Winning in HW

[Gunner24]

Well Lancier, except for view limited to CiC (which is exceptionally tough as far as being able to SEE is concerned) the other options are probably the best - but yes, they are hard.

I will now be changing my solo games to delay or orders : historical, and see what it feels like, one more thing about this, it will make bad Commanders even worse, and some of the order delays will be a very long time indeed, if I remember correctly.  I will report back in a few days.

[[NBC]Friant]

@ tony

Napoleon said never attack without first bombarding the defender with artillery which I think is difficult to do in the game

The funny thing is this was actually included when giving a corp an order to advance, it would automatically halt for artillery preparation.
Most players ended up finding this frustrating, but in all honesty it is an integral part of Napoleonic warfare. The preliminary bombardment is a must...
@Lancier

I won't be surprised if we all turn to the grognard mode for options in the end.

I really cannot see anything wrong with this, but would tend to agree with Gunner, the only thing I would omit would be CiC view, only because I like to see the spectacle...
@ Gunner

a very long time ago, with FULL delayed orders, there were many complaints that "something must have gone wrong" when orders were taking oh so long to come in...

I know Gunner, but always with this game when looking for a reason for something you eventually find it, or at least an answer.
Let us see the replays of your experience, again the true test will be in mp, I am a great advocate of rules, rules give everything that something extra, even no rules cage fighting has rules 
If there is anybody out there who would like to try the historical orders in mp please  let me know.

I am not saying this is what should happen, but I would bet big money the reduced time for corps orders is making a big difference.
If 2 people wish to play against each using whatever options they choose is not wrong either, IF they agree at the start.
As with any game, 'gamey' exploits will always rain on the parade of what the game designer had in mind, but played in the correct manner the game will eventually reward the player with a really enjoyable experience. And I hope in the future when there are new players they will realise what a great Napoleonic experience this can be.

Anyway lastly I am not saying this is the way it should be played, but if making short cuts do not complain the game is unrealistic...
I enjoy it either way so...

[tony scrase]

Hi

I have only just noticed that in the options I am using

Orders delayed
Delay of orders historical

I m not sure what this means !!!!!

[Gunner24]

It means orders will take a serious LONG time, far longer than the "limited" option, which most people have used for most of the last 4 years.

See Friants post below -

2.1.5 Delay of Orders (Limited, or Historical)
These options determine how long the delay can be when Delayed orders is enabled.
This parameter triples the time taken to draft the orders. For example, even without
taking into account the time necessary for the transmission of a message, the time
necessary for executing an order can be as much as 2 hours for a corps at maximum
strength (24 units) which is led by a Commanding Officer with little competence.

[tony scrase]

Thanks gunner that is very helpful 
Is it my imagination but the closer I am to the corp commander the faster the order seems to be acted on

Also on each corp commander there is a time which I think is the time it takes for an order to be acted on - do you know if this the total time delay

Thank you

[Gunner24]

Hello, the closer the CC is to the CIC the less time it takes for the orders to be delivered, so moving the CIC closer to the CC who needs new orders is a good move, to cut down the delivery time, but, you then have to wait for the CIC to move anyway, so you might not save all that much time.

Not 100% sure about the other part, but I would assume yes, although that is only the time for the order to be delivered, not to be acted on, which is different for each CC, depending on their "knowledge" rating - I think.  Friant might be able to confirm this.

[[NBC]Friant]

I did a topic on NBC forum about times and speeds of dispatches, I was able to calculate the time it took a message to get to a corps commander over any distance, but unfortunately it is not there anymore and I cannot remember the calculation. The nearer the CiC is to the CC the quicker the message gets through, but orders from CC to Regimental Commanders all depends on size of corps and quality of the CC. Adc's (aide de camp) are roaming the battlefield all the time, to and fro from CiC to CC's, so in most case the CiC adc and CC adc meet somewhere in the middle if that makes sense...
We calculated that the CiC moves at about 30kph, if I remember correctly.
Tony, don't forget the historical order option will make a big difference, because it is not just about the time the message takes to get there, that is the same in both options, but the corps organisation and deployment will be what take the longest time. You can imagine trying to turn a 20 to 30k corps through 90 degrees, making sure that everyone is where they should be...

