Just Stroll on Down to the Enemy Capital?

Just Stroll on Down to the Enemy Capital? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Crown of Glory

Message

jchastain -> Just Stroll on Down to the Enemy Capital? (7/16/2005 12:09:40 AM)
One things that is beginning to seem a little bit odd to me - war is largely about walking through the foreign countryside until you reach their capital. The fastest path to victory is usually just ignoring every province until you get to where the big cheese lives. The capital is 3 provinces deep? No problem, just leave a trail of depots and ignore all that junk and go get the job done. Doesn't that seem strange? Wouldn't it be somewhat reasonable for armies to have an incentive to capture each city along the way instead of just running a 500 mile dash to the capital? In my mind, this is likely a result of two factors: 1. Sieges can take quite a while and it would slow your army considerably if it had to take each city along the way, 2. And more importantly, there is no reason to take the intermediate cities. Supply runs just fine through the enemy countryside. Does anyone else think this is a bit strange?

Naomi -> RE: Just Stroll on Down to the Enemy Capital? (7/16/2005 12:18:45 AM)
Very. Especially when pple already found they could declare war on their target with their own troops on its soil, nay its capital.

Tanaka -> RE: Just Stroll on Down to the Enemy Capital? (7/16/2005 2:01:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jchastain One things that is beginning to seem a little bit odd to me - war is largely about walking through the foreign countryside until you reach their capital. The fastest path to victory is usually just ignoring every province until you get to where the big cheese lives. The capital is 3 provinces deep? No problem, just leave a trail of depots and ignore all that junk and go get the job done. Doesn't that seem strange? Wouldn't it be somewhat reasonable for armies to have an incentive to capture each city along the way instead of just running a 500 mile dash to the capital? In my mind, this is likely a result of two factors: 1. Sieges can take quite a while and it would slow your army considerably if it had to take each city along the way, 2. And more importantly, there is no reason to take the intermediate cities. Supply runs just fine through the enemy countryside. Does anyone else think this is a bit strange? yes! this would definitely prevent all the surrendering craziness!

Joram -> RE: Just Stroll on Down to the Enemy Capital? (7/16/2005 2:13:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jchastain One things that is beginning to seem a little bit odd to me - war is largely about walking through the foreign countryside until you reach their capital. The fastest path to victory is usually just ignoring every province until you get to where the big cheese lives. The capital is 3 provinces deep? No problem, just leave a trail of depots and ignore all that junk and go get the job done. Doesn't that seem strange? Wouldn't it be somewhat reasonable for armies to have an incentive to capture each city along the way instead of just running a 500 mile dash to the capital? In my mind, this is likely a result of two factors: 1. Sieges can take quite a while and it would slow your army considerably if it had to take each city along the way, 2. And more importantly, there is no reason to take the intermediate cities. Supply runs just fine through the enemy countryside. Does anyone else think this is a bit strange? quote: In my mind, this is likely a result of two factors: 1. Sieges can take quite a while and it would slow your army considerably if it had to take each city along the way, 2. And more importantly, there is no reason to take the intermediate cities. Supply runs just fine through the enemy countryside. Does anyone else think this is a bit strange? Honestly, I don't think this necessarily true. It really all has to do with supply. If you could ignore all the intervening terrain (like MacArthur did in WW2), you certainly would as long as you could guarantee your supply lines. Whether you actually control the area around you is moot as long as your supply is getting through. However, more to your point I think, if you decided to leave some big fortress or city just sitting there on your flanks, you better well have enough troops guarding your supplies so the enemy just doesn't sally forth and cut you off. Maybe this is where the AI is lacking? Also, small armies really don't need to worry about it since they can forage off the land, but I'm not sure if the game takes into account things such as seasons, or the fact that there isn't an endless amount of foraging available. I'm not sure... but I think it's certainly reasonable that smaller armies live off the land and go trapsing through the countryside. If you let em through, that's your problem! :)

malcolm_mccallum -> RE: Just Stroll on Down to the Enemy Capital? (7/16/2005 2:28:49 AM)
Which campaign in the Napoleonic Wars actually ended with the capture of a capital? The capital really shouldn't matter for any nation except France. Yes, the capital is important for generating wealth and troops, but wars are won by destroying your opponent's will to fight and often that comes only after their army has been destroyed. Shooting a straight line for the enemy capital is exactly the sort of thing that should get you losing campaigns. The enemy is defending ever step of the way and knows exactly where you are fom and going to. Meanwhile they can encircle and sever your LoC. Part of the issue though is that the provinces in this game are so huge that there really is little room or reason to maneuver. Rhine to Vienna? No choice on path. Bludgeon your way there and tell yourself that all the cool maneuvering and excitement of strategy is going on in a microscopic level within those provinces that you are not privy to.

