HistWar
HistWar (English zone) => General discussions => Discussion démarrée par: _Cambronne_ le 24 novembre 2009, 13:40:06 pm
-
As I understood from the manual a Corps is composed by several units.But when we have an army with 2 Corps each corp having 2 Divisions with 2 brigades with 2 regiments,how many corps do we have? Only 2 corps that are under CinC's orders? or do we have 8 corps(the brigades with 2 units under each of them)?
-
I think you are messing something ;)
Army is composed by Corps, Corps are composed by regiments, regiments are composed by battalions or squadrons.
Divisions is another name for Corps as it is Column...
anyway, in small battles (rear guard mode), is possible that Army is called Corp.. and so the Corp below changes its name in "division"
-
Actualy historic wise, all corps had divisions(except for Prussians in the 1813-1815 period.
But not all armies had corps.
In the 1805-1806 period only the french used corps which gave them an advantage over the rest.
For instances
The 3rd corps had 3 divisions, each division had two brigades each brigade had 2 regiment and each regiment had two battalions.
While the Prussiasn had sevral loose divisions in the army with no corps,
-
As I understood from the manual a Corps is composed by several units.But when we have an army with 2 Corps each corp having 2 Divisions with 2 brigades with 2 regiments,how many corps do we have? Only 2 corps that are under CinC's orders? or do we have 8 corps(the brigades with 2 units under each of them)?
The hierarchy is from top to bottom :
Army : composed by several corps (max 11 in LG)
Corp : composed by several divisions (in general, less than 6)
Division : composed by several brigades (in general less than 4)
Brigade : composed by several regiments (in general less than 4)
Regiment : composed by several battalion (in general less than 6) or squadrons (for cavalry) or companies (for artillery)
In LG the word "unit" is used for infantry and cavalry regiments and artillery companies. It is the smallest unit in the game (battalions and squadrons cannot be separated from their regiment).
So to answer your question, the CiC will have 2 corps under is command.
-
so,when I give the order to a corp commander to organize the units in double line and the corp in mass order,the regiments will be deployed in double line.But will the divisions and brigades within the Corps be organized in double line or massed?
-
From what I can understand in the manual, a player controlling a corps (in a 4v4 MP game) will have to give orders to individual regiments because brigade/division AI is not in this version of the game right?
book 2, p5
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)
-
There are two AI's the Regimental AI and the Group AI.
You can give orders directly to the Regiments when you choose the Colonel's menu, but you don't have to.
From the manual:
The Group AI (to avoid making the text cumbersome, we’ll from now on refer to the
Army Corps AI, though a group may also refer to a Division, a Brigade or even a
Regiment) receives orders from the top brass and then organises the Group units so
as to carry them out.
From what I can understand in the manual, a player controlling a corps (in a 4v4 MP game) will have to give orders to individual regiments because brigade/division AI is not in this version of the game right?
book 2, p5
-
so,when I give the order to a corp commander to organize the units in double line and the corp in mass order,the regiments will be deployed in double line.But will the divisions and brigades within the Corps be organized in double line or massed?
There are 4 formations for corps : battle, echelon right in front or left in front, chessboard. The only case a corp is form in 3 lines deep is in chessboard formation. For the other formation, it depends on the % of reserve you chose.
If you organize a corp composed by 17 units (regiments or arty cies) in battle fomation, for example and you decide to have a reserve of 50% : there will be 9 units in first line and 8 in second. If you don't want any units in reserve, there will be 17 units in first line and for 30% there will be 12 in first line and 5 in second.
Columns, line, mixed order are units formations (régiments).
So you have to define corps formations (battle, echelon or chessboard) and units formations (column, line, mixed order).
-
all will be clear if we start playing ;)
-
Corps represent the corps/divisions/brigades
Units represent the regiments
-
ok all is more clear now,thanks!
-
In other words, we'll have in LG more primitive XVIIIc hierarchy (corps-regiments) than napoleonic (corps-divisions-brigades-regiments).
Little disappointment for me :(
-
It saws above that the Group AI can be Army, corps, division or bridage-level.
-
In other words, we'll have in LG more primitive XVIIIc hierarchy (corps-regiments) than napoleonic (corps-divisions-brigades-regiments).
Little disappointment for me :(
Because the AI for the Napoleonic hierarchy will be added later.
