html
at the start our force numbered 10,000
we grew this by recruiting locals loyal to us . the entire reason you won was because we simply didnt have the troops to hold on to the land we took back .

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:292, topic:21032”]
They were trained by the British military to the standards of the British military and were very well equipped. 20,000 free men and 20,000 free slaves. In addition General Howe set sail with 30,000 regulars from Europe to put down the revolution in the end, though, the British were able to ship Sir William Howe an army of 32,000 officers and men to open a campaign in late 1776. It was the largest force the British had ever sent outside of Europe at that time. That is a quote directly out of the source.
[/quote] these numbers bullshit the entire source because if you research the size of the british army in 1776 it will tell you the ENTIRE british army during 1775 was 49,000 by 1781 it had grew to just 121,000 British soldiers 25,000 being forein and with this we had 40,000 miltia
so again you faced miltia and loyalists equipped by the british , trained by us to the standards expected of a colonial soldier .
you beat us fair and square i accept but lets not dramatise it by pretending the entire british army was fighting in north america .

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:292, topic:21032”]
Neither side was wining. Both sides had equal wins and losses it was a draw get over it.
[/quote] you cannot have a draw in war they dont exsist , your entire war objective failed and you came back asking for peace , you lost .

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:292, topic:21032”]
What objective did you accomplish besides losing men and burning down the white house but we burned down the Canadian parliament building so one had the upper hand. New orleans is a different story. British forces were absolutely wrecked by Andrew Jacksons force.
[/quote] we held on to canada and stopped your attempt at taking any part of it , yes you had some total victories over us but its war they happen , but the bigger picture equals you lost . you are the ones that tapped out

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:292, topic:21032”]
Well im not sure if you believe in a divine being but that was some pretty incredible luck.
[/quote] yes i agree very lucky .

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:292, topic:21032”]
To say it didn’t hurt the empire is incorrect. It opened the gate way for many eventually revolutions that happend in your territory. People realized you could be beat and that you weren’t invincible. Plus Britain lost thousands of subjects and territory. It had a very bad effect on the empires economy.
[/quote] do you want to source that

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:292, topic:21032”]
Hmm well when ever i have debates with other brits they seem to think that Britain didn’t care about losing the colonies and that Britain won the war
[/quote] because the british were not that bothered about losing it . just after the war there were huge debates in parliment as to why we never crushed the revolution and why we never sent the troops required to do it .
we would have preferred to hold on to it yes , but it was deemed as a acceptable loss . american kids seem to be taught a total bullshit story of many parts of your history to make you all the more patriotic when its simply untrue . where as in the UK be dont touch the british empire in school at all .

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:292, topic:21032”]
You didn’t keep Washington the British thought they might be able to claim their old land back. We didn’t get Canada neither country made any ground during the war. But the U.S did stop the impressment of sailors and won several victories at sea. After you rejected our first peace offer (it was not a surrender there for you did NOT win the war) you then reached out for peace with us. Every single historian will say the same thing the war was a draw
[/quote] every single us historian yes haha ask any one from out side the US and you will get a different answer . actually in fact a us historian admitted canada won the war of 1812 (couldnt quite bring himself to say british won it )

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:292, topic:21032”]
General Howe
[/quote] was the the overal commander of british forces in north america , he did indeed command 30,000 men in 1776 , we renifored with what we could at the time , most being german mercs , he was the sole commander that won you the war as he refused to take the intiative and crush the american rebellion for good when he could of .

best game ever just a shame its limited to japan would have been an amazing game if they did a new empire 2 in that period

@TheDivineInfidel, @SirWarriant Regarding our previous discussion on effective gun control in Britain: policemen in UK are urged not to go to the streets because they might be killed.

Does the word alone in that title mean anything to you?

1 Like

Looks like Lock Picking is going to be the primary focus of the next alpha update.

yes , we are in great danger of being attacked with the nations that have already been attacked its likely the US or UK is next . a large scale gun attack in the UK or US isnt going to go well as both nations security forces are extremely drilled and experienced with these kind of threats so yes the most likely attack will be a person killing police officers at random.

The answer to that HERE isnt arm the nation because all your doing there is making it easier for the terrorist to get hold of weapons . society here for the most part doesnt have an interest in guns so 70% of the population wouldnt even buy one even if it was legal .
in my opinion i think all police should be firearm trained. Then you can balance the number of police carrying guns to the threat , so if an attack is under way , arm all police . if one is likely then arm say 70% and if one isnt likely arm 30%

So uh yeah I like toast.

1 Like