Also on each corp commander there is a time which I think is the time it takes for an order to be acted on - do you know if this the total time delay

Fairly sure with option delay of orders limited is how long the message takes to get there, because that was how I was able to workout how fast the messages travel, delay of orders historical will then roughly triple the time it takes for the corps to organise and deploy. The timings should still be the same, but length of time for corps to reach its destination should be much longer, historical I presume...

which is different for each CC, depending on their "knowledge" rating - I think.

That is correct.

[tony scrase]

Hi

I find the historical option good - This is silly but I have never bothered to calculate how long an order takes

On the corp commander there is a time which I think is probably just the time from when he gets the order to when his corp starts to carry out the order - I have found this could as little as little as 20 mins or as much as an hour and seems a very sensible delay

 I really enjoy this delay  although I don't know what the delay is with the limited delay option.

[[NBC]Friant]

If you have a corps order that takes 20mins with limited order delay, you can probably assume in historical it will be approximately an hour...

[Belliard]

https://vimeo.com/107867313
Here is a replay of a recently played game.
Good attack by the French in the north.
Imo deserved a win. I think it is very hard to be the offensive player in HW at the moment.
That offensive later in the day would have won the battle, it is all about timing, once the offensive player makes his move it is too easy for the defensive player to counter.
JMM is thinking about changing lops to something else, do not know what at the moment but there was some talk of 'floating' lop system where they could be placed anywhere on the map, is that correct.
Imo there should be more emphasis on ground taken. There is something still not quite sitting right for me in these battles.
The French attack in the north pushed the Russian right flank back many kilometres (6 or 7 I would say if a 15km map), something that would really be unheard of in a Napoleonic battle without something seriously going wrong.
The fact that you can push a flank back this far and not have a serious morale effect is becoming very frustrating for me, in that the attacker has made a very aggressive show of force and his reward is a mass surrender at the end.
Even if the French had held at their further most advance I doubt if they would have won this battle, but looking at the overhead map something is telling me that it really should have been some sort of strategic win for the French?
Tactical retreat or not, that flank on a Napoleonic battle would have been deemed as broken?
What could help the more offensive player get a better reward for being the aggressor?
Should ground taken be more important in the game?
Is the lop system working as it should, should more or less emphasis be put on this?
Casualties shouldn't imo should not be the decisive factor in these battles, many of Napoleons battles saw him lose more men but win the battle.
This is not a moan I am just trying to think of way to improve the result of the game and reward the offensive player.
I think ground taken should be the key?
(imo in most cases the best ground would have been occupied by both sides on the front line from the start, once a corp was forced back and back their choices of good ground would have reduced massively.)
What does anyone else think?

NB, we complain a lot about fluidity and movement on the HW battlefield but imo there is probably far too much, front lines moving forwards and backwards many kilometres, just look at some historical accounts to disprove this.
Austerlitz, once heights were taken battle over.
Waterloo, if Wellington had lost his ridge.
Borodino if the Russians had their flank turned as the above battle.
Leipzig, either flank crushed as above.

I agree with you my dear Friand, the offensive in HWN is not rewarded, the defenses are too strong.
But, be aware, that an attack if it wants to be efficase must be properly constructed to limit the areas against attack.
For our part against the FG, their attack was powerful but was very poorly organized
The left flank of their army was too open and the attack on Russian troops south of the map did nothing
The attack  and offensive was embicieuse  but,  poorly constructed.
Under these conditions the landslide victory was obligatory for the French.

[tony scrase]

Ok I think I can understand more what you say about the defender having too much time to react.

with the historical delay it is possible to hit the enemy hard enough especially with two corp before the defender can get any reserves in place

BUT casualties are likely to be high

I have to say I have never Or very rarely had problems with orders not being carried out. 

[JMM]

"I agree with you my dear Friand, the offensive in HWN is not rewarded, the defenses are too strong."

In my list : a new system for evaluating the result of the battle taking care of defensive / offensive intentions for each side.

JMM

[Belliard]

My perspective on the defenses was compared to HWLG

But I do not know if it's better or worse

[[NBC]Friant]

In my list : a new system for evaluating the result of the battle taking care of defensive / offensive intentions for each side.

JMM

That sounds good...

[Alfiere]

Hello all

For my opinion the better way to win is with counter- attack,but another side must attack