Naomi -> RE: Just Stroll on Down to the Enemy Capital? (7/16/2005 2:33:37 AM)
Maybe supply system need further be tinkered with to limit the easiness of building depots and the forage ability of troops outside their home land. EIA's supply rules provide insight, which limit depot-building to where corps have been and make corps' foraging ability subject to how far they have gone (how much energy they have consumed in marching or force-marching). After all, there were not yet railway network at that time.

Joram -> RE: Just Stroll on Down to the Enemy Capital? (7/16/2005 2:34:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: malcolm_mccallum Which campaign in the Napoleonic Wars actually ended with the capture of a capital? The capital really shouldn't matter for any nation except France. Yes, the capital is important for generating wealth and troops, but wars are won by destroying your opponent's will to fight and often that comes only after their army has been destroyed. Shooting a straight line for the enemy capital is exactly the sort of thing that should get you losing campaigns. The enemy is defending ever step of the way and knows exactly where you are fom and going to. Meanwhile they can encircle and sever your LoC. Part of the issue though is that the provinces in this game are so huge that there really is little room or reason to maneuver. Rhine to Vienna? No choice on path. Bludgeon your way there and tell yourself that all the cool maneuvering and excitement of strategy is going on in a microscopic level within those provinces that you are not privy to. Well, that might have more to do with Napoleon just utterly decimating the enemies armies. He didn't have to make it to the capital. :) Back then, it's still generally a viable military target, after all, why was Napoleon trying so hard to make it to Moscow... It wasn't for the borscht!

malcolm_mccallum -> RE: Just Stroll on Down to the Enemy Capital? (7/16/2005 2:59:43 AM)
quote: Well, that might have more to do with Napoleon just utterly decimating the enemies armies. He didn't have to make it to the capital. :) Back then, it's still generally a viable military target, after all, why was Napoleon trying so hard to make it to Moscow... It wasn't for the borscht! Well, there was nowhere else to go. The capital makes a perfectly good target if there are no more urgent military concerns. Russia in 1812 was pretty sparse in terms of strategic goals. He did have a left and right wing that were supposed to be accomplishing other objective takings. In the case of Austria (twice), Spain (sort of), Prussia, and Russia Napoleon was sitting in their capital cities without having destroyed their will to fight. Even after the magnificent pursuit from Jena the Prussians were fighting on.

mogami -> RE: Just Stroll on Down to the Enemy Capital? (7/16/2005 3:41:17 AM)
Hi, The depot supply line only works against the AI. A human will simply move a unit out of the city and destroy the depot. So to maitain a supply line against humans you need to leave a force larger then what can emerge from city.

jchastain -> RE: Just Stroll on Down to the Enemy Capital? (7/16/2005 4:34:28 AM)
After reading all the replies, I am thinking 2 minor changes would help... 1. Any unfriendly depot in a province is disrupted and removed if its owner doesn't have more troops in the province than the garrison within the city. Essentially, you must (a) guard your supply lines by leaving troops in place, (b) take the cities as you go to secure your flank, or (c) forage and not depend on supplies from home. 2. The value of the capital in determining surrender should be lowered and should be impacted by level of feudalism. In a completely feudalistic nation, it is the same as any other province. In a completely centralized nation, it is 2x the value it would have were it not the capital. For any level of feudalism between those two extremes, the multiplier should be calculated one a stright line sliding scale based on the feudalism level. With those 2 changes, and especially with #1, I think we would see people altering their plans of attack quite substantially. The changes themselves are quite simple. The hard part would be teaching the AI to deal with the new rules. But I think it would make for some much more rationale campaigns.

