Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Generals

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> RE: Generals Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Generals - 7/28/2004 1:34:20 PM   
ardilla


Posts: 399
Joined: 2/25/2004
From: Castellon, Spain
Status: offline 		Androklis, it looks ok for me.

We always have the same discussion, how to manage the generals and the corps and let the second line generals do something in the stack or in the actions.

It is not time to do it now, but maybe MG can figure out something for the future versions of the game, as an option always, of course.

We were talking about DO NOT let generals to carry more corps than the allowed by his rating, but if there are more than one general add all their corps allowance.

Also, there is a rule about the depots, that can not feed more than 6 corps, if I remember well, now with the PC version this could be easily track and many more complex rules that were impossible to do for a good playing rate of course!!

Regards

_____________________________

Santiago y cierra España!!!

(in reply to Androklis)
Post #: 31
RE: Generals - 7/28/2004 7:17:32 PM   
Titi

 

Posts: 153
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Montréal
Status: offline 		The optional rule says no more than four corps per depot

About the other point of having a second leader taking lead of outflanking forces or boosting the attribute of the first one, i think it's not a good idea, cause it will require a complete rethinking of the OB and even combat and movement engine/rules.

There is only one commander on the battlefield, other leaders are just following his orders. What difference they make with their own skill (tactic, leadership, initiative,...) only affect units under they command : one corp. It's too few to influence the whole result of the battle, ot to change the mind or capacity of the commander in chief.

(in reply to ardilla)
Post #: 32
RE: Generals - 7/28/2004 7:46:25 PM   
ardilla


Posts: 399
Joined: 2/25/2004
From: Castellon, Spain
Status: offline 		Yes, but if you send an outflank force, you have to say which corps are doing the outflank and of course they have to hava a commander in charge, so I think it is logical that the main commander will be behind the main corps and the other could take the outflanking and we know that comunication was very difficult in this age, so it will be the commander responsability and ability to do the outflank right, not the main commander.

Maybe the main commander could influence the second one for the outflank, but this is very complex upgrade, IMO, but of course very interesting for the future.

Regards.

_____________________________

Santiago y cierra España!!!

(in reply to Titi)
Post #: 33
RE: Generals - 7/29/2004 3:45:53 AM   
Titi

 

Posts: 153
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Montréal
Status: offline 		Ok, but the outflanking force may be split itself in two or three; a left wing and a right wing maybe, sdo how could a leader on the left influence the right or the opposite.

And why not the other ****s also. A probing force is separated from the main army probably, an escaladed assault is made of multiples waves, while not a commander for each one...

Allowing more than one leader per battle is opening a can of worms for me. And the result will be more giant stack than anything else.

(in reply to ardilla)
Post #: 34
RE: Generals - 7/29/2004 7:04:28 AM   
ktotwf

 

Posts: 182
Joined: 6/25/2004
Status: offline 		What is a General's strategic rating used for?

(in reply to Titi)
Post #: 35
RE: Generals - 7/29/2004 6:30:30 PM   
Titi

 

Posts: 153
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Montréal
Status: offline 		The strategic rating is used to verify if the arrival of an force send to outflank is succesful. It's also used to check if an army standing adjacent to an area where combat occurs is able to reinforce the battle (can be useful to let the mititia in an adjacent zone with a good strategic leader).

And finally it's also used to check if an army that choose to withdraw before the battle is succesful, if not as it is the combat chit chosen, there will be a slaughter.

(in reply to ktotwf)
Post #: 36
RE: Generals - 8/10/2004 3:07:32 PM   
fjbn

 

Posts: 79
Joined: 6/24/2004
From: Cordoba, Spain
Status: offline 		Strategis rating is very important because it allows you to use some tactics very interestings. For example, generals with good strtegis rating are very difficult to defeat, because if they see that are outnumbered they choose withdraw chit and avoids the defeat. And they can use the reinforcement, that means that they can attack, for example, with a corps and to reinforce in second roeund, when your morale has decreased.

If they want to destroy you, they have the correct weapon: outflank, especially in defensive way.

(in reply to ktotwf)
Post #: 37
RE: Generals - 8/11/2004 12:33:15 AM   
Roads

 

Posts: 180
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: massachusetts
Status: offline 		Dang that's a good idea.

(in reply to Androklis)
Post #: 38
RE: Generals - 8/13/2004 12:06:20 AM   
Roads

 

Posts: 180
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: massachusetts
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Titi

Ok, but the outflanking force may be split itself in two or three; a left wing and a right wing maybe, sdo how could a leader on the left influence the right or the opposite.

Any cases in real life when this happened? I can't think of any.
quote:


And why not the other ****s also. A probing force is separated from the main army probably, an escaladed assault is made of multiples waves, while not a commander for each one...

The difference is in whether the seperated force is visible to the commander, and how well he can send ADCs to communicate orders to it.

It is however true that this change would require a fundamental rethink of all leaders.

