It depended on the tactical situation and which specific army you’re talking about.
The French would advance in column but usually only as a means to and end, in order to bring a line of muskets close against the enemy, or to break an opposing line by the intent to close with the bayonet. But there are multiple scenarios and variations that an officer might require to change or alter his formation, and that goes more or less for every army.
The French after 1805 as an army tended to subscribe to the basic elements that had been successful in the revolution, but added too it a more flexible and professional capability. Wellington thought he had sussed them before going to Portugal, and found his conclusions only correct in part, and had to adapt to the reality of fighting them. Any general impression regarding the differences in combat usually end up as misleading.
With the British it tended to depend on who was in command. At battalion level again the objective was to approach the enemy and deploy as many muskets as possible. Combat doctrine had been learned to some degree in the American war, and each General liked to see things done a certain way. Some liked three ranks (quite unusual by 1800) most preferred two, etc, and they would set out how they wished their army to fight in their general orders.
I can’t speak for the Prussians, Austrians and Russians of course, although the Russians were particularly fond of using their infantry in columns like hammers, and subscribing to Suvarov’s old gem about Bayonets being fine fellows, this again will become misleading as each engagement offers challenges to be overcome that would be seen as unusual if viewed by the supposed “characteristics” of each army.

Josh.