Corps,Division and brigade.

[Gunfreak]

But are the divisional generals in the game as an effective unit.

That is to say, when you give an order to Davout, does davout give an order to Morand?

So is Morands states caluctalted to have an effect on how well his units behave.

As a good divisional general could decide the day. And some were clearly better then others

[lodi57]

But are the divisional generals in the game as an effective unit.

That is to say, when you give an order to Davout, does davout give an order to Morand?

So is Morands states caluctalted to have an effect on how well his units behave.

As a good divisional general could decide the day. And some were clearly better then others

The soft just takes them into account to calculate the time of execution of an order. That's the only way they interfere in battle.

[Bruguière]

But are the divisional generals in the game as an effective unit.

That is to say, when you give an order to Davout, does davout give an order to Morand?

So is Morands states caluctalted to have an effect on how well his units behave.

As a good divisional general could decide the day. And some were clearly better then others

  A good brigade general will compensate a bad division general....

[Holdit]

This is one of the areas I'm most anxious about with this game. I've always understood that command should be two levels down as follows:


*The commander of an army manoeuvres divisions
*The commander of a corps manoeuvres brigades
*The commander of a division manoeuvres regiments

It strikes me that as an army commander, issuing orders to corps only locks me out at too high a level of command. I understand that the intermediate division and brigade command levels are to be added later. I would be very keen to know how much later because in my opinion, this is a glaring omission.

I understand too that you can issue manoeuvre individual regiments/batteries if desired, but if we take Waterloo as an example, then d'Erlon's corps alone gives you no less than 23 units to move around. To mind mind that's jumping straight from too little management to too much.  Even the option of creating ad hoc detachments only is less than satisfactory because, while you can change a regiment's formation, march it or direct it to attack, you can't set the driection in which it should be facing - and so far, this is the thing that's most made me want to take over from the AI.

Holdit

[Holdit]

Something else on the same subject, how would wing commands be modeled? Again, thinking of Waterloo, and yes I know this won't be playable for some time anyway, how would the influence/abilities of Ney and Grouchy be modeled? If you treat them as corps commanders then you have only two manoeuvre units, if you deal with the historical corps you have Napoleon issuing orders to d'Erlon, Reille and Mouton bypassign the wing commanders altogether.

Very keen to hear details of how this is to be handled.

Holdit

[Pariente]

how would the influence/abilities of Ney and Grouchy be modeled? If you treat them as corps commanders then you have only two manoeuvre units, if you deal with the historical corps you have Napoleon issuing orders to d'Erlon, Reille and Mouton bypassign the wing commanders altogether.

Bonjour.

The game is not designed for campaigns, so there is currently no issue on wings commanders. And the army (on the battlefield) has a certain organization : Corps, Divisions, Brigades, Regiments. That's the reason why the wings commanders are not taken in account as their role is to manœuvre throughout the campaign and lead to the decisive battle you play in Histwar.

Otherwise, when you play the Commander in Chief, you may give orders directly to regiments, regardless to their Field Marshals' instructions. But I guess when divisions and brigades' AI will be implemented, you may be able to give orders to divisions and brigades directly. In that case, abilities and influence of generals might be significant in their initiatives. Replacing Ney by Davout would not lead french cavalry to fall in a « flaming abyss ».

To sum up all the trifles I said :
- as campaigns are not played, wings commanders have not importance.
- you can give orders to units regardless to their direct commanders' instructions.
- abilities and influence are significant in the way AI acts.

[Gunner24]

But I guess when divisions and brigades' AI will be implemented, you may be able to give orders to divisions and brigades directly.

This would be a huge help to everyone, is it a "confirmed" feature to be added later on in the development, or just a "wish" at the moment ?.

