At Waterloo if D'Erlon's attack had succeeded there would have been time to drive Wellington away and then move to the defile at Lasnes and trap the Prussians on very poor ground.
Regards
Mike
It's just my own humble opinion, but, D'Erlon's attack had no chance to succeed. Those troops were attacking a larger force -- a whole corps supported by Wellington's corps-sized Reserve. Not only that but the British Army brigades were better, man for man, than most of the troops in D'Erlon's Corps.
D'Erlon's corps would have needed expert support from plenty of horse artillery and cavalry to have a chance.
I think that Robert E. Lee had a better chance to win at Gettysburg than Nappy did at Waterloo. Lee had a chance to take Cemetery Hill on the First Day. Nappy started out with no chance to capture and hold any portion of Wellington's line. Wellington was too good to be beaten by a poorly coordinated slightly larger force.
Welly was too good a general and the British soldier himself was too good to be beaten by anything less than a much larger force that perfectly executed a combined arms attack. The British soldier in 1815 was a well-trained soldier. Napoleon's 1805 army was one of the best trained fighting forces ever known, but, over the years, Nappy seems to have neglected proper emphasis on training and drilling his soldiers. That was one of his weaknesses. Nappy's 1815 soldiers were not nearly as good as his 1805 soldiers.
So, it's going to be tough to create a realistic AND balanced Battle of Waterloo scenario.