How are corps supose to operate in the game

[lodi57]

No one fights for 8 hours.  Most of the time is spent standing around. 

Any given infantry battalion is good for one, maybe two 15 minute firefights before they have to take a break.  Any melee will exhaust them even more quickly.

It's a little easier on cavalry, but in that case it's the horses that get exhausted.  One or two charges will leave the horses blown and they have to rest to recover.

In the case of artillery, it's firing the guns that is tiring.  The guns have to be run back into position after they recoil.  You can fire the guns all day, but the rate of fire goes down after a while. Most artillery units fire an average of one round every 2 minutes over the course of a day's battle, even when firing continuously.

Hook

I agree.

[quartermaster]

The suggestion here is that the game will allow some disorder and loss of cohesion when using the “March to area” command.  I think the commanders of the era used methods of command which would counteract this tendency to disorder. 

The 1791 Reglements include Evolutions de Ligne which describes how to manoeuvre divisions of  8 battalions.  The concept of individual movement of battalions unless under specific orders is I believe a false premise.  Many illustrations show a division formed for movement in a column of battalions one behind the other, each battalion in column of peleton.  This is done to ensure the division is kept under control and able to deploy quickly if needed.

Ney in his writings focuses on handling groups of 8 battalions.

If a division or corps was deployed and needed to advance then one unit would be identified as a “base” or regulating battalion and the rest of the division would set their alignment and pace of advance on this “base”. 

[Ras]

I've played the Montebello battle, commanding the coalition forces.
I had Constantine deploy in front of the center town, north of the marshes. It took him only a short time until he had reached the final deployment area. He put his horse artillery up front and a unit of dragoons behind it. A unit of hussars was also nearby.
Miloradovich was ordered liaison in support. So far so good.
The french approached Constantine's line with two units of cavalry. They managed to destroy one battery and rout a unit of cav all in front of the line. No help was coming to the cannons. Instead Constantine used his cav to charge it unsupported into the front line of the french, still out of cannon range, losing both cav in the process. Miloradovich then repeated the mistake.

What did I do wrong? Is this due to the missing AI, doctrine editor or a simple mistake on my side?
Note, I gave Constantine order to deploy.
Constantine held this line all through the battle, against all odds and without his cavalry, still I feel that he wasted his cavalry and lost his guns in the process.

[Hook]

I believe the editors allow you to modify the individual units' aggressiveness and initiative as well as the various doctrines.  I'm hoping there's a combination that will keep cavalry in a supporting role and not going off looking for trouble.

Hook

[von Döbeln]

Yes cavalry units seem a bit to aggressive/death defying in the demo. I'm sure it will be different in the full game, or else it can hopefully be corrected in the doctrine editor.

LvD

[Hook]

I believe you can specify aggressiveness and initiative in the Order of Battle editor for each unit.  The doctrine editor allows you to specify behavior for all your forces.  You could, for example, order detached cavalry to disengage rather than attacking.

Hook

[Taff]

I believe you can specify aggressiveness and initiative in the Order of Battle editor for each unit.  The doctrine editor allows you to specify behavior for all your forces.  You could, for example, order detached cavalry to disengage rather than attackin

One for later In MP games whose doctrine do we use?

[Hook]

One for later In MP games whose doctrine do we use?

I'm pretty sure that's covered in the manual, but each nation has its own doctrine so at least two sides wouldn't be a problem.  If multiplayer forces were divided on each side according to nationality, then everyone could have his own, I guess.

Good question.

Hook

[Taff]

Another quick one, has anyone deployed skirmishers. I can get them to deploy from line formation what I can’t do is deploy the unit as a whole (in trees) Used Light infantry in trying

[lodi57]

Another quick one, has anyone deployed skirmishers. I can get them to deploy from line formation what I can’t do is deploy the unit as a whole (in trees) Used Light infantry in trying

In LG, only skirmishers companies can deploy (for the time being), battalions can't (even if they belong to a light regiment).

[englishoo7]

Changed the range settings for every infantry regiment in a Corps today to minimum range. Tested it out and it 'felt' as though they caused more casualties.  The downside I suppose is that they must come under fire longer when approaching before repling with their own volley?

[Cpl Steiner]

Another quick one, has anyone deployed skirmishers. I can get them to deploy from line formation what I can’t do is deploy the unit as a whole (in trees) Used Light infantry in trying

Historically, even light infantry did not usually deploy completely into skirmish formation. A light infantry battalion might deploy more skirmishers than a Line infantry battalion but it would still keep a substantial reserve behind the skirmishers formed up like any regular unit in close order.

[Taff]

Historically, even light infantry did not usually deploy completely into skirmish formation. A light infantry battalion might deploy more skirmishers than a Line infantry battalion but it would still keep a substantial reserve behind the skirmishers formed up like any regular unit in close order.

Fully agree with the usually but it did happen
#

Several companies or even battalions could be employed as skirmishers (tirailleurs en grande bande). The tiralleurs en grande bande acted in large numbers, stormed or defended a position, or turned the flank of the enemy. The large skirmish formations were usually supported by columns and artillery.
# In 1807 at Friedland, General Oudinot had deployed 2 full battalions as skirmishers into the Sortlack Wood.
# In 1814 at La Rothiere, four French battalions were formed in skirmish order by La Giberie to anticipate any attack which might develop in the rear of the wood. The French on occasion deployed even entire divisions [!] in skirmish formations. (Nafziger - "Imperial Bayonets" 1996 p 111)
# In 1806 at Jena, the French 16th Light Infantry advanced left in front towards the woods: its third battalion advanced en tirailleurs (in skirmish order) towards the wood, the first and second battalion, marching still in column, went past the right of the woods and deployed into line in the plain at musket range from the Prussian battery.
I was suprised it happened in 1814 thought the troops were too poorly trained

[lodi57]

The French on occasion deployed even entire divisions [!] in skirmish formations.

I have never read anything about that even concerning the Revolutionnary wars. I think it can be a mistake due to the word "division" because in french it is also used to designate a group of 2 companies.

[Taff]

I have never read anything about that even concerning the Revolutionnary wars. I think it can be a mistake due to the word "division" because in french it is also used to designate a group of 2 companies.

Good point here is the link
http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/infantry_tactics_4.htm#_skirmishers
See if it confirms what you think
Again I was suprised that the Russians broke up Battalions for Skirmishing