(in reply to Titi)
Post #: 39
RE: Generals - 8/17/2004 12:17:23 AM   
anarchyintheuk

 

Posts: 3921
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Roads

quote:

ORIGINAL: Titi

Ok, but the outflanking force may be split itself in two or three; a left wing and a right wing maybe, sdo how could a leader on the left influence the right or the opposite.

Any cases in real life when this happened? I can't think of any.
quote:


And why not the other ****s also. A probing force is separated from the main army probably, an escaladed assault is made of multiples waves, while not a commander for each one...

The difference is in whether the seperated force is visible to the commander, and how well he can send ADCs to communicate orders to it.

It is however true that this change would require a fundamental rethink of all leaders.


You could look at jena/auerstadt as one example. Davout and Bernadotte were an intended/unintended 2-part flanking force (although both on the french right) in which Nap's target kind of moved on him. In game terms it works . . . Davout's initiative allowed him to accomplish Nap's intended goal of the prussian army's destruction in an unintended way. Bernadotte's lack of initiative, originality, guts, whatever . . . allowed him to not participate in either battle.

Like you said . . . it does require a rethink about leaders tho.

(in reply to Roads)
Post #: 40
RE: Generals - 8/17/2004 1:00:28 AM   
9thlegere


Posts: 39
Joined: 5/8/2004
From: Scotland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Androklis

Given the fact that in the Napoleonic wars there were not many successful outflanking maneuvers (and not one successful enveloping maneuvre),



What about at Ulm in 1805?

But, nonethless you do have a point about flank attacks being quite easy to perform with even an average leader.

Does anyone think that the Defender outflank is really unbeatable even by "Probe" if the flanking force is big enough to still inflict big losses?

I hate attacking Napoleon, always outflank with a massive force.

(in reply to Androklis)
Post #: 41
RE: Generals - 8/17/2004 1:07:10 AM   
Ozie

 

Posts: 95
Joined: 9/3/2003
From: Finland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 9thlegere
Does anyone think that the Defender outflank is really unbeatable even by "Probe" if the flanking force is big enough to still inflict big losses?


Agreed. In defence with good leader I almost everytime go for outflank.

< Message edited by Ozie -- 8/17/2004 1:07:56 AM >

(in reply to 9thlegere)
Post #: 42
RE: Generals - 8/17/2004 11:29:14 AM   
fjbn

 

Posts: 79
Joined: 6/24/2004
From: Cordoba, Spain
Status: offline 		I agree with you. This is the difference between a really good leader (strategic/tactic) and the others. If you think you are really outnumbered, you choose withdraw without problems. And if you have enough forces to smash your opponent, you choose defensive outflank. You can implement tactics that other leaders like mack cannot, and that makes the difference.

(in reply to Ozie)
Post #: 43
RE: Generals - 8/17/2004 7:27:12 PM   
Titi

 

Posts: 153
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Montréal
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ozie

quote:

ORIGINAL: 9thlegere
Does anyone think that the Defender outflank is really unbeatable even by "Probe" if the flanking force is big enough to still inflict big losses?


Agreed. In defence with good leader I almost everytime go for outflank.

I think this is just the first step toward losing a battle : being predictible. If you almost everytime chose the same chit, it will become more easy to defeat you. Even if the table is in favor of some chits, it's a bad idea to always chose them.
Another way to prevent a defensive outflank is for the attacker to select one, preventing the split of force or the strategic roll so even mack can do it.
And there is always that small occurence when napo will fail the arrival of the outflanking force.

Finally attack the french supply chain, the french reinforcement, another stack or march on Paris if you think you don't want to attack Napi directly.

(in reply to Ozie)
Post #: 44
RE: Generals - 8/17/2004 8:41:23 PM   
9thlegere


Posts: 39
Joined: 5/8/2004
From: Scotland
Status: offline 		Yeah, your right about the predicable part but....

Napoleon with the French army fighting outflank vs another outflank is still usually going to win, with the +1 die roll and superior morale.

I find that to hope his flank won't arrive and pick something else simply results in your destruction and no chance for andother go!

I like the idea of avoiding him- but what if he is in your capital!

I would like there to have been an attack chit that was a bit like the defensive cordon- ie good against a flank attack.

At the very least Probe would be better if the outflank did not double its comabt effect.

(in reply to Titi)
Post #: 45
RE: Generals - 8/17/2004 8:59:48 PM   
mattbirra

 

Posts: 30
Joined: 8/10/2004
From: Madrid, Spain
Status: offline 		the pop of the question should be ... why are you attacking NAPO !!!!!!!!!!

Now , not kidding, probe is good is you are defending , even if attacker doesnt take Outflank ... and you have better morale ... but if, you attack, and the defender is a high strategic valued general ... you should look for another option if you really want to gain those VP's ...

(in reply to 9thlegere)
Post #: 46
RE: Generals - 8/18/2004 7:07:14 PM   
Titi

 

Posts: 153
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Montréal
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 9thlegere

Yeah, your right about the predicable part but....