Naomi -> RE: Just Stroll on Down to the Enemy Capital? (7/16/2005 5:12:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jchastain After reading all the replies, I am thinking 2 minor changes would help... 1. Any unfriendly depot in a province is disrupted and removed if its owner doesn't have more troops in the province than the garrison within the city. Essentially, you must (a) guard your supply lines by leaving troops in place, (b) take the cities as you go to secure your flank, or (c) forage and not depend on supplies from home. 2. The value of the capital in determining surrender should be lowered and should be impacted by level of feudalism. In a completely feudalistic nation, it is the same as any other province. In a completely centralized nation, it is 2x the value it would have were it not the capital. For any level of feudalism between those two extremes, the multiplier should be calculated one a stright line sliding scale based on the feudalism level. With those 2 changes, and especially with #1, I think we would see people altering their plans of attack quite substantially. The changes themselves are quite simple. The hard part would be teaching the AI to deal with the new rules. But I think it would make for some much more rationale campaigns. Making depots costly to build or maintain may be an expeditious way to further account for the logistic difficulties of supplying troops.

EarlPembroke -> RE: Just Stroll on Down to the Enemy Capital? (7/16/2005 5:14:36 AM)
In the game I'm playing, my depots are continually destroyed by marauding enemy units - individual divisions. It is virtually impossible for me to run a supply line without leaving troops behind. Maybe it's because I'm fighting Spain, Russia, and Turkey ... ? But it shows the AI can do it. However, I would support at least having to leave a division behind to guard each depot. Think the penalty of a captured capital on morale could be toned down a bit. My big issue with this situation is that the AI nations generally send large armies to the other nation's capital, leaving their own capital nearly defenseless. What this leads to is a mad rush to the other capital, hoping you take theirs before they take yours. Whoever sieges the enemy capital faster wins the war. We don't want to go so far as to make it where you have to take every province, though, to bring the enemy to the table. In the case of beating Austria, the campaigns didn't last a whole lot longer, as I recall, after Napoleon had taken Vienna. Basically it was: "take the capital and then beat the main enemy army" and the nation falls. That was what made Russia different - they waited Napoleon out. However, that was partly due to the fact that their army wasn't really destroyed after Borodino ... ? They had not been beaten the way (they and) Austria had been at Austerlitz. Or the way France surrendered when Paris fell. Even Spain didn't really fight on as a nation a long time after Madrid fell, but there was a lot of guerrilla warfare. Or is my recollection off base and there were long campaigns after the enemy capital fell? (Maybe Prussia?)

jchastain -> RE: Just Stroll on Down to the Enemy Capital? (7/16/2005 5:50:23 AM)
I think your memory is superb. I believe the difference is that invading powers did not typically zig-zag to avoid every city until they got to the capital as happens so often in CoG. I agree you should not have to take every province - perhaps 3. I don't even mind it if the capital must be one of those; that likely does make some sense. I just don't think you should bypass everything else and take only the capital to win a war. And I might even add in war weariness so that as a war continues, it slowly brings down nationale morale and makes it take less and less for a country to capitulate. OK, I think I was wrong. The capital shouldn't count any less. It should just require slightly more than just that to force a surrender.

mogami -> RE: Just Stroll on Down to the Enemy Capital? (7/16/2005 6:21:38 AM)
Hi, everything contained in this thread is addressed to improving the AI. Because in human versus human play the defender can defeat the tactic. Just be waiting for enemy in other province. If the object is too reach capital to force surrender simply intercept and defeat this force. You must garrison supply depots already against a human or he will simply destroy them (just move a div out of city) So the AI needs to learn to do this. What happens when an Army is forced to retreat and all surrounding provinces have enemy field force? (not city garrisons) If it only requires a single division in open to prevent retreat the AI needs to learn to move a division from a city in all provinces bordering one it expects to fight a battle in. Then if a player attempts to move deep into enemy country without line of communication and loses a battle he also loses the Army(s) involved. So in short 1, Teach the AI to move out and destroy unprotected depots 2. Teach the AI to move out to cut lines of retreat In human versus human games let experiance be the teacher.

ahauschild -> RE: Just Stroll on Down to the Enemy Capital? (7/16/2005 6:36:58 AM)
Its really easy to fix this, and it should be. Any province that not have anemy army or corp (to prevent people dropping militia) and has garrison troops atomaticly destroyes any depots unguarded. This actuly makes sense, as no army would leave a enemy fort or garrison sitting right on top of their supply lines. This would force people to actuly work their way to the capitol

