Command of individual units

[tony scrase]

I am beginner but I think the importance of this game is it the ONLY serious simulation of the problems facing the c in c in the napoleonic wars and
as such is of great importance. It does not matter how many history books you read it is hard to get a real feel of the command problems.

I don't know what other more experienced players think BUT i feel that
a) The c-in-c should be vunerable to enemy fire - I use the commander to do some reconnaissance which I think is a valid use of a c-in-c but if you do that you should face the risks.
b) command of individual units - I think at the start it is valid to instruct individual units to move to various locations. BUT when the battle starts you should only be able to command individual units if you can see them or are with their corp commander.

I think this is realistic

[[NBC]Friant]

Within the structure of our campaign at NBC we have a general rule of thumb regarding the CiC, we try not to let the CiC get beyond the front line.
We have dedicated small cavalry units for scouting, 150 men strong, their job is to get information. The CiC will be kept moving to different parts of the battlefield because of his large sphere of sight, and be on hand to give orders to corps.
The CiC is vulnerable in a way because if enemy troops get between him and your corp commanders your orders may not get through.
We limit individual orders to targeting artillery, or moving troops to occupy built up areas and dedicated scouts.
If there is rogue cavalry regiment that has got behind our lines we also use individual attack orders to rid us of this problem.
Other than that we use no individual orders...
These are the options we use, we find these give the best balance between game play and realism.
We used to use Interception of Orders and Loss of corp commander enabled, but use disabled for the time being.

[Gunner24]

See also here -
http://gunnershw.webnode.com/how-it-works/in-game-help-and-advice/
and here
http://gunnershw.webnode.com/
for more info on what Friant mentioned.

Broadly speaking, many people who play MP agree with NO individual orders, but (of course) others DON'T think that is such a good idea. 
Select who you play MP games with is the best advice.

[Soldat Louis]

I don't think that this is such a big issue: too much micromanagment is not good because you loose corps cohesion and units coordinations. So people that understand this game will not overuse it.
However, I agree that it is sometimes unfair to see well-planed moves too rapidly stopped by extensive micromanagments. BUT, no micromanagment is not good either because it is too reducing: corps IA  will always be limited and it is the initiatives of free thinking officers (at least for the french) that often makes the difference... or lead to catastrophies.
The coming brigade and divisional orders will solve part of the problem anyway. May be it would be nice to introduce some limitations in the game to prevent people using too much micromanagments: drop of moral if detached for too long or limit to 25% of a corps  etc etc...

[zu Pferd]

I'd like to weigh in this discussion.

The game has changed progressively to a corps level game by virtue of the input
and requests from the community.

All things happen in relation to the corps AI. Once the order is given to the corps if all agree
all subsequent tinkering should not be necessary; a way to count the amount of tinkering was
requested by Alorna months ago.

I think this game is being corralled to satisfy one type of game only  large MP battles with 4 to 6 players
which all in all it works great.
As to the players who like smaller affairs were a switch is needed to turn the blazes AI off because I'm
interested in owning how and where I'm going to order my brigade to assault ; this is all a little harder
because in the end the architecture of AI control once the switch is turned back on will get the whole
thing back on the 'AI track'.

It would be a gamers heaven a programmable battlefield in HW where positions could be built with their
own victory point values...the chateau at Hougumont  scenario for example, where you could dedicate
to your hearts content the micromanagement of regiments as you send them in to capture the prize.
The overall AI could still compute away all the 'danse macabre' of the engagement , march, deployment, retreat.
limber unlimber guns...and once an agreed to % of losses taken the defender or the attacker is declared the winner.
Call me a traitor but I would like to see also this version of this game.