To JMM

[Gunner24]

I'm sure the in-game options will allow for anything people want to do, but that would be a good starting place, very limited forces to get used to the controls, building up bit by bit.....of course some of us want to leap straight into the big action - because that's what we've been waiting so many years for !.

[LegerDesOnheils]

The first time I played the Take command series I had difficulty (only having played the popular RTS games) not to micromanage and intervene with every move my AI commanders made.  That was before” I got it”; that is to keep myself to the grand tactics and let the subordinate AI commanders do what they do best (even the bad or indecisive ones).  Make your plans, make your contingency plans. Then you watch the initial part of the battle develop and judge when the time is right to send in reserve or make a flank movement. Now I think that the TC AI does require some (micromanagement) assistance, especially with the placement of its guns but basically the battle runs quite well without although it is often a bit of a slug-match since there are no lines of operations to severe and a flank attack does nothing to the overall morale of a brigade or division. Now I also thought that LG would be a sort of Napoleonic version of TC with an improved AI, which made already very happy. But by playing the demo I realize that LG is much more than that. At multiple levels the AI really reacts on the enemies movements within (and sometimes outside, which is good) the bounds of their orders and doctrine. It is also much more difficult to change your orders for say a corps once they are within the enemy’s sphere of influence (and historically so, if I am to understand the literature). This requires much better planning before but also throughout the whole battle with minimal interfering with the small tactical battle going on all across the field. This lets you slip easily and organically in the role of the CinC, the man with the plan. Now and again I would like to restrict myself to “micro” manage at the corps level while someone else makes the larger battle plan but this is also provided for in the complete game if I understand correctly.   

[Gunner24]

That was before” I got it”; that is to keep myself to the grand tactics and let the subordinate AI commanders do what they do best (even the bad or indecisive ones).

Agreed, good post above.

It is worth remembering that the demo battle is on a small map, it is not that easy to march a corps into a flanking position, for me the whole idea of LG is the BIG maps and the big Corps - after learning how it all works on a smaller scale.

The BIG maps will make a big difference, there will be less need to try and micro manage anything there, it will be all down to doing what the quote above says.

[Petrus58]

The first time I played the Take command series I had difficulty (only having played the popular RTS games) not to micromanage and intervene with every move my AI commanders made.  That was before” I got it”; that is to keep myself to the grand tactics and let the subordinate AI commanders do what they do best (even the bad or indecisive ones).  Make your plans, make your contingency plans. Then you watch the initial part of the battle develop and judge when the time is right to send in reserve or make a flank movement. Now I think that the TC AI does require some (micromanagement) assistance, especially with the placement of its guns but basically the battle runs quite well without although it is often a bit of a slug-match since there are no lines of operations to severe and a flank attack does nothing to the overall morale of a brigade or division. Now I also thought that LG would be a sort of Napoleonic version of TC with an improved AI, which made already very happy. But by playing the demo I realize that LG is much more than that. At multiple levels the AI really reacts on the enemies movements within (and sometimes outside, which is good) the bounds of their orders and doctrine. It is also much more difficult to change your orders for say a corps once they are within the enemy’s sphere of influence (and historically so, if I am to understand the literature). This requires much better planning before but also throughout the whole battle with minimal interfering with the small tactical battle going on all across the field. This lets you slip easily and organically in the role of the CinC, the man with the plan. Now and again I would like to restrict myself to “micro” manage at the corps level while someone else makes the larger battle plan but this is also provided for in the complete game if I understand correctly.   

I totally agree. The great joy of TC2M - and now LG - is the big picture. Yes, when playing TC2M I did occassionally intervene at a tactical level if the AI was doing something really 'odd' (it does happen) but in general it was about managing corps  (or whatever level you were playing).  It may well be that even the full version of LG produces what to us may seem like strange results. If these can be corrected then fine, but a degree of abstraction for a game at this level is probably inevitable.