Matrix Games Forums

BTW: Why did GBr only have three leaders???
 

Basically, many of the famous leaders were corps commanders or so. So, partly for play balance and partly to NOT have tons of leaders like grouchy and hill or constantine (RU GD corps), they limited them. Thus FR and GB corps are INHERENTLY better than others. You can't have GB with 3 corps and 8 good leaders! [;)] I don't know if I agree with that or not, but that was the reasoning. I don't know if they could find any more turkish leaders by name anyway!

If we are adding a leader, it should be Muhammad Ali for Egypt. AND Bernadotte should HAVE TO become the leader of Sweden...[:-]

HFJ, a concern is that it seems like you want an entirely new game. That's the way it appears.
Jason

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

BTW: Why did GBr only have three leaders???

I'll take some shots here, but most cavalry of the time would be heavy/medium. The lights were infrequently used for combat. With no hexes, but rather larger spaces, the duties of light cavalry (screening and recon) are not really needed in the game. Those that had a special capability for light cav (RUS, AUS, PRU) already have counters: cossacks and Freikorps. Interestingly, the Ottomans should probably have a cossack type counter or two as well.

quote by = Jason

Hi Jason,
The sole purpose of "heavy" cav was to break the enemy in battle. These cavalry were typically cuirassiers, heavy dragoons, etc. They were expensive to outfit and to maintain, took a long time to train but were devastating on the battlefield if used correctly. Light cav served multiple roles. They were used for scouting, skirmishing, screening the main armies movements from enemy observation, raiding, escort duties, pretty much everything. On the battlefield they were placed on the flanks in battle to watch the flanks, scout for enemy outflanking moves and to maintain contact with other formations. They could be used in the main battle line for pursuit of beaten formations or even thrown in to charges - pretty much jack of all trades. Lancers are an interesting one. the French didn't have a lot (Russians had Cossacks who carried lances and Prussinas had Uhlans) and they were mainly used by them towards the end of the period. They had the famous polish lancers but also some line units which were present at Waterloo and did a lot of damage to the British cav who they counter charged once the British heavies had become "blown"...I could go on.....

There is quite a difference in the tactical uses of Heavy & Light cav.

PS. MY INTEREST THIS PERIOD IS NOT JUST NAVAL.

I dont agree that EIA is a game that supposed to be going such into detail. Even deeper than CoG went...

I prefer the higher level abstractions in EiA for a grand strategy wargame. The increased detail and micromanagement in COG may be fine for some but let those details remain in those other games. I don't want them and have avoided COG because of that reason.

Totally agree with pzgndr