Generals

[donkuchi19]

There is a chart that compares leader ratings. I think, since they both rate a 5, on the chart they each get a +1 to their die roll. If you have a leader with a rating of 1 going against Napolean, then the French would get a +1 and the other army would get a -1. The die rolls tell what percentage of losses you inflict on the other army and what morale loss they get. The max bonuses and penalties are +/- 1.

[Camile Desmoulins]

I think that the Generals are good and balanced in the game. Represents only Army leaders, and even I miss you some french leaders (like Lannes, leader Army in Tudela) or Marmont (Leader Army in Arapiles, known as Salamanca for anglosaxon) better than spanish leaders. What other Spanish army leader was in Peninsular war?. They were corps leaders (or small army leaders, as you want). Perhaps some navy leaders: Villeneuve (bad leader, I'm afraid), Gravina in Spain...

You need be careful with the leaders, they are useful and very valuable. [:-]

[Titi]

The max bonuses and penalties are +/- 1.

Oups that's true, i was forgetting it.
I remember now that rather having twice a +1 and losing one, it's more interesting trying to decrease slightly you leader tactical by excessing your maximum number of corps and giving the -1 to the opponent.

But finally the goal is always to try to have that 2 difference between the two die rolls.

Speaking of rules, i will try to find my copy [&:] cause the original one are more than 5 000 km away [:@] and memory is fading...[:(]

[Titi]

You need be careful with the leaders, they are useful and very valuable.

True but for some leader, it's more difficult to find...

Can someone tell me if there is another use for austrian leader john apart from taking perhaps the bullet going between Charle's eyes?[:'(]

[ardilla]

[8|] hummm, let me think....NO [:D]

[donkuchi19]

It is always useful to have a john around when you gotta go[;)]

[Madcombinepilot]

Can someone tell me if there is another use for austrian leader john apart from taking perhaps the bullet going between Charle's eyes?

Sure. John, leading 2 corps , will out leader 2 corps (have a tactical rating of '1') of an opposing stack with no leader (Turkish fuedals have an intrinsic tactical value of '1'). So in my example, 2 turkish corps with a tactical value of 1 (modified to '0' because there is 2 turkish corps) will be '-1' on the combat resolution chart and John will fight with an unmodified die roll.

Still, its usually getting desperate when John is fighting your battles for you.....

[ktotwf]

John: Say Charles, what exactly was it you wanted me to come here for?

Charles: Oh, why don't you just stand in front of me to get a better view of the battle! [;)]

John: Well, that is a strange request, but ok!

[ardilla]

Talking about Generals, what about Admirals?!?!

Is MG going to add Admirals to other fleets than the british!??! [;)]

It will be nice and I think it was something done in a General or in the new EiH rules, dont remember...

[Androklis]

I believe there should be many leaders in the game, and they should be able to combine their tactical maximum ratings to provide more strength in a stack. Maybe Napoleon plus Massena should be invincible this way, but as France usually has more than one fronts to care about, they will be commanding different stacks.
Also, as you may have noticed, the outflanking tactic in EiA and EiH, and certainly the envelop tactic in EiH have a really great chance of destroying the opponent should the outflanking forces arrive. Given the fact that in the Napoleonic wars there were not many successful outflanking maneuvers (and not one successful enveloping maneuvre), it is strange that many -even mediocre- generals have a good chance for a successful outflanking maneuver (I have seen the Grand Vizier outflanking a Russian defending force in the first round, and you may guess the rest).
So, here is a rule I have come up with in order to ammend this trick of the rules. When the above tactics are used, you do not use the commanding general's strategic rating, but rather another general's rating from his stack. If you do not have another general, you use the corps' general rating and roll for each corps in the outflanking force. This way it really makes sense why Napoleon had with him generals like Davout or Massena.

[ardilla]

Androklis, it looks ok for me.

We always have the same discussion, how to manage the generals and the corps and let the second line generals do something in the stack or in the actions.

It is not time to do it now, but maybe MG can figure out something for the future versions of the game, as an option always, of course.

