Single player mode pro vs contra:
-Above all, the units are realistic, and commanding them takes time and effort just as much as if they were real. On the contrary, if one takes a closer look at the following Napoleonic Wars and American Conquest (in which, lately, more European nations could be played), the differences are clearly visible: which can be said in one sentence,
Troops die too easily.
This also stands for the multiplayer mode.
Another problem is the enemy AI - set to Very hard it doesn't ever take a chance to do a decisive battle, instead marches up and down with huge units and lets them decimated by long-range cannonfire. It also doesn't rely on unit formations - keeps them in groups and squares instead of a battle line, and overall, it isn't innovative enough - same tactics (not even winning tactics) all the time.
Minor bugs in 1.35 patch which I noticed:
-Dragoons in formed units usually run into the enemy lines when attacking instead of keeping range and firing.
-Grenadiers used to do the same (though they have high melee stats this basically gets them slaughtered all the time, so I used to keep them in reserve with the artillery)
-Also, in single player mode (and it occurs in multi too) the units don't take care for themselves unless in stand ground formation, just get themselves killed all the time when an unnoticed attack occurs
We played with a previously agreed amount of troops (usually 1500v1500 as that is the greatest value the game's engine would tolerate), one 'attacker' and one 'defender on plain maps as my bros - my former gaming partners - aren't so good at manouvreing (or how is it spelled). Now I'm planning to change a few things:
-There will be 'fog of war' (e. g. enemy units' movement cannot be seen all the time)
-There won't be 'attacker' and 'defender' role, this improves the versatility and dynamism of the game
-Allowing more artillery on the field (we usually agreed on one battery per army)