Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Moss

I'd devote all effort to mapmaking if I were you. The AI scripts will still make the pc do dumb things, and really PBEM is way better than playing solitary. Then ideally you could do with addressing PDT and OOB issues. No good having lovely graphics if the game itself is flawed.

quote:

This may be a dumb question but when completed will these mods work with the Talonsoft games or just with the Matrix version?

quote:

1. Having a high Leadership rating (A, B) really only benefits the rally attempts of very low quality (Q=3-4) troops. In other words, an "F" Leader will provide the same benefit to the rally attempt of a Q=5-9 unit that an "A" Leader would.

Example:
Wellington is an L=5, or "B" leader. He provides a +1 to the morale of any unit with Q=4-9, +2 for Q=3, +3 to Q=2, etc.

Colonel Anonomous is an L=1, or "F" leader. He provides a +1 to the morale of any unit with Q=1-9.

What this means is that since most of the units that come into play have Q>3 anyway, the Leadership rating is a rather insignificant value in the game.

2. Command Rating effectiveness (the ability to Reform) depends a lot on how high up the command chain is represented in a scenario. In smaller scenarios where a Division commander is the highest Org level on the map, the units will be at a disadvantage. The best DR modifier they can hope to get is -2, and that in turn will be tougher to get without the other -2 modifiers normally passed down from Corps and Wing/Army during the Command check.

This is a case where scenario designers may want to give the Division and Brigade Leaders a higher command rating to compensate for the lack of a higher Org. But they will still never get that juicy -4 modifier possible if an Army or Wing commander is on board. Or would it make sence to include the Army and Corps commander on the map, even though historically they may have been several miles away and completely detached from the battlefield, except by using runners?

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1NWCG

I like the courier idea. I have read your emails you sent me and followed other convos, especially at the iNWC, work is being done to help balance out issues in French superman correct?

quote:

ORIGINAL: simovitch

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1NWCG

I like the courier idea. I have read your emails you sent me and followed other convos, especially at the iNWC, work is being done to help balance out issues in French superman correct?

Yes, the troop qualities have been adjusted across the board (but mostly the French), which actually makes the game system work more the way it was intended. Leaders take on a more important role, and battles are a little less bloody - not as a result of artificially adjusting firepower values but because you will have a harder time maintaining cohesion at the front line, especially if your chain of command is buggered. No longer will the French see "22 units undisrupted out of 25 units checked..."

The Prussians, Saxons, and Austrians were very good, well disciplined soldiers who more often than not stood toe to toe against the frogs. The disasters at Ulm in 1805 and Jena in 1806 were not the fault of the line troops, but of poor Generalship combined with some other unfortunate circumstances.

Incidentally, The 1805 Ulm Campaign and the 1806 Prussian Campaign are the first featured Modules in the new series of updates.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Moss

Good to hear unit qualities are lower. I hated to see melee after melee, quite a rare event in reality. And stacks of Q6 skirmishers blasting their way through all comers. Lower quality as you say means leaders become very important in maintaining cohesion. And rotating troops to avoid high fatigue is essential too. This was the philosophy of the New Settings Project of long ago that did a mod of NIR Borodino.
Exciting work. Ulm looks good.