Making up differant Doctrines for various battles

[Hook]

From the English manual, book 1, page 104:

Also a player on the opposing side will transmit to the host the doctrine file for his
camp. The host will put this file in his “doctrine” folder and uses the doctrine editor to
load the file for the game.

From the French manual, same place:

L’un des joueurs du camp adverse fait aussi parvenir les fichiers « doctrine »
nécessaire à son armée. Le joueur hôte place ces fichiers dans le dossier « Doctrine »
puis utilise l’éditeur de doctrine pour les intégrer à la partie.

The PDF readers have a zoom function if the print is too small to read normally.  I know this very well, because my eyes are probably older than yours.

Hook

[gazfun]

There has been mention about a host changing the clients doctrine.

Be assured if you found this out, and you can do so easily you wont be playing with that host again will you?
Also you will have to remember that while actually setting up a game the host can receive up to four or more differant doctrines according to the number of allies on each side.
With that amount of information coming in there wont be time enough for the Host to change his doctrine. The host would be more concerned about his own army and its own allied doctrines, to be plotting against just your doctrine.
Its a bigger picture issue, than you think.

[Ras]

Think about it in terms of history.
Do you think the French did not know the Austrian doctrine?
I don't know, but I imagine the enemy doctrines were common knowledge among the Generals of that time.

[gazfun]

Think about it in terms of history.
Do you think the French did not know the Austrian doctrine?
I don't know, but I imagine the enemy doctrines were common knowledge among the Generals of that time.

good point Ras

[GrosPaul]

Alright. A warm than you for your devotion to moderate in general and about my questions in particular.

So, all is correct and logical.

Best regards,
GP.

[General_Chasse]

Citation de: Ras le 11 Février 2010, 12:57:56
Think about it in terms of history.
Do you think the French did not know the Austrian doctrine?
I don't know, but I imagine the enemy doctrines were common knowledge among the Generals of that time.
good point Ras

An old post - I just read it, but it is not such a good point.
It took the Allied armies years to imitate Napoleon tactics; in the first few years they didn't really know what hit them.

Moreover, communication on enemy tactics was distorted, of course, for various reasons. They are all eyewitness accounts and therefore by default inaccurate.
Eyewitness accounts can be distorted due to bias by personal pride (how is a commander going to admit he lost), or just by the fact that there was so much gunpowder smoke and sound around, that the eyewitness didn't really see or hear what was going on.

Place this next to the fact that armies didn't always adhere to their doctrine (parade grounds are a bit different from battlefields, and battle stress makes people act differently), and it must have been difficult to really get a good picture of the exact doctrine imposed on the enemy.

As a quick example after reading about Waterloo: to the French, it will have appeared that gun doctrine of the British was Counter-Battery Fire. Wellington however, had given strict instructions not to engage enemy batteries. But as soon as the Grande Batterie started hammering away, the British gun commanders got nervous and returned fire.

And hey, Napoleonic generals didn't have the opportunity to repeat the same battle the very next day. Nor did they have a replay option So doctrine analysis must have been (educated) guesswork, distilled from the various eyewitness accounts, previous battle reports, and spy reports - it would have taken a lot of time to get a clear picture that was close to the truth.