-
In other words, we'll have in LG more primitive XVIIIc hierarchy (corps-regiments) than napoleonic (corps-divisions-brigades-regiments).
Little disappointment for me :(
Corp isn't a 18th century organization but a Napoleonic one ;).
LG organises armies in corps, divisions, brigades and regiments. But only corps and regiments have an AI.
-
But when I detash a division puting it under direct command of the CinC,it becames a Corps and id has its own AI,hasn.t it?
-
I think you can only detach regiments.
-
I think you can only detach regiments.
It cant be!! That's blasphemy !! :(
-
But when I detash a division puting it under direct command of the CinC,it becames a Corps and id has its own AI,hasn.t it?
Only units can be detached. If you have Corp commander without troop, you can put them under his command or you can put them under the command of another army corps (careful, a corp can't have more than 24 units)
Now, all the corps or troops of an army on the battlefield are under direct command of the CinC. I think you're talking about troops in reserve. Reserve must be organized before the battle begins and even troops in reserve like the Imperial Guard have a corp commander. So, you have to think about the units you want to keep in reserve before the battle begin (during planning phase) and give them a corp commander. In the case of you decide to reinforce your reserve during battle, you just have to detache the units from their original corp and attached them to the reserve corp. Now, the corps commanders may refuse to detached units from their corps if they consider that this action will put in danger the corp.
-
ok I understood:practically we won't have any divisions or brigades...unfortunately. :cry: Still,why would there be division and brigade commanders within the OOB if there are no brigades or divisions? How would the division leaders practice their command if there is no such organisation?
-
ok I understood:practically we won't have any divisions or brigades...unfortunately. :cry: Still,why would there be division and brigade commanders within the OOB if there are no brigades or divisions? How would the division leaders practice their command if there is no such organisation?
To have a historical environment and because division and brigade AI are planned.
-
Thank you very much for the effort to answer. Allthough a little bit dissapointed,I am eagerly waiting for the game and I am very confident that future releases will make it THE napoleonic game of all times! The concept in itself is remarkable.
-
Corp isn't a 18th century organization but a Napoleonic one ;).
LG organises armies in corps, divisions, brigades and regiments. But only corps and regiments have an AI.
As I see it the "AI" is your cantact to the Army. The AI orders the sub units in a napoleonic way what to do.
Normally Napleon will not order a single battalion ;)
-
As I see it the "AI" is your cantact to the Army. The AI orders the sub units in a napoleonic way what to do.
Normally Napleon will not order a single battalion ;)
The regimental AI manages the regiments and arty cies according to the doctrine in order to leave the players free of micro management. Corps (or AI for corps) obey to the orders they receive from the CinC.
-
LG organises armies in corps, divisions, brigades and regiments. But only corps and regiments have an AI.
Arg, i didn't know that point :(
So, if i want to give orders to a division or a brigade, how can i do ?
Do i need to select all the regiments for a brigade and all the brigades for a division, if i want to command a brigade or a division ?
Let's say i have 2 corps under my command, each one made of 2 divisions. Each division represents 8 regiments. So 16 units by corps.
If i wish to give an advance order to half of my army, i should select 2 divisions.
But, since the AI division is not yet implemented, i will have to pick up by myself 16 units ?
Am i right ?
Cause i have the feeling i m misunderstanding something. :roll:
The regimental AI manages the regiments and arty cies according to the doctrine in order to leave the players free of micro management. Corps (or AI for corps) obey to the orders they receive from the CinC.
1/ So in a battle, i can control from the corps level to the regiment level ?
2/ But if i wish to micro-manage, can i command 1 battalion ?
Or is it 100% impossible ?
-
I have a question relating to Dagann’s: When you choose to have an AI vs AI conflict you are able to Take Command (a deliberate reference to the so named game ;)) of a corps. The similar question being, do you command via the division-brigade-regiment structure or do you have to order every individual unit around?
-
Let's say i have 2 corps under my command, each one made of 2 divisions. Each division represents 8 regiments. So 16 units by corps.
If i wish to give an advance order to half of my army, i should select 2 divisions.
But, since the AI division is not yet implemented, i will have to pick up by myself 16 units ?
Am i right ?
You have an army of 2 corps and you want to give an advance order to half your army. Well, if you have 2 corps, half your army represents 1 corp. Consequently, you will give the order to one of your corps 8).