[Pariente]

In the second manual, in page 6 (bottom) :

« An unit can be attached directly to a corps, to a division or to a brigade. However,
certain intermediary levels in the hierarchy, such as the division or brigade, can be
ignored (they’re not really a major part of this version of the game. But two additional
AI’s will come into force according to the envisaged outcomes). »

[lodi57]

I've always understood that command should be two levels down as follows:
*The commander of an army manoeuvres divisions
*The commander of a corps manoeuvres brigades
*The commander of a division manoeuvres regiments

Commander of an army manoeuvres army corps
Commander of a corp manoeuvres divisions (or brigades for prussian army only)
Commander of a divison manoeuvres brigades
Commander of a brigade manoeuvres regiments

if you deal with the historical corps you have Napoleon issuing orders to d'Erlon, Reille and Mouton bypassign the wing commanders altogether.

When the Emperor is on the spot nobody than him gives order  .

[Holdit]

Bonjour.

The game is not designed for campaigns, so there is currently no issue on wings commanders. And the army (on the battlefield) has a certain organization : Corps, Divisions, Brigades, Regiments. That's the reason why the wings commanders are not taken in account as their role is to manœuvre throughout the campaign and lead to the decisive battle you play in Histwar.

I'm not sure why you'd imagine that wing commanders were for campaigning only. In the 1815 campaign, for example, Ney and Grouchy were wing comanders, and Ney most definitely was a factor in the battle. Grouchy would have been if he'd turned up.

- as campaigns are not played, wings commanders have not importance.

Apart from the fact that I don't believe this to be true, isn't one of the features of the game that it can have very large aps which will allow pre-battle i.e. campaign manoeuvring?

Holdit

[Holdit]

Commander of an army manoeuvres army corps
Commander of a corp manoeuvres divisions (or brigades for prussian army only)
Commander of a divison manoeuvres brigades
Commander of a brigade manoeuvres regiments

I may have worded that badly. I know that commanders give orders to next level below, but concern themselves with what is happening with units at the next level. For example, the Napoleonic grand-tactical miniatures games "Age of Eagles" and "Napoleon's Battles" have the brigade as the manoeuvre unit and place the player in the role of corps comander.

If intermediate levels between corps and regiment are to be added at a later stage, then that's fine, although I hope it's sooner rather than later.

Holdit

[Hook]

isn't one of the features of the game that it can have very large maps which will allow pre-battle i.e. campaign manoeuvring?

Yes, but I don't believe it is implemented yet.  That's going to be incredible when it is...  the largest map appears to be big enough to handle almost the entire 100 days campaign.  In that case I'd expect the wing commanders to be the local CinC because if Napoleon isn't at Wavre, for example, the order delays would be outrageous for that battle, and there's no way Napoleon could know what's going on.

For Waterloo, how would you allocate the command between Ney and Napoleon?  There aren't that many corps to command there.

Hook

[Pariente]

I'm not sure why you'd imagine that wing commanders were for campaigning only. In the 1815 campaign, for example, Ney and Grouchy were wing comanders, and Ney most definitely was a factor in the battle. Grouchy would have been if he'd turned up.

Apart from the fact that I don't believe this to be true, isn't one of the features of the game that it can have very large aps which will allow pre-battle i.e. campaign manoeuvring?

Holdit

I'm sorry if I misspoke. But what I meant was that Histwar allows us to play battles, so campaign movements have no influence on our tactics. I won't wax lyrical again on the army organization during a battle, but wings are not part of it. So, there is no « wings issue » currently.

But, I'm as interested as you in how JMM will implement campaigns in Histwar.

By the way, a victory in Histwar depends on your Operation Lines and on your new potential, which are significant in campaigns.

[Holdit]

I'm sorry if I misspoke. But what I meant was that Histwar allows us to play battles, so campaign movements have no influence on our tactics. I won't wax lyrical again on the army organization during a battle, but wings are not part of it.

That's OK, I understand what you meant, but I quoted a clear example of a wing commander who had a quite definite influence on the battlefield, so I don't understand where the view of wing commanders being relevant to pre-battle campaigning only comes from.

Holdit

[Hook]

That's OK, I understand what you meant, but I quoted a clear example of a wing commander who had a quite definite influence on the battlefield, so I don't understand where the view of wing commanders being relevant to pre-battle campaigning only comes from.

I believe it's because we're only playing battles now, not campaigns.  We'll play campaigns later when they're implemented.

Hook