EarlPembroke -> RE: Just Stroll on Down to the Enemy Capital? (7/19/2005 4:47:19 AM)
Mogami, you are correct - this is AI/single-player issue. jchastain - As usual, I agree with you. [:)] Doesn't war weariness increase likelihood of rebels? Another thing related to that - I think there should be more limited surrenders. Very rare - and should be offered as a nation's morale is dropping, rather than waiting until forced to surrender by -750 morale.... ahauschild - I would say that perhaps it would be enough to leave enough troops to match the garrison (or enough to have a siege, whatever the requirements). Wasn't it common to detach divisions to guard supply lines (not necessarily corps)? Seems that enough to guard the supply lines / bottle up the enemy in a fortress would be enough.

marirosa -> RE: Just Stroll on Down to the Enemy Capital? (7/19/2005 11:55:13 AM)
My experience (single player vs ai) is that both me and ia runs toward enemy capital. Also i try to leave a line of depots with a corp besieging each province from enemy capital to my border. If not, ia tends too much to destroy my depots. Also, each province i hold when they surrender, grant me a litle more score so i can ask for more surrender terms. What ia do not do is put a line of depots that i can destroy. Must be cheating but is not a very big cheat as i can manage to defeat every enemy army going towards my capital.

Naomi -> RE: Just Stroll on Down to the Enemy Capital? (7/19/2005 12:19:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EarlPembroke In the game I'm playing, my depots are continually destroyed by marauding enemy units - individual divisions. It is virtually impossible for me to run a supply line without leaving troops behind. Maybe it's because I'm fighting Spain, Russia, and Turkey ... ? But it shows the AI can do it. However, I would support at least having to leave a division behind to guard each depot. Think the penalty of a captured capital on morale could be toned down a bit. My big issue with this situation is that the AI nations generally send large armies to the other nation's capital, leaving their own capital nearly defenseless. What this leads to is a mad rush to the other capital, hoping you take theirs before they take yours. Whoever sieges the enemy capital faster wins the war. We don't want to go so far as to make it where you have to take every province, though, to bring the enemy to the table. In the case of beating Austria, the campaigns didn't last a whole lot longer, as I recall, after Napoleon had taken Vienna. Basically it was: "take the capital and then beat the main enemy army" and the nation falls. That was what made Russia different - they waited Napoleon out. However, that was partly due to the fact that their army wasn't really destroyed after Borodino ... ? They had not been beaten the way (they and) Austria had been at Austerlitz. Or the way France surrendered when Paris fell. Even Spain didn't really fight on as a nation a long time after Madrid fell, but there was a lot of guerrilla warfare. Or is my recollection off base and there were long campaigns after the enemy capital fell? (Maybe Prussia?) A recent game staggered me in which Napoleon rushed to Berlin by the route of Berg - Saxony and landed it a short siege before turning to Vienna and winning Austro-Russian forces there in like 2 months. I didn't know fully how he pulled it off but he did manage to. It seemed to me he was taking a refreshing walk about his imperial garden with good abandon. I can't but doubt the value of the intervening provinces in buffering any capital run.

Mr. Z -> RE: Just Stroll on Down to the Enemy Capital? (7/19/2005 5:15:10 PM)
quote: Teach the AI to move out and destroy unprotected depots AI can do this in some cases (Russia, for example, as noted). Maybe the cenrally-located powers (France, Austria, Prussia) are not as good at it? Eric? quote: Teach the AI to move out to cut lines of retreat Probably difficult to implement. Not sure. What do you think, Eric?

Mr. Z -> RE: Just Stroll on Down to the Enemy Capital? (7/19/2005 5:21:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EarlPembroke Mogami, you are correct - this is AI/single-player issue. jchastain - As usual, I agree with you. [:)] Doesn't war weariness increase likelihood of rebels? Another thing related to that - I think there should be more limited surrenders. Very rare - and should be offered as a nation's morale is dropping, rather than waiting until forced to surrender by -750 morale.... ahauschild - I would say that perhaps it would be enough to leave enough troops to match the garrison (or enough to have a siege, whatever the requirements). Wasn't it common to detach divisions to guard supply lines (not necessarily corps)? Seems that enough to guard the supply lines / bottle up the enemy in a fortress would be enough. So, what exactly is happening that is the problem here? Is it that AI enemies tend to ignore cities on the way to a capital? Or is it that AI enemies don't surrender fast enough after losing a large battle? (Or both?)

