HistWar
HistWar (English zone) => General discussions => Discussion démarrée par: AJ le 10 mars 2010, 19:44:36 pm
-
Full FOW might be fun but how realistic is it, I think "Marker" is closer to reality, I know you guys will correct me if I'm wrong.
In all my reading and research, I have found that a CiC would have a pretty good idea of his enemies general dispositions. Not only does a CiC have scouting Cavalry, but he has intelligence gathered locally and spies. It would be a poor General who ventured into battle not knowing where even one of his enemies formations were approximately located, never mind a rough idea of strength. That's why I feel "Marker" is far more realistic.
Maybe there is an exception for an ambush, in a smaller scale engagement.
I mean, come on. Could you imagine Napoleon briefing his Corps Commanders.
" OK. Mes Generals, I think Wellington maybe somewhere in the region with a few of his chaps. I don't know where or even approximately how many and you all know me, I love going into battle blindfolded with the "Flower of France" to scatter around, in fact I'm famous for it. So, let's treat the field in front of us as a battleground and attack it, if you find any enemy there, we just might manage to kill them. Deploy your Corps in X, Y & Z, you'll have to work out the formations and strategy yourself based on whether your going to have a fight with a Hill or a Forest. Oh, and if you happen to see Wellington's chaps let me know and we'll figure something out". :smile: :smile: :smile:
-
Jena and Auerstedt spring to mind, even Napoleon made mistakes.
-
That is true my friend, however it is not the general rule I think.
-
I mean, come on. Could you imagine Napoleon briefing his Corps Commanders.
" OK. Mes Generals, I think Wellington maybe somewhere in the region with a few of his chaps. I don't know where or even approximately how many and you all know me, I love going into battle blindfolded with the "Flower of France" to scatter around, in fact I'm famous for it. So, let's treat the field in front of us as a battleground and attack it, if you find any enemy there, we just might manage to kill them. Deploy your Corps in X, Y & Z, you'll have to work out the formations and strategy yourself based on whether your going to have a fight with a Hill or a Forest. Oh, and if you happen to see Wellington's chaps let me know and we'll figure something out". :smile: :smile: :smile:
Yes, I could imagine that because it was exactly the case for the positions of the Prussians from June 17th to the 18th 1815. And the same problems appeared in 1813.
-
And let's not forget "le soleil d'Austerlitz".
Kutusov had no idea where the French troops were, until the fog literally lifted. Napoleon even made the Allies believe the night before, that he was retreating.
-
FOW is realistic if you spend enough time scouting the battlefield at the biginning of the day before engaging troops. Actually 90% of the adrenaline (and fun) we had in the pre-release MP simulations came from the fact that we were playing in FOW. In LG, corps have a big momentum (realistic, I guess). So once you have started a movement it is hard to change your mind, even harder to disengage a corps. Anticipation and timely decisions are therefore very important in FOW. The trick is to deploy the corps in the right timing, according to the scouting reports : too early, you might be unable to counter enemy movements or fall in a trap, too late, you will have to adapt to the enemy plan during most the battle until you get a chance to take the initiative again (which could also be a good strategy) : lots of stress and endless discussions when you are several players! But great fun! I don't find this when I am playing alone against the AI. Really looking forward to play in MP!
-
I take on board the examples you have brought up but I still don't feel it was the general rule of the day
I do agree that playing solo with no FOW gets boring. I am playing PBEM with Gunner24 and a couple of others, it's really quite pointless when your opponent can see your whole armies dispositions. So role on FOW or Marker working properly in PBEM or MP.
-
So role on FOW or Marker working properly in PBEM or MP.
Agreed here, without it we only have half a game, or less ?.
Full FOW will be fine - if it's working correctly, there seems to be some serious doubts about that at the moment, although it may be fow and order delays are two different things, maybe fow is working but something is wrong with the delay of orders - 5 hours is far too much for every corps to have orders delayed, maybe if this was a campaign game lasting weeks or months, but not in a 9 hour battle. By the time they move, or rather IF they move, the battle is finished and nothing has happened.
It seems like everyone is waiting for FOW and the MP connection problems to be resolved.
-
It seems like everyone is waiting for FOW and the MP connection problems to be resolved.