We were talking about DO NOT let generals to carry more corps than the allowed by his rating, but if there are more than one general add all their corps allowance.

Also, there is a rule about the depots, that can not feed more than 6 corps, if I remember well, now with the PC version this could be easily track and many more complex rules that were impossible to do for a good playing rate of course!!

Regards

[Titi]

The optional rule says no more than four corps per depot

About the other point of having a second leader taking lead of outflanking forces or boosting the attribute of the first one, i think it's not a good idea, cause it will require a complete rethinking of the OB and even combat and movement engine/rules.

There is only one commander on the battlefield, other leaders are just following his orders. What difference they make with their own skill (tactic, leadership, initiative,...) only affect units under they command : one corp. It's too few to influence the whole result of the battle, ot to change the mind or capacity of the commander in chief.

[ardilla]

Yes, but if you send an outflank force, you have to say which corps are doing the outflank and of course they have to hava a commander in charge, so I think it is logical that the main commander will be behind the main corps and the other could take the outflanking and we know that comunication was very difficult in this age, so it will be the commander responsability and ability to do the outflank right, not the main commander.

Maybe the main commander could influence the second one for the outflank, but this is very complex upgrade, IMO, but of course very interesting for the future.

Regards.

[Titi]

Ok, but the outflanking force may be split itself in two or three; a left wing and a right wing maybe, sdo how could a leader on the left influence the right or the opposite.

And why not the other shits also. A probing force is separated from the main army probably, an escaladed assault is made of multiples waves, while not a commander for each one...

Allowing more than one leader per battle is opening a can of worms for me. And the result will be more giant stack than anything else.[:-]

[ktotwf]

What is a General's strategic rating used for?

[Titi]

The strategic rating is used to verify if the arrival of an force send to outflank is succesful. It's also used to check if an army standing adjacent to an area where combat occurs is able to reinforce the battle (can be useful to let the mititia in an adjacent zone with a good strategic leader).

And finally it's also used to check if an army that choose to withdraw before the battle is succesful, if not as it is the combat chit chosen, there will be a slaughter.

[fjbn]

Strategis rating is very important because it allows you to use some tactics very interestings. For example, generals with good strtegis rating are very difficult to defeat, because if they see that are outnumbered they choose withdraw chit and avoids the defeat. And they can use the reinforcement, that means that they can attack, for example, with a corps and to reinforce in second roeund, when your morale has decreased.

If they want to destroy you, they have the correct weapon: outflank, especially in defensive way.

[Roads]

Dang that's a good idea.

[Roads]

ORIGINAL: Titi

Ok, but the outflanking force may be split itself in two or three; a left wing and a right wing maybe, sdo how could a leader on the left influence the right or the opposite.

Any cases in real life when this happened? I can't think of any.

And why not the other shits also. A probing force is separated from the main army probably, an escaladed assault is made of multiples waves, while not a commander for each one...

The difference is in whether the seperated force is visible to the commander, and how well he can send ADCs to communicate orders to it.

It is however true that this change would require a fundamental rethink of all leaders.

[anarchyintheuk]

ORIGINAL: Roads

ORIGINAL: Titi

Ok, but the outflanking force may be split itself in two or three; a left wing and a right wing maybe, sdo how could a leader on the left influence the right or the opposite.

Any cases in real life when this happened? I can't think of any.

And why not the other shits also. A probing force is separated from the main army probably, an escaladed assault is made of multiples waves, while not a commander for each one...

The difference is in whether the seperated force is visible to the commander, and how well he can send ADCs to communicate orders to it.

It is however true that this change would require a fundamental rethink of all leaders.

You could look at jena/auerstadt as one example. Davout and Bernadotte were an intended/unintended 2-part flanking force (although both on the french right) in which Nap's target kind of moved on him. In game terms it works . . . Davout's initiative allowed him to accomplish Nap's intended goal of the prussian army's destruction in an unintended way. Bernadotte's lack of initiative, originality, guts, whatever . . . allowed him to not participate in either battle.

Like you said . . . it does require a rethink about leaders tho.