Let's figure out a way to do campaigns with LG

[gazfun]

Campaigns on the Danube is good but is a bit clucky when it comes down to the translations between programes.
In all it worked ok, but it left holes in relation to troops on the march, how many where in hospitals and the supply issue was hard to keep track of at times.
Then you had an issue with one side being out numbered and always didnt give battle, and so sometimes you where left with more often than not, one side would out number the other by about 6 or more to 1, which is not inspring for both sides where the odds are so high even three to one isnt good.  The contacted units, would a lot of the time only worth resovling "in game" because of this.
Out of the 2 Campaigns we had I would say we could only make up 2 good battle out of it, that was worth doing, and after a lot of manouvering

[Gunner24]

Then you had an issue with one side being out numbered and always didnt give battle

A very common problem, with anything like this.

[Hook]

more often than not, one side would out number the other by about 6 or more to 1

Either someone's got their forces spread way too thin, or the rules aren't allowing for concentration of forces before battle.

Hook

[Tirailleur]

Campaigns on the Danube is good but is a bit clucky when it comes down to the translations between programes.
In all it worked ok, but it left holes in relation to troops on the march, how many where in hospitals and the supply issue was hard to keep track of at times.
Then you had an issue with one side being out numbered and always didnt give battle, and so sometimes you where left with more often than not, one side would out number the other by about 6 or more to 1, which is not inspring for both sides where the odds are so high even three to one isnt good.  The contacted units, would a lot of the time only worth resovling "in game" because of this.
Out of the 2 Campaigns we had I would say we could only make up 2 good battle out of it, that was worth doing, and after a lot of manouvering

Hello gazfun,

for understanding, is the ai that outnumbers you or your opponent in a multiplayer game or the other way round. For me it sounds like a realistic behavior, if you are outnumbered by many odds you have to retreat, or you know that reinforcements are not far away (option: sound of the guns). Also with good cavalry patrols / screens you have that behavior?

The aim is to split the enemy forces as you hold your corps together as much as possible. So you can decimate the enemy piecemeal.
There are a few good AARs about that game and they show that it's all about concentrating the armies on the right place, with battles with outnumbered units, fight to hold a position or to delay the enemy and nearly equal number battles to make the big clash.

It's the first time I hear from that...

[Tirailleur]

Either someone's got their forces spread way too thin

Yes Hook, that's what I guess, too.

[Count von Csollich]

to get all this even close to realism, you would have to study the entire road-network of the time in that particular area, and then you would have to make up a sophisticated weather system, to simulate road conditions (which is probably the least of the problems)...and the rest summarizes in: the genius of the CinC, to spread his forces wide enough in order to render quick movement possible, maximize the use of good roads, yet not to get them crowded, and then keep the forces close enough to be able to concentrate them for battle (a good and obvious example would be the campaigns in the American civil war, where many battles were fought over road junctions...), and not let them be defeated independently...only few have achieved this - and those became the few famous generals we remember throughout history, Napoleon was definitely one of them...These considerations are the most difficult to consider, when in command, even nowadays with different parameters...so in a game it, if you played it realistically, which I believe you did, it's absolutely normal to have the problem of being outnumbered...this is where independent command and rear-guard actions become the most valuable...

I know that most of you already know the stuff, I just mentioned...

For myself in theorie the best combination would be "1813" and HWLG although I know it's not possible...)

[Uhlanen]

There I believe is one of the basic differences between a campaign using a game to create the circumstances that dictate battles and a Human moderated campaign. In a human run and moderated campaign you don't necessarily have the option to not fight, perhaps its a rear guard action to save your  out numbered force. In other words a level of detail the grand strategy titles aren't equipped to provide add to that at the end of the day your still going to need game moderators to maintain casualty figures ,update OOBs and state of reinforcement/resupply. So for my money its a program such as Cocat (a free download I believe) as DD mentioned earlier with the addition of spread sheets for maintaining the necessary info for setting the OOBs .

As to the number of people who might be inclined to take part......we wont know until the game is released and folks have a chance to give it a run. What I believe we may see with LG is the combining to some extent of three previously separate parts of the strategy gaming community. The RTS players and those that have devoted there time to the hex/turn based titles such as the HPS simulation and --------- series games and the folks that preferred the grand strategy titles. Not to mention those that LG will potentially draw from other game types.

Unfortunately until LG is released and we get a chance to play around with the Map and OOB editors we won't know if any of this is viable.

[quartermaster]

For myself in theorie the best combination would be "1813" and HWLG although I know it's not possible...)