I'm certainly put off playing MP until these problems have been resolved.
Conscript mode does not interest me much at all, exept for practice and testing. In my opinion full FOW is the most realistic mode.
It is true that spies, outposts and questioning the populace could give quite detailed and accurate information of the enemies location, orders of battle and condition at the outset of a campaign. To my understanding, once formations are on the march the acuracy and validity of this type of intelligence can diminish rapidly.
Without effective scouting and efficient reporting, commanders were often blind to the wherabouts and intentions of the enemy.
Cheers
Grog
-
Purchase and play Frank Hunter's "Campaigns on the Danube"...it's only a couple bucks and he deserves the money.
Play it with FULL FoW.
It drives you insane until you figure it out, then your realize it's the ONLY way to understand the muddle that was Napoleonic war. It's from a different era, but it illustrates the point: When Lord Lucan ordered what became "The Charge of the Light Brigade", he never intended for Cardigan to charge Russian guns. The problem was that Cardigan/Raglan et al. couldn't SEE the guns Lucan meant and were goaded into Nolan's alternative. The point? We tend to see FAR to much on the tabletop. One of the glories of digital battle is that we can get better and better TRUE FoW.
Holy Grail for me...
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
-
Agreed here, without it we only have half a game, or less ?.
Full FOW will be fine - if it's working correctly, there seems to be some serious doubts about that at the moment, although it may be fow and order delays are two different things, maybe fow is working but something is wrong with the delay of orders - 5 hours is far too much for every corps to have orders delayed, maybe if this was a campaign game lasting weeks or months, but not in a 9 hour battle. By the time they move, or rather IF they move, the battle is finished and nothing has happened.
It seems like everyone is waiting for FOW and the MP connection problems to be resolved.
ABSOLUTELY SPOT ON !!!!!!!
I for one would never play any other way then full FOW .....however the AI in LG at the moment can not be trusted to get the job done without constant monitoring . The delay we are experiencing of 4 to 5 hours over a 5 to 10km front is excessive at the very least if they ever move at all. Frequently we see one or two regiments out of a corp move to the assigned position and the rest stay at there original location.
-
The delay we are experiencing of 4 to 5 hours over a 5 to 10km front is excessive at the very least if they ever move at all. Frequently we see one or two regiments out of a corp move to the assigned position and the rest stay at there original location.
If you think the order delay is too long, set it to Limited rather than Historical. This is supposed to limit order delays to about 4o minutes, but you may see longer at times. Historical delays can have a delay of up to 2 hours or more.
Hook
-
Purchase and play Frank Hunter's "Campaigns on the Danube"...it's only a couple bucks and he deserves the money.
Play it with FULL FoW.
It drives you insane until you figure it out, then your realize it's the ONLY way to understand the muddle that was Napoleonic war. It's from a different era, but it illustrates the point: When Lord Lucan ordered what became "The Charge of the Light Brigade", he never intended for Cardigan to charge Russian guns. The problem was that Cardigan/Raglan et al. couldn't SEE the guns Lucan meant and were goaded into Nolan's alternative. The point? We tend to see FAR to much on the tabletop. One of the glories of digital battle is that we can get better and better TRUE FoW.
Holy Grail for me...
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
Sounds really interesting Cyrano, so I purchased it and downloaded tonight, but it won't run on my Dell XPS System 7 computer...just hangs at the splash screen.
I'll try it on the desktop tomorrow.
-
I've now tried Campaigns on the Danube on 3 different computers: 2 running Sys 7, one running XP. It hangs on all of them.
And...Matrix Games (I learn too late) has a no refund policy.
Too bad, it sounded interesting.
Cyrano, do you know if the author of the game still supports it? Can he be contacted?
-
I've now tried Campaigns on the Danube on 3 different computers: 2 running Sys 7, one running XP. It hangs on all of them.
And...Matrix Games (I learn too late) has a no refund policy.
Too bad, it sounded interesting.
Cyrano, do you know if the author of the game still supports it? Can he be contacted?
Actually, that's a digitalriver thing not matrixgames, but still, they chose to let digitalriver run their shop, so it kinda is their fault. Well anyways, what I wanted to write is: all sales are final doesn't apply if you're from the EU. Here you get
14 days for digital products.
