initiative

[dmcheatw]

how important do you think it is?  my money is on very important.  and worth the risk of possibly getting caught in a trap.

[Gunner24]

Sure to be important, do we know the "range" of ratings for this feature, is there a big difference between the worst and best Commanders initative ratings ?.

[dmcheatw]

i'm thinking more like as a gamer... will the game favor defense oriented players or agressive players?  in total war a good player can defend and attack pretty well, but the best players attack, and force the other player to react to his moves, thus becoming predictable and, in a sense, a step behind the agressor at all times.  at the end of the battle the loser feels overwhelmed, and that everything they tried essentially played into his oppositions hand.  now i know that this game is nothing like total war, so everyone please spare me that, but the question i'm asking transcends individual games.  the airland battle doctrine of the united states during the 80s and 90s says that to defeat the enemy you must throw the enemy off balance with a powerful blow from an unexpected direction, follow up rapidly to prevent his recovery, and continue agressivly, so that the enemy percieves the attacks as rapid, unpredictable, and disorienting.  i'm wondering if the same applies to napoleonic warfare, and to this game.  should be interesting to see why sort of style other people adopt with regards to the posture of their army, and if they divide their forces agressivly or what.

[dieseltaylor]

My initial thought is the game must be neutral. Secondly , I would have thought the terrain must have some bearing on what is likely or not, thirdly, and perhaps even more important are the initial dispositions of the troops.

However humans being humans the generals feelings at anytime might vary from aggresssive to passive as RL interruptions/distractions will also modify what is happening on the battlefield. The change in mood though that can occur in a PBEM will presumably be considerably different from that which may occur in LAN play.

[Gunner24]

Ah, I see, I mis-understood......well, I would expect the attacker to win more often than the defender, for the reasons stated above.

The attacker mostly has the advantage, if up against a difficult position ground wise, they move the direction of the attack and so force the defender to move out of their preferred position.

[Gunfreak]

Well you never know, not all defenders are Wellington, the russians were quite agresive defenders, with cossacks and light cav always thretening the flanks of the french.

Hell if I'm defending and seeing a totaly worng move by the attacker, I might use the old "offence is the best defence" and attack the enemy, I doubt it will happen often, especaly against the ai, but if the enemy does, and I have the troops I might press my advantage.

[dmcheatw]

yeah and the flipside is defending seems to allow for a little bigger margin of error, army cohesion is a bit easier, interior lines generally allow for a more rapid deployment, and the weapons of the day might favor a defensive posture, etc.  i'm not sure about this last point though because i am thinking maybe it was more 1850-1920 where defensive weaponry greatly outmatched offensive tactics.

[Montecuccoli]

In HWLG there are two kind of battles, Rear Guard Mode (for smaller engagement) and Battle Mode.

In Rear Guard the smaller army is considered the "defender" so if at the end of the day (or days) that Army is not forced to leave the field can be considered the winner becuase in this mode the attacker has to dislodge the defender from the field.

In Battle Mode there are nor defenders nor attackers even if an Army is of 150 000 men and the others 90 000 men.

In Battle Mode initiative is the trigger for victory, if the players just sit down and wait (especially the huge maps for HWLG) it is possible that they won't never come to fight (in smaller ones some enemy units can be seen). For what i see by now in the game it is possible to have an Army taking initiative in one sector of the battle and losing it in another sector.

The main problem in this game (and i presume in real XIX century command control) is to gain and mantain an overall initiative, units become tired, but they press the defenders, defenders themselves should become too much firm on the ground and so will be unable to recoil or to prevent countermoves by the attacker.

However if a commander wants to win he MUST take initiative in my opinion.

It is not so simple to just sit down and defend.. sometimes i try some defense on depth but then i lack units on wings.... in Italy we say "The cover is too small" 

Anyway those are just my impressions... many players playing the game i am sure will overtest the Engine 

[Gunner24]

In HWLG there are two kind of battles, Rear Guard Mode (for smaller engagement) and Battle Mode

Have I missed this in the manual ?.....I don't remember this, two kinds of battle.  Is it "selected" before we start ?.

In even force games (the same size army for each side) the defender will have an early advantage by selecting their ground and being attacked by an EQUAL force, always hard to attack in that situation, but with movement it's of course possible to win.

Do people think the normal MP game should always be set up by the host as EQUAL Army strenght battles ?.

[Montecuccoli]

Rear guard mode is not selected it depends by the CEH, if CEH is slow (30 000 men for example) it will be a rear guard action

[Broadsword]

No, I think MP games should almost never be of equal CEH strengths. That would be boring, make the games prone to stalemates, and not really replicate history. In real life, someone is almost always the attacker and someone the defender. Also, it takes 3:1 superiority (or as much as 6:1 if the defender is in fieldworks, towns, etc) for an attacking force to have much chance of victory. I'd always prefer a MP scenario where one corps in Army A fights alone to hold off two or three corps in Army B, but with the likelihood that Army A will get reinforcements who "march to the sound of the guns" and arrive after a certain time to even the odds.  That makes the battle much more exciting, because Army A has to fight a brilliant defense to survive, while Army B must strike hard to try and finish off the enemy before help arrives. All we need to do is agree beforehand as to what constitutes relative levels of "victory" for that battle.

[LNDavout]

No, I think MP games should almost never be of equal CEH strengths. That would be boring, make the games prone to stalemates, and not really replicate history. In real life, someone is almost always the attacker and someone the defender. Also, it takes 3:1 superiority (or as much as 6:1 if the defender is in fieldworks, towns, etc) for an attacking force to have much chance of victory. I'd always prefer a MP scenario where one corps in Army A fights alone to hold off two or three corps in Army B, but with the likelihood that Army A will get reinforcements who "march to the sound of the guns" and arrive after a certain time to even the odds.  That makes the battle much more exciting, because Army A has to fight a brilliant defense to survive, while Army B must strike hard to try and finish off the enemy before help arrives. All we need to do is agree beforehand as to what constitutes relative levels of "victory" for that battle.

Well i´m sure you will rethink this after some games.

Its more about the character of the enemy player.

[Montecuccoli]

It depends a lot on game options, for istance playing with or without order delays, ammunition depletion and more can make the difference even in initiative.

[Gunner24]

Setting up MP games with anything other than even forces will be very hard to do.......if side A has more troops than side B, many will say it's not a "fair" fight.

MP gaming is nothing like SP gaming, no where near the same, unless there is some very clever agreed structure to make unbalanced games I can see all MP games being the same size Army on both sides, if I set up a 3v3 MP game and have my side 25% more powerfull than yours, who is most likely to win and who would want to be on the weaker side - not many I suggest.

[dieseltaylor]

If I win the greater glory to me, if I lose, then it was your 25% that made victory inevitable : )