LOP issues

[Marquês de Alorna]

Dear friends

I did not say that LOPs are not important. I agree that they are of utmost importance and most often they are the tactical objective  sought by commanders. What I am questioning is the way this reality is forced to emerge in HW-LG. I cannot recall an historical example of an entire army being routed because the LOP was taken 10 Km away by 1 or 2 regiments.

Besides, since commanders were aware of the importance of LOPs, these would sometimes be used as a bait for the enemy (this was a risk component of the tactical plan). The  way HW-LG is now implemented makes it impossible to recover a LOP once it is taken by one or two enemy units, even if you send an entire corps to recover them. This is my point and the reason why I suggest to take LOP into account as an effect on routed units with their path blocked, and on the final statistics. This will allow you to use the LOP as bait, and if you know what you're doing you may later be able to see the Sun of Austerlitz shining for you.

Regards,
António

[AJ]

Dear Marques, firstly, I don't think anyone has formerly welcomed you to the Forum, so welcome!!!
Welcome also, are new thoughts and ideas that challenge us all, so you'll fit in well here. Please don't be put off by our sometimes challenging nature, we do it to each other all the time. The Count and I have had some lively debates.

The  way HW-LG is now implemented makes it impossible to recover a LOP once it is taken by one or two enemy units, even if you send an entire corps to recover them.

Have to disagree with you here though. Gunner24 and I fought a pbem battle and we both rescued our LOP's TWICE. We called it the "LOP JIG" (dance).  What we have discovered about HLG is it's depth and intricacy, sometimes there are things going on that influence other things, giving an outcome you didn't expect. It never ceases to surprise us.

Keep throwing new ideas though, I love em.

[Marquês de Alorna]

Dear friend,

Dear Marques, firstly, I don't think anyone has formerly welcomed you to the Forum, so welcome!!!
Welcome also, are new thoughts and ideas that challenge us all, so you'll fit in well here. Please don't be put off by our sometimes challenging nature, we do it to each other all the time. The Count and I have had some lively debates.

Have to disagree with you here though. Gunner24 and I fought a pbem battle and we both rescued our LOP's TWICE. We called it the "LOP JIG" (dance).  What we have discovered about HLG is it's depth and intricacy, sometimes there are things going on that influence other things, giving an outcome you didn't expect. It never ceases to surprise us.

Keep throwing new ideas though, I love em.

Firstly, thank you very much for your words. Of course I have exagerated by saying "Corps", I just wanted to illustrate my feeling. Anyway, I think it is an issue to be thought, and maybe someone gets inspired an finds a better way to treat LOP, or a way to improve it without leaving the current model.

Regards,
António

[AJ]

I do think JMM has evolving thoughts on this issue.

[ges]

The LOP is an abstraction, but I think it is worthwhile.  It forces you to protect your rear areas.  I don't think this is exaggerated, except that I do think the effect should not be too significant unless a reasonably substantial force is threatening the LOP.  It's relatively easy in the game for a cav unit or two to get behind enemy lines, sometimes they even rout in that direction, then rally, then head for the LOP.

But if a reasonably substantial force is in your rear areas, then yes, I think it should have a very substantial effect on the battle.  This is historical and reasonable.

[AJ]

Ges, never mind posting, get that damned pbem file back, you won after all

[ges]

Didn't you get my message?  The internet pirates must have stolen the file.  I've sent a replacement.

[AJ]

Hook, we need a chat box on HLG Forum

[Count von Csollich]

Hook, we need a chat box on HLG Forum

there was one...but noone ever used it 

CvC

[AJ]

Count, I mean one like we have over at nbc, it sits in the upper corner and is always on, visible to all. I remember the one we had, it was unwieldy and awkward to use. Take a peak at nbc's, we use it continuously. It's just an idea.

[Count von Csollich]

Count, I mean one like we have over at nbc, it sits in the upper corner and is always on, visible to all. I remember the one we had, it was unwieldy and awkward to use. Take a peak at nbc's, we use it continuously. It's just an idea.

ah ok...I know what you mean...don't know...I guess since the other one wasn't used.... 

CvC

[AJ]

See Marques, just look what you started 
The Count loves smilies

[Marquês de Alorna]

The LOP is an abstraction, but I think it is worthwhile.  It forces you to protect your rear areas.  I don't think this is exaggerated, except that I do think the effect should not be too significant unless a reasonably substantial force is threatening the LOP.  It's relatively easy in the game for a cav unit or two to get behind enemy lines, sometimes they even rout in that direction, then rally, then head for the LOP.

But if a reasonably substantial force is in your rear areas, then yes, I think it should have a very substantial effect on the battle.  This is historical and reasonable.

Yes, I basically agree with what you wrote.

Regards,
António

[ges]

I was just thinking how great it is that we can even have these discussions.  I really never thought I'd see a game like this.  It still has some rough edges, but there is nothing else that comes close, and if JM can keep refining it, it will be the ultimate Napoleonic era battle game.

[JMM]

Interesting topic... I hope a lot of people will comment on.

Do you have an example where an army lost his Lines of Operation?

That said, the new calculation (patch 01c)  is better than the initial one. Some units can keep the LoP because, in the new process, HW takes account of topology, so it's more difficult to take the control.

JMM