Malagant -> RE: Just Stroll on Down to the Enemy Capital? (7/19/2005 5:35:02 PM)
I believe the problem is more the ease with which supply depots can be placed in uncontrolled territory. Many of us believe that a depot should require a friendly military presence when not in friendly territory.

carnifex -> RE: Just Stroll on Down to the Enemy Capital? (7/19/2005 5:50:42 PM)
quote: So, what exactly is happening that is the problem here? Is it that AI enemies tend to ignore cities on the way to a capital? Or is it that AI enemies don't surrender fast enough after losing a large battle? (Or both?) IMHO the problem is that while on the offensive, the AI focuses on the capital to the exclusion of other factors. In the Napoleonic Wars, the enemy capital was just something you took while trying to defeat the enemy's ability to fight, and in the age of nearly self-sustaining armies this meant actually destroying the enemy force. On offense, the AI should do what a human player would do. Concentrate and beat the main enemy stack in a pitched battle, then pursue them into their own territory, sieging and taking provinces on the way to the capital. The enemy army should always be the main focus of any thrust.

EarlPembroke -> RE: Just Stroll on Down to the Enemy Capital? (7/22/2005 5:26:29 AM)
I think there are 2 issues being discussed, and they are tied together: 1) The thread started with: the AI doesn't try to eliminate your depots, letting you string supply too easily. Personally, I've had cossacks, etc. disrupt my supply line, so I don't think this alone is as much the issue. 2) To me it's more a matter of the AI doesn't defend its territory, but rather sends its army out to conquer the other land. In my current game, Austria and Turkey have been at war several times. Their largest armies often do not meet on the field of battle. Rather Austria sends its largest army off to siege Turkish cities and leaves a smaller force behind to defend. The huge Turkish army descends on Vienna and sieges it, taking it. Austria's largest army keeps sieging a Turkish city until Austria is forced to capitulate. Or until Turkey is beaten by Russia and thus surrenders to Austria too. I think Austria should try to seek out the Turkish army (lower morale) and face it with a more equal force to prevent it from taking Vienna so easily. As a human player I can do this, but the AI doen't do it much. I also hope that making a tweak here would lead to more offers of limited surrender. (Unless all those messages I see about AI nations surrendering to each other include some limiteds. The AI doesn't send me offers of limited surrender; instead it waits until it is fully beaten then has a full surrender.) #2 could be due to the enemy capital being weighted too heavily in the AI's priority. Of course that's probably tied to the effect it has on surrender. If the AI was more focused on your army's movements (including supply line) it would have a more realistic feel.

Naomi -> RE: Just Stroll on Down to the Enemy Capital? (7/22/2005 5:37:35 AM)
I doubt AI's ability to co-ordinate the actions of allies' troops. I saw France kept defeating them piecemeal while they were just scattered everywhere.

Malagant -> RE: Just Stroll on Down to the Enemy Capital? (7/22/2005 6:11:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EarlPembroke I think there are 2 issues being discussed, and they are tied together: 1) The thread started with: the AI doesn't try to eliminate your depots, letting you string supply too easily. Personally, I've had cossacks, etc. disrupt my supply line, so I don't think this alone is as much the issue. 2) To me it's more a matter of the AI doesn't defend its territory, but rather sends its army out to conquer the other land. In my current game, Austria and Turkey have been at war several times. Their largest armies often do not meet on the field of battle. Rather Austria sends its largest army off to siege Turkish cities and leaves a smaller force behind to defend. The huge Turkish army descends on Vienna and sieges it, taking it. Austria's largest army keeps sieging a Turkish city until Austria is forced to capitulate. Or until Turkey is beaten by Russia and thus surrenders to Austria too. I think Austria should try to seek out the Turkish army (lower morale) and face it with a more equal force to prevent it from taking Vienna so easily. As a human player I can do this, but the AI doen't do it much. I also hope that making a tweak here would lead to more offers of limited surrender. (Unless all those messages I see about AI nations surrendering to each other include some limiteds. The AI doesn't send me offers of limited surrender; instead it waits until it is fully beaten then has a full surrender.) #2 could be due to the enemy capital being weighted too heavily in the AI's priority. Of course that's probably tied to the effect it has on surrender. If the AI was more focused on your army's movements (including supply line) it would have a more realistic feel. Napoleon agreed with you: "There are in Europe many good generals, but they see too many things at once. I see one thing, namely the enemy's main body. I try to crush it, confident that secondary matters will then settle themselves." -NB