Napoleon with the French army fighting outflank vs another outflank is still usually going to win, with the +1 die roll and superior morale.

I find that to hope his flank won't arrive and pick something else simply results in your destruction and no chance for andother go!

I like the idea of avoiding him- but what if he is in your capital!

If he is in your capital than marsh on Paris, it's a great road for forage and a great way to force him to move. And other capitals and country are less friendly for forage... so attrition the french army.

Otherwise someone like British can give you some money while nobody will give money to the french player, so even with your capital occupied it's not a vital goal to free it.

And finally the feeling that Napoleon is for a reason or another nearly unbeatable is quite correct

(in reply to 9thlegere)
Post #: 47
RE: Generals - 8/19/2004 11:19:27 AM   
mars

 

Posts: 12
Joined: 10/9/2002
From: Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 9thlegere

quote:

ORIGINAL: Androklis

Given the fact that in the Napoleonic wars there were not many successful outflanking maneuvers (and not one successful enveloping maneuvre),



What about at Ulm in 1805?

But, nonethless you do have a point about flank attacks being quite easy to perform with even an average leader.

Does anyone think that the Defender outflank is really unbeatable even by "Probe" if the flanking force is big enough to still inflict big losses?

I hate attacking Napoleon, always outflank with a massive force.



Well funily enough, I just managed to beat Wellington with a bunch of Turks in this exact scenario. I had +1 to the roll for Cav superiority, he missed the outflank arriving and the end result from a battle that consisted of 70 British Factors with morale 4.1 and 69 Turkish factors with morale 2.8 was losses to the English 8 Cav, 18 Inf and 5 mil. Losses to Turkey 8 Feudal Inf. Our English player now has a solid amount of respect for Pelchivan Khan.

(in reply to 9thlegere)
Post #: 48
RE: Generals - 8/19/2004 2:02:43 PM   
fjbn

 

Posts: 79
Joined: 6/24/2004
From: Cordoba, Spain
Status: offline 		I think that your opponent didn´t choose the right chit. I think that brit doesn't have to destroy Turk army, but only defeat it, that it's less risky. Chits based on morale and few losses like echelon or probe would have been more efective, I think, because of Turk's low morale in comparison with british morale.

(in reply to mars)
Post #: 49
RE: Generals - 8/23/2004 2:18:43 AM   
mars

 

Posts: 12
Joined: 10/9/2002
From: Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: fjbn

I think that your opponent didn´t choose the right chit. I think that brit doesn't have to destroy Turk army, but only defeat it, that it's less risky. Chits based on morale and few losses like echelon or probe would have been more efective, I think, because of Turk's low morale in comparison with british morale.


HOwever he was the defender, so neither of those options were available to him. He chose outflank and I chose the probe.

(in reply to fjbn)
Post #: 50
RE: Generals - 8/26/2004 10:55:53 PM   
Roads

 

Posts: 180
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: massachusetts
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk
You could look at jena/auerstadt as one example. Davout and Bernadotte were an intended/unintended 2-part flanking force (although both on the french right) in which Nap's target kind of moved on him. In game terms it works . . . Davout's initiative allowed him to accomplish Nap's intended goal of the prussian army's destruction in an unintended way. Bernadotte's lack of initiative, originality, guts, whatever . . . allowed him to not participate in either battle.


It wasn't anything like an intended 2-part flanking force. They were supposed to unite and march on the guns. It obviously didn't turn out that way, but the intention was a single force under Davout.

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)
Post #: 51
RE: Generals - 8/27/2004 12:43:52 AM   
anarchyintheuk

 

Posts: 3921
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Roads

quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk
You could look at jena/auerstadt as one example. Davout and Bernadotte were an intended/unintended 2-part flanking force (although both on the french right) in which Nap's target kind of moved on him. In game terms it works . . . Davout's initiative allowed him to accomplish Nap's intended goal of the prussian army's destruction in an unintended way. Bernadotte's lack of initiative, originality, guts, whatever . . . allowed him to not participate in either battle.


It wasn't anything like an intended 2-part flanking force. They were supposed to unite and march on the guns. It obviously didn't turn out that way, but the intention was a single force under Davout.


The order Bernadotte received said something to the effect that if you are with Davout when you receive this order you can march with him but that "the Emperor expects you at Naumberg (a city roughly between jena and auerstadt close to the rear of both halves of the Prussian army)". Napoleon didn't know that Naumberg was almost both halves of the Prussian army, he thought he was facing the whole force at Jena. Unintentionally, it was a 2-part flanking force. If Bernadotte hadn't taken 8 hours to march the 6 miles he would have been in position to either attack either half or both halves of the Prussian army from the rear or at least interfere with the horde of Prussians running away from Jena. As it was he did nothing once he arrived at Naumberg. The slight ambiguity in the orders probably saved him from getting court-martialed. As to why he didn't march with Davout, Bernadotte apparently admitted later that he didn't want to take orders from someone like Davout.

(in reply to Roads)
Post #: 52
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> RE: Generals Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.891