For all other cases, units must be detached and micro managed or attached to another corp or to a corp commander without troops (when making an OoB, you can plan to have corp commander without any command, in the case you need one).
1/ So in a battle, i can control from the corps level to the regiment level ?
As the CinC, you can give orders to corps commanders and if for any reasons you need, for example, to send a recon.or bombard a zone, then you can order directly a cavalry regiment or an arty cy to do it.
2/ But if i wish to micro-manage, can i command 1 battalion ?
The basic unit in LG is the regiment or the arty cy. Whatever the number of battalions, squadrons or guns that the unit is composed of, you can't separate them from it.
-
You have an army of 2 corps and you want to give an advance order to half your army. Well, if you have 2 corps, half your army represents 1 corp. Consequently, you will give the order to one of your corps 8).
For all other cases, units must be detached and micro managed or attached to another corp or to a corp commander without troops (when making an OoB, you can plan to have corp commander without any command, in the case you need one).
Thanks Lodi51.
I think i need to be more explicit.
Corps I: Division 1, Divison 2 Corps II: Divsion 3; Division 4
If i want to give a march order to half of my 2 corps; to be more precise: to divison 1 wich belongs to Corps I and division 4 wich belongs to Corps II.
How can i do that ?
-
I have a question relating to Dagann’s: When you choose to have an AI vs AI conflict you are able to Take Command (a deliberate reference to the so named game ;)) of a corps. The similar question being, do you command via the division-brigade-regiment structure or do you have to order every individual unit around?
In Ai vs Ai case, you can take command of one corp and just the one you chose. What you have to know is that in this configuration the plan is made by the AI, and the AI is the only one that can modify it (the player has no control on it).
Corps orders (defend, deploy, etc.) are applied in a normal way ; you can also micro manage all or part of your units.
-
Corps I: Division 1, Divison 2 Corps II: Divsion 3; Division 4
If i want to give a march order to half of my 2 corps; to be more precise: to divison 1 wich belongs to Corps I and division 4 wich belongs to Corps II.
How can i do that ?
You will have to micro manage the units from these 2 divisions. But I don't understand why taking one division in each corp. If you need 2 divisions to advance, why don't give the order to one of your corp ?
-
Thanks Lodi51.
I think i need to be more explicit.
Corps I: Division 1, Divison 2 Corps II: Divsion 3; Division 4
If i want to give a march order to half of my 2 corps; to be more precise: to divison 1 wich belongs to Corps I and division 4 wich belongs to Corps II.
How can i do that ?
In that case, you can create 6 groups in the OOB:
Group 1: Corps I
Group 2: Division 1
Group 3: Division 2
Group 4 :Corps II
Group 5: Division 3
Group 6: Division 4
And you will be able to order each of your groupings individually (still you would have left 5 groups without using).
You can always structure your OOB as you want, respecting the limit of 11 groups.
I believe that it works therefore it seems to me.
-
In that case, you can create 6 groups in the OOB:
Group 1: Corps I
Group 2: Division 1
Group 3: Division 2
Group 4 :Corps II
Group 5: Division 3
Group 6: Division 4
And you will be able to order each of your groupings individually (still you would have left 5 groups without using).
You can always structure your OOB as you want, respecting the limit of 11 groups.
I believe that it works therefore it seems to me.
It may be better to organize like that :
corps 1 : one div
corps 2 : one div
corps 3 : one div
corps 4 : one div
-
If, he is better thus :smile:
But also you can create a group (called for example corps I or corps II) to integrate in him the artillery of Corps or some regiment of cavalry to even support the divisions.
-
You will to micro manage the units from these 2 divisions. But I don't understand why taking one division in each corp. If you need 2 divisions to advance, why don't give the order to one of your corp ?
It was just an exemple. :mrgreen:
Let's say, divi 1 and 4 are my wings, and i want them to move. ;)
Anyways corps are not only big bricks.
If i want an order carried out only by parts of different corps, i should can.
In future battles, i would have plenty of good reasons: the ground, my strategy, the troops level, troops types, etc...
I guess this is one of the reason there are divisions, brigades and regiments. :)
Ok so, from what i understand, i will need to micro manage. Well, handling 10 or 20 small units is not the small convenient thing. But it's should be ok until the division/brigade IA.
