I realized that earlier and noted it in an early post on Page 2. It'll be moved north of Nehelenia.
I think the Commonwealth population is very large but not excessively large. More like the upper limit It is more the mention that other great powers are short on population which is simply not true for its time period.
I personally think that the Commonwealths army is too large for the time period. There is simply not a single point in 19th century history where any of the worlds great powers managed to field an army of over 1 million men during times of war. Not to mention that very large numbers of soldiers in the field proved to be unsustainable from both a financial as a supply point of view. The most important causes of death in war during the 19th century where starvation and desease, not actual combat. Also most great European powers struggled with the financial burdons of large standing armies.
I personally think that a high amount of points in Martial prowes should account more towards actual combat performance, leadership and quality of equipment rather then size.
<Snipped quote by Lone Wanderer>
I think a population between 20 and 40 milion is far more accurate for a great power during the early 19th century then 50 million+. France for instance had a population of around 35 million people, Great Brittan had less then 20 million (excluding their colonies). I found this list on some forum. Also take into consideration that Germany as a unified nation did not excist yet in 1840 same for Italy I think. As far as populations goes for great powers I think anywhere between 15 to 40 million would be accurate. Regional powers between 5-10 million and micro old world (NPC) up to 5 million.
1) Russia : 62.4 million
2) Austria-Hungary : 34.9 million
3) France : 34 million
4) Germany : 32.5 million
5) Italy : 22 million
6) England + Wales : 16 million
7) Spain : 14 million
8) Ireland : 8.2 million
9) Belgium : 4.1 million
10) Sweden : 3.1 million
11) Netherlands : 2.9 million
12) Scotland : 2.5 million
13) Finland : 1.5 million
14) Denmark : 1.3 million
15) Norway : 1.2 million
16) Greece : 0.9 million
A massive population during the early 19th century would also require a massive land size. This is because argicultural production methods where still very labor intensive and inefficient. During the late 19th century you can see a massive population boom that has been made possible by the industrial revolution. With the industrial revolution kicking in, the agricultural sector became much more efficient because of mechanisation. Basically less people could work more land.
Also a massive standing army is a giant liability. Expensive to maintain and impossible to supply and live on the land while being on campain. Just ask Napoleon how much fun he and his 800.000 soldiers had in Russia. His campain failed because of the technology of that time could not support the logistics needed for such a large army. The logistical problems where mostly solved with the invention of railroads and motorized transportation by the start of the 20th century.
Also I assume that the ship clasification is based upon the British system (first, second and thirth rate ships of the line). The truth about first rates is that they where expremely expensive to operate to the point that they where kept in harbor mottballed during times of peace in order to avoid damage and wear to the ships and thus expensive repair costs. I don't think that the Royal navy had more then 5 first rate ships of the line at any point during the 19th century.
On the point of colonization. Basicly all the european powers colonized large territories with small armies by making use of their technological advantage and clever diplomacy with the various tribes, societies, princes and whatever. Support 1 tribal faction to subdue the other. Give some power to local leaders while maintaining control. This way the Dutch colonized Indonesia and never had a large army present. The British used the same tactics in India and by 1857 only had about 35.000 Native British soldiers in India.