Graf von Csollich, 1813 is on Opensource (Sourceforge) and if some C++ programmers want to volunteer then this could be worked on.  Probably would result in a manual interface - extract from 1813, fight the battle and post the results back into 1813.  The problem would be to ensure that the post battle state on 1813 took account of the battle outcome including losses and changes in morale.

[Count von Csollich]

Graf von Csollich, 1813 is on Opensource (Sourceforge) and if some C++ programmers want to volunteer then this could be worked on.  Probably would result in a manual interface - extract from 1813, fight the battle and post the results back into 1813.  The problem would be to ensure that the post battle state on 1813 took account of the battle outcome including losses and changes in morale.

A great idea...I don't have any knowledge of software and programming though...that's why I said...."I can't do it"  , I just think that the 1813 campaigns come very close to realism...if you overlook the crashes and bugs...
the inclusion of battle results is an absolute MUST...but to realise that... I have to leave up to you...
I fit could be done...it would be great...but I think we should all start with normal Multiplayer battles at first...get acquainted and then move on to the next step...

[Tirailleur]

Graf von Csollich, 1813 is on Opensource (Sourceforge) and if some C++ programmers want to volunteer then this could be worked on.  Probably would result in a manual interface - extract from 1813, fight the battle and post the results back into 1813.  The problem would be to ensure that the post battle state on 1813 took account of the battle outcome including losses and changes in morale.

Yes it is possible and no I have no programming skills. Some time ago I managed to make little changes, like a clock, that you have the time when a battle begins, but it was more a trial and error principle.
I thought about the import of battle results, that there is the unit editor-pop up menu when you open the campaign editor.
It uses the same code structure as the game, so there is no real difference between the editor and the game structure. I think it could be possible to implement the unit editor menu in the campaign game, with access in a running game. So you play a campaign game and a battle begins, you have the battle with LG. After that you implement the results (losses, morale, position, etc.) with the unit editor in the running campaign game and you have the conditions after that battle.

Worth a try?

[Broadsword]

But for 1813 you'll have to wait until LG adds Prussians, non?

[Broadsword]

for understanding, is the ai that outnumbers you or your opponent in a multiplayer game or the other way round. For me it sounds like a realistic behavior,

Sounds perfectly realistic to me, too. Look at any of the historic campaigns: A lot of maneuvering, some rearguard actions and probes, cavalry screens clashing her and there, feints and counterfeints, and then one or two big battles that decided the campaign. I know that seems boring to a lot of gamers, but "a chacun son gout." To me, it's wonderfully suspenseful. The LAST thing a good general wants in a campaign is a fair fight. If, when the big battle takes place, I turn out to be outnumbered 3:1 or more, my disappointment will be balanced by the thrill of knowing I've played especially well if I can execute a stubborn holding action, a stealthy retreat, or some develish ambush that takes my overconfident opponent by surprise. Wargaming doesn't get any more fun than that!

[Count von Csollich]

But for 1813 you'll have to wait until LG adds Prussians, non?

Well i heard that you could create your own map...so the prussians wouldn't be the problem....I think the huge amount of work that needs to be done will be...

[Broadsword]

the Campaigns on the Danube - game. But I must say, I have no problems with this game to run it on my vista laptop. My settings with the compatibility for the exe are: Win98, no visual designs, no desktop configuration, no scaling of high dpi-values (don't know if that are the right english translations - I mean the last three settings). I have at the beginning of the game three error messages, but if you ignore them (don't klick ok or so on the message boxes), you can play the game without additional errors - also the battles.
If you know the code, you can build any campaign that you want. The scenarios are two hexcode-files, one for the map and the second for the oobs, etc. It's a little bit of work to go through it, but not so difficult. You can also change the counters for more different armies.

Thank you, Tiraulleur -- that's already better technical support for CotD than Matrix Games has given us in years! Harry, have you tried those settings? I had my CotD running in Vista on Win95 compatibility mode, but I didn't have those other two "preference" boxes checked. I'm going to try that and see what happens. Maybe we can get our campaign going after all (?)

[Tirailleur]

Well i heard that you could create your own map...so the prussians wouldn't be the problem....I think the huge amount of work that needs to be done will be...

Yes that's right. You can create your own map - it's more you place an background image of a historical map and place the towns on it. The towns have a road network. Here you can modify the town attributes (how big, supply source, fortress, etc.) and the road connections (road conditions, bridges, etc.).
The problem with the editor(s) and also with the game is, if you don't follow the right steps the game will crash.