Two other questions: ;)
1/ In your prvious post, you wrote:
For all other cases, units must be detached
Why should i detach these units ? I want to keep them in the corps. Is it possible to micro manage without detaching ?
2/ Do you know when the division/brigade AI are implemented? Or do you know if they are on priorities list ?
Thx Lodi57
-
In that case, you can create 6 groups in the OOB:
Group 1: Corps I
Group 2: Division 1
Group 3: Division 2
Group 4 :Corps II
Group 5: Division 3
Group 6: Division 4
And you will be able to order each of your groupings individually (still you would have left 5 groups without using).
You can always structure your OOB as you want, respecting the limit of 11 groups.
I believe that it works therefore it seems to me.
It may be better to organize like that :
corps 1 : one div
corps 2 : one div
corps 3 : one div
corps 4 : one div
But i guess, many times in multiplayers battles, i will be unable to get my own OOB.
Cause i will play historic battles, or i will command 2 corps in a 8 players battle.
In this occasion, i could be not fond of the organization of my 2 corps.
Or i could want, to command 1 divison of each corps for a specific action. Just cause i would think it's the best thing to do, or cause i want to do a thing now i was not thinking about, when i was making my battle plan.
-
1/ In your prvious post, you wrote:Why should i detach these units ? I want to keep them in the corps. Is it possible to micro manage without detaching ?
In the case you have 2 corps of 2 div each. If you want to order just one div to advance, you must give direct orders (micro manage) to each of the regiments of the div. So, the soft always consider these regiments as detached units.
2/ Do you know when the division/brigade AI are implemented? Or do you know if they are on priorities list ?
No idea. You'd better ask the boss ;).
-
In the case you have 2 corps of 2 div each. If you want to order just one div to advance, you must give direct orders (micro manage) to each of the regiments of the div. So, the soft always consider these regiments as detached units.
So when i micro manage and give orders to regiments, the soft automatically detach these unites ?
No idea. You'd better ask the boss ;).
Big Boss, JMM are you there :mrgreen:
Should i open a specific topic ? :roll:
Thx lodi57.
-
In this occasion, i could be not fond of the organization of my 2 corps.
Why not ? You can ask the CinC to modify your OoB during the plan meeting.
-
So when i micro manage and give orders to regiments, the soft automatically detach these unites ?
Right.
-
Thx for all your answers.
Since histwar is made for huge battles and avoid micro management, i'm just afraid the game will lack of flexibility. :oops:
With all paper and video wargemes, i have always been used to place each of my unit very precisely (before the battle, after, it's just a bloddy mess).
I really need to give a try to the demo to make my own opinion.
Why not ? You can ask the CinC to modify your OoB during the plan meeting.
But i guess sometimes, you just join the game without plan meeting. For a quick round.
An your chief can simply be stubborn.
-
ok,I resign myself to this.A way to deal with this could be that when making the oob just to consider the Corp as a Corp and the unit as a Division.The battalions would be the regiments.The next release will take care of the intermediate AIs and the improvement of the Grand tactical AI. Everything is good,all we need is the game...or at least the demo. :)
-
ok,I resign myself to this.A way to deal with this could be that when making the oob just to consider the Corp as a Corp and the unit as a Division.The battalions would be the regiments.The next release will take care of the intermediate AIs and the improvement of the Grand tactical AI. Everything is good,all we need is the game...or at least the demo. :)
I hope the lack of AI for divisions and regiments will not be a too dramatic issue.
We really need the demo to experience this.
-
One last question if you're so kind: will the Division and Brigade leaders be represented 3D on the field? Can they die?
-
I really need to give a try to the demo to make my own opinion.
I think it's the best way ;).
-
One last question if you're so kind: will the Division and Brigade leaders be represented 3D on the field? Can they die?
No they aren't represented. Only CinC and Colonels and their staff are.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.... ;)
-
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
-
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
-
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 manśuvre 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.
-
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 ?.
-
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). »
-
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 ;).
-
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 manśuvre 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
-
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
-
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
-
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. ;)
-
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
-
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
-
I believe it's because we're only playing battles now, not campaigns. We'll play campaigns later when they're implemented.
Hook
You're missing my point: which is that wing commanders are not a campaign-only item.
