D3m0,
Sure, and the game could start on the eve of Austerlitz or the morning of Trafalgar and go into all kinds of ahistorical directions if France or Britain loses.
But that's the fortune of war. I'd like to start early enough to fundamentally alter the nature of the war.
And I find the revisionism unconvincing. Napoleon was a genius, but much of the credit belongs to the Terror, the subsequent meritocracy* in the ranks, and the army reforms. There was as vast a difference in quality and organization between the French and Russian armies as between the phalanx and the manipole, although, granted, the Austrian reforms were further along.
It's not like the Russians made it easier for privates, NCOs and non-noble officiers to rise through the ranks during the wars. Becoming much more than an NCO as someone from a non-noble background was just as unlikely in 1808-1815 as it was in 1799-1807.
Same is true for the British army, which remained old fashioned throughout the war in a lot of ways.
I'm not denying that there was a difference, I just disagree that the whole situation in 1805 is so deterministic that anything but catastrophe for the Coalition can be ruled out.
The Russians performed some great military feats against the French in 1799, the retreat and rearguard actions from Braunau to Olmütz in 1805 was exemplary and the outcome of the Polish campaign in 1807 hang in the balance for quite some time.
All against the more experienced French soldiers and without a corps system.
To say it was the "high command" (to which I would add the regimental commanders and many junior officers, as well as structural problems such as poor communication and discipline) is very strange.
Why? Weyrothers flawed plan, the hasty work of the Russian general staff and Alexander overruling Kutusov were major contributors to why Austerlitz played out like it did.
The Russian officer corps remained almost untouched throughout the wars, and constant quarrels and rivalry between high ranking Generals also still was a problem in 1812-1815.
What do you think the reforms were? Much of France's advantage was in the professionalization of its command structure.
In Russia army reforms limited themselves mostly to the adoption of Divisions and Corps, Arakcheevs reformation of the artillery and infantry equipment and the renewal of the general staff under Mikhailovich Volkonsky and von Toll.
Things like the heavier use of light infantry and deployment and manoeuvre in attack columns were in principle already adopted in 1805-1807.
One of the biggest differences between the Russian army in 1812-1815 and 1805-1807 was simply that Generals, the officer corps and the privates were much more experienced after a prolonged time of war against the French, Swedes, Ottomans and Persians.
Again I don't disagree that the French army of 1805 was superior in almost every aspect, just in how big the difference was.
Nor do I disagree that a earlier start date would mean more possibilities in how the game plays out (Peace of Amiens would be a favorite of mine too), although a start date before the 18 Brumaire seems unlikely. A game about the Napoleonic Wars where Napoleon might never come to power in the first place would probably not sit right with a lot of people.
Any start date between 1789 and 1799 would probably also require a lot of game mechanics that aren't currently planned by the dev team, seems more like something for a possible DLC to me.
