<t> Bertram,<br/> While first in the hex is first to defend seems a bit unfair it does give the player who gets there first an advantage which is fair. Near the end of CLGA 1805/1809 1.16 Frank did put in a routine to control better the AI in making idiot suicide attacks and it did work nicely but m...

<t> benpark,<br/> The reason Nappy is nailed down in several 1809 scenarios is to model the fact that he was still enroute to the battle area and that Berthier was in command. By nailing down Nappy at Ulm it gives the French player that initial disadvantage of having a dazed and confused Berthier fl...

<t> Bertram,<br/> How the program picks who is the attacker and who is the defender may seem a bit strange, but it isn't. Just because you have your troops set to attack and have the larger force does not automatically make you the attacker. Both sides may be set to attack but only one side gets to ...

<t> Caranorn,<br/> The scoring machine is a bit different in Danube and I'm not sure if Frank updated the manual to really accurately describe how it works. While it's obvious that capturing towns and winning battles scores points, it isn't your typical get a point when you capture a town or win a b...

<t> jheydt,<br/> When I left off testing and playing Adanac's CLGA 1805/1809 the reported combat crash bugs, Army CG attachment problem and other problems did not exist. These unfortunately cropped up when Frank had to incorporate new graphics and other features. Also unfortunately I was not able to...

<t> ggallagher,<br/> Your request reminds me fondly of the good old daze when Avalon Hill published games with first rate playing aids like color maps of the battle area. Those old maps were handy for being able to see the whole battle area at one glance without having the computer on so one could d...

<t> warren_peace,<br/> Did some units of those corps get involved in battle? When elements of a corps get trashed in battle that can cause the corp HQ to want to fallback. Heck even if the corp wins it could want to fallback if it's elements suffered heavy casualties. If those corps did not have any...

<t> fdobbins,<br/> I've got the old version of the game and Frank has intimated that my old version should work with the new versions for PBEM. I like playing the Austrians in the historical 1809 scenario set for campaign and Full Fog of War. If you'd like to start up a PBEM game as the French we co...

<t> Caranorn,<br/> In playing the original Danube release I was always able to trash the Austrians easily in 1809 and win decisive victories. In fact I had problems having the Austrian AI last a whole campaign game. The scoring system takes a while to master as you need to capture towns and win batt...

<t> Nego,<br/> You shouldn't expect corps to march around all nice and stacked in the same hex. Think of corps marching in column, with some units leading others and some units following the leaders. While a bit frustrating this really models movement far more realistically than games where you have...

<t> GBS,<br/> Never let the computer handle supply is the most important thing to remember, or you'll end up with looted supply centers and lots of little supply wagons traveling hither and yon. If you park corps within 3 hexes of any supply depot they will automatically draw supply, 4 days for the ...

<t> ShermanM4,<br/> One nice thing about The Great War is that individual weapons are not modeled as was done in ACW. As you gain the assault infantry bonus in R&D you then have to "train & equip" regular infantry units for a turn at which time they will gain a level of quality and gain the ...

ShermanM4,
Indeed a lot of effort goes into making a great game. The game has undergone quite an evolution from the first build, and it is undergoing another major change that will make it even better. All of this takes time, but I bet the wait will be worth it.
Eric

<t> David,<br/> I'd like to see computer WiF be as close to the original boardgame as possible, including the Ships & Planes and any other add ons built in to give the game more historical flavor rather than generic designations. The only thing I'd like to see changed is the player movement/comb...

<t> Arinvald,<br/> Sorry, I'm not Starbucks so I don't serve latte, only hot lead. I'm hoping to get my mitts on the new version so I won't have any compatibility problems when playing PBEM. One nice thing is the game should be the cleanest game you've ever seen released as I helped Frank get it str...

<t> After being totally dismayed with Hearts of Iron and Strategic Command it is nice to see Grigsby enter the strategic WW2 fray. While I'm a bit disappointed the game will use areas instead of hexes I'm hoping Gary will not make the same massive mistakes made by HoI.<br/> <br/> One major screwup i...

<t> Mark T,<br/> First get the game, then plan on sending the wife and kids out of town so you know you'll have a fine uninterupted weekend of gaming pleasure. [:'(] Actually the game is very close to release although I'm not certain of the exact date so there won't be many weekends now to wait. The...

<t> Brady,<br/> While having Zeppelins bombing England would be fun it just wouldn't work at the grand strategic scale the game utilizes. Lava (Ray) is quite correct in saying that their impact upon the war at the game's scale was insignificant, unlike the Allied bomber blitz of Germany in WW2. Whil...

<t> mbatch729 & Brady,<br/> I'm not sure what the projected release date is to be honest. I certainly will do everything I can to help get the game to that magical moment as soon as possible.<br/> <br/> The "offmap" action is handled pretty much as history ran. The German ships in the Pacific an...

<t> Le Tondu,<br/> If CLGA 1805-1809 were to be dumbed down to reflect the brigade or battalion level it would just be another grand tactical battle game, ho hum. Tiller has flooded the market with Nappy grand tactical games and they don't compare in the slightest to the CLGA divisional scale that a...