Holdot
-
Although in the game we can’t play at the strategic level yet we are fighting the battle that was the result of virtual strategy including lines of communication. Therefore wings and their commanders are very appropriate IMO.
-
You're missing my point: which is that wing commanders are not a campaign-only item.
Holdot
There is only one battle where French used wing commanders in the same battlefield : Leipzig (Ney, Murat). In Waterloo, the army (including 1st and 2nd corps) are under Napoleon's command.
In SP or MP 1vs1, wing commanders are useless because as a CinC you can give order to your CC directly. In MP with more than 2 players, wing commanders (meaning player that controls several corps) will be a human being so there is no need to be represented in the engine.
Adding that, representing wing commanders that coordinates several corps action would imply that it is necessary to implement an Army Group-AI.
-
Could you give me a battle where we can find more 11 lines of fighting (sector)?
If yes, the model of HW is wrong for this battle...
If not, I think the model is right because you have to send an order to each group in charge of a sector.
For the future, when I'll add the 2 other AI (Division, Brigade).. I am sure this feature will be not used a lot...
If we build an Army with 11 Corps, 22 Divisions,44 Brigades, you have to control 77 entities... crazy.
That said, I don't say sometimes it's not interesting, but no sure this feature will be easy to use.
For beginning, I think the best is to get a good control on the game with only 11 groups
(generally speaking, 2 wings, 1 centre, 1 or 2 reserves... 5 groups minimum... 11 groups seem a big charge!)
JMM
-
For beginning, I think the best is to get a good control on the game with only 11 groups
I could not agree more, the whole idea of LG is NOT to get involved with micro management, I know being able to order Divisions and Brigades seems like a good idea, but it could over load things, how about Divisions only, after the Corps control is proven to be full proof.
-
I could not agree more, the whole idea of LG is NOT to get involved with micro management, I know being able to order Divisions and Brigades seems like a good idea, but it could over load things, how about Divisions only, after the Corps control is proven to be full proof.
I agree also. I think it would be useful to be able to control divisions - when necessary - but no lower; too much temptation, when as Gunner24 says, we should be concentrating on the bigger picture.
-
There is only one battle where French used wing commanders in the same battlefield : Leipzig (Ney, Murat). In Waterloo, the army (including 1st and 2nd corps) are under Napoleon's command.
In SP or MP 1vs1, wing commanders are useless because as a CinC you can give order to your CC directly. In MP with more than 2 players, wing commanders (meaning player that controls several corps) will be a human being so there is no need to be represented in the engine.
Adding that, representing wing commanders that coordinates several corps action would imply that it is necessary to implement an Army Group-AI.
Wasn`t it Borodino where Jerome was the left wing comander for the battle?
-
Wasn`t it Borodino where Jerome was the left wing comander for the battle?
Eugene was placed on the left but he wasn't a wing commander, he just had the 4th corps under his command.
-
Eugene was placed on the left but he wasn't a wing commander, he just had the 4th corps under his command.
Ok Napoleon was the commande, but commandig 4 corps, well then he is not a corps commander but something in between... :?
-
Ok Napoleon was the commande, but commandig 4 corps, well then he is not a corps commander but something in between... :?
No, Eugene did not command 4 corps, he commanded the 4th army corps.
-
The hierarchy is from top to bottom :
Army : composed by several corps (max 11 in LG)
Corp : composed by several divisions (in general, less than 6)
Division : composed by several brigades (in general less than 4)
Brigade : composed by several regiments (in general less than 4)
Regiment : composed by several battalion (in general less than 6) or squadrons (for cavalry) or companies (for artillery)
In LG the word "unit" is used for infantry and cavalry regiments and artillery companies. It is the smallest unit in the game (battalions and squadrons cannot be separated from their regiment).
So to answer your question, the CiC will have 2 corps under is command.
Lodi57,
Thanks for explaning the Organizational Hierarchy - Do you know the approximate number of men that would be allocated for each group in the French Army?
-
Lodi57,
Thanks for explaning the Organizational Hierarchy - Do you know the approximate number of men that would be allocated for each group in the French Army?
It varies from period to period and it also depends on what mission Napoleon destined an army corps. You can have a good idea here : http://web2.airmail.net/napoleon/index.html (http://web2.airmail.net/napoleon/index.html)