mogami -> RE: Just Stroll on Down to the Enemy Capital? (7/22/2005 11:00:15 AM)
Hi, I began a 1796 scenario (I've started playing this later start to allow France to get Nappy) I was minding my own business when I observed a large build up by Turkey on Austrias border. Not wanting Austria to get beat up further and seeing Turkey in second place with over 400 points I moved the Baltic fleet to the Black Sea combined it with my Black Sea fleet and moved 200,000 troops to the Turkish Border. Now it seems I should have made an Alliance with Austria because after I declared war on Turkey I moved down and fought a series of battles pushing the Turks back to their capital but before I could follow Austria declared war on me and strung the depots out towards Moscow. (Held by a Korps with 40,000 men ) I had retained 5 infantry and 2 Cav divisions as independant units to guard my supply lines so I just send the 2 cav to the rear Austrian depots and destroyed them. Turned around my Army in Turkey and using the other indepedent infantry to prevent Austrian retreats destroyed the Austrian Army in Smolensk. Of course the entire exercise to date has been a failure because I didn't prevent the continued collapse of Austria but instead killed the main field Army myself. The Turks are all gathered at Constantinople and I am no closer to ending that war then I was when it began. However the Russian Army did gain a lot of morale. Now I have around 50,000 Turk POW and 60,000 Austrian POW building developments at Kharkov (guarded by 30,000 Cossacks) I don't have problems with POW and I use the Cossacks for suppressing disgruntled Russians and guarding POWs.

ericbabe -> RE: Just Stroll on Down to the Enemy Capital? (7/22/2005 5:34:33 PM)
quote: Teach the AI to move out to cut lines of retreat Probably difficult to implement. Not sure. What do you think, Eric? AI's popping units out of cities to destroy depots is a good idea, and easily doable. Other players on other threads are complaining that units like cossacks are running around cutting their depot chains -- the AI already does target supply lines to some extent, though things might always be improved with some tweaking. Eric

jchastain -> RE: Just Stroll on Down to the Enemy Capital? (7/22/2005 10:04:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ericbabe quote: Teach the AI to move out to cut lines of retreat Probably difficult to implement. Not sure. What do you think, Eric? AI's popping units out of cities to destroy depots is a good idea, and easily doable. Other players on other threads are complaining that units like cossacks are running around cutting their depot chains -- the AI already does target supply lines to some extent, though things might always be improved with some tweaking. Eric Let's try and be clear on this one. Small bands of troops running around in enemy territory wreaking havoc = bad Small groups of troops preventing enemy supply lines from running through their own territory = good Control of a province should matter. When you own a province, you should be able to count on indiginous troops and police forces to prevent a militarily insignificant roaming band from disrupting everything. Having to chase down every single division on the board in some bizarre game of keepaway isn't fun. This is a real example of where a land based intercept would help immensely. Or perhaps a force that isn't large enough to siege the local city would not be eligible to free prisoners? But one half filled division shouldn't be able to disrupt an entire nation. And when you don't own a province, you shouldn't be able to roll unguarded supply wagons through unmolested. There must be a reason to siege the city and control the province or at least to leave troops in place to guard the supply lines.

mogami -> RE: Just Stroll on Down to the Enemy Capital? (7/22/2005 10:43:51 PM)
Hi, A full strength division is 10,000 men. This is not a military insignificant force. Napoleons first Army only totaled 45,000 men. I often send a division from one of my province (with depot) into enemy territory to impede their movement, supply and communication lines. I will send any where from 1 to 3 such divisions. (if I am going to send more then 30,000 troops I send a HQ with a leader) When the mararders are groups of 3k or 4k it is one thing when they are full strength divisions it is another.

jchastain -> RE: Just Stroll on Down to the Enemy Capital? (7/22/2005 11:46:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mogami Hi, A full strength division is 10,000 men. This is not a military insignificant force. Napoleons first Army only totaled 45,000 men. I often send a division from one of my province (with depot) into enemy territory to impede their movement, supply and communication lines. I will send any where from 1 to 3 such divisions. (if I am going to send more then 30,000 troops I send a HQ with a leader) When the mararders are groups of 3k or 4k it is one thing when they are full strength divisions it is another. Rather than getting sucked into the debate on whether a division could or would ever have functioned in such a way, the expected responses of homeland forces represented by the militias within cities if it ever did happen, and the weight of any outcomes upon the overall strategic situation and therefore whether or not it should have any place within a grand strategy title, I'll just say that it is no fun to have it happen in a game and leave it at that. [8D]

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.75