14 days from delivery of physical products.
Thanks to EU law.
-
Actually, that's a digitalriver thing not matrixgames, but still, they chose to let digitalriver run their shop, so it kinda is their fault. Well anyways, what I wanted to write is: all sales are final doesn't apply if you're from the EU. Here you get
Thanks to EU law.
If it was a couple of bucks I wouldn't whine, but it was $25 which is worth pursuing a refund for. I wasn't surprised it didn't work on the Sys 7 machines, but was that it wouldn't work on the XP machine.
Anyway, I've dragged this off topic enough...sorry about that. :(
-
Sorry for dragging it a bit further, but ...
... you cold try asking about your problem in the matrixgames forums and / or write directly to the developers. Those guys at matrixgames are amazing when it comes to support. Digitalriver, the guys that run the money part of the business really suck in many ways (or at least their business does, don't want to judge the people there), but the matrixgames guys are awesome :)
-
Sorry for dragging it a bit further, but ...
... you cold try asking about your problem in the matrixgames forums and / or write directly to the developers. Those guys at matrixgames are amazing when it comes to support. Digitalriver, the guys that run the money part of the business really suck in many ways (or at least their business does, don't want to judge the people there), but the matrixgames guys are awesome :)
Well, thanks for dragging it out a bit more. :smile:
I did dig up some information on the forums. It turns out CotD needs to be run in Windows 98 compatibility mode! I thought it would work in XP, but no.
I am still getting some errors, but making progress. It does look very interesting.
Which brings me back to the topic of LG. I would love to see a strategic/operational level game that could be used to create campaigns, with battles resolved via LG. Does this already exist?
I'll look for messages regarding this topic, and if none found, will start a new one.
Thanks again Specio.
ges
-
Which brings me back to the topic of LG. I would love to see a strategic/operational level game that could be used to create campaigns, with battles resolved via LG. Does this already exist?
I'll look for messages regarding this topic, and if none found, will start a new one.
This was talked about some time ago, different poeple have different idea's on how this could be done, but making it work is very hard.
-
Which brings me back to the topic of LG. I would love to see a strategic/operational level game that could be used to create campaigns, with battles resolved via LG. Does this already exist?
I'll look for messages regarding this topic, and if none found, will start a new one.
ges
Here's the thread:
http://www.histwar.org/forum/index.php/topic,3688.0.html (http://www.histwar.org/forum/index.php/topic,3688.0.html)
This is an issue very near and dear to my heart as well! I, too, struggled with CotD and found it impossible to use on my modern PC as a campaign engine for LG. I've also been trying to use high-quality traditional wargames of operational scale to play the campaign part, then set up the battles in LG. My first attempt (Rottenburg) has resulted in a nice custom map (see Rottenburg_Bro) on the upload site, but I found frustration when I tried to set up the units in their starting positions (due to the limits on unit placement in the deployment phase of LG).
-
Here's the thread:
http://www.histwar.org/forum/index.php/topic,3688.0.html (http://www.histwar.org/forum/index.php/topic,3688.0.html)
This is an issue very near and dear to my heart as well! I, too, struggled with CotD and found it impossible to use on my modern PC as a campaign engine for LG. I've also been trying to use high-quality traditional wargames of operational scale to play the campaign part, then set up the battles in LG. My first attempt (Rottenburg) has resulted in a nice custom map (see Rottenburg_Bro) on the upload site, but I found frustration when I tried to set up the units in their starting positions (due to the limits on unit placement in the deployment phase of LG).
Thanks for the information, Broadsword. This is something that will surely come along in time...I hope.
-
This is an issue very near and dear to my heart as well! I, too, struggled with CotD and found it impossible to use on my modern PC as a campaign engine for LG.
There is a new update (yes, you read correct) for CotD, with some error fixes and a modified GUI. It's still beta...
-
I think it's a great tribute to Frank that he's still supporting a game he's only periodically getting money for (here's to ges on that one :))
I have avoided the Vista upgrade and have no need, as yet, for 7 so this has not been a problem for me...didn't realize how serious it was until I checked out the fora.
Glad to hear it's being worked out...now if he'd only let us have a Peninsular game, I'd be set...
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)