Committing The Guard?

[pfnognoff]

I've allways used commiting the guards early to escape big losses, and I see it still as a valid option in EiA game. It clearly is a trick but it does give an extra option to the game. The only downside to the rule is "high morale" British force standing their ground and suffering big losses, because their commander can't commit guards. [:D] For Spain it is not a big issue because they will probably brake quickly even without this trick. Ottoman even if they could commit probably wouldn't because his troops will come back next year and every loss they inflict on the enemy is a plus. [:D]
But seriously, perhaps using them in this way should mean higher losses for your guards? Like +1 guard factor lost after the roll for guards losses?

[Titi]

ORIGINAL: meyerg

I agree. This is a TRICK, not a feature. After committing the guard you can punish someone proportional to the number of morale left to break your opponent. With this TRICK, after committing the guard, the opponent may still have 3.0+ morale left.

Well obviously not the Turk that is left with so much morale. And i doubt it will often be that as committing the guard is inflicting greater morale lose - normally.

Make the person committing the guard lose one full CAV (or equivalent in pursuit losses) for EACH .1 or .2 he is short in breaking the opponent and he will not play this TRICK without consequences.
I have seen the Turkish defeat Russian (unconditional peace) and proceed to go after a France that is picking on a pounded Russia. "Only I can pound on Russia!" He jumps France and picks an outflank vs defend.
When the mondo outflanking force arrives, Napolean's army is eliminated and Napolean captured (with high die rolls of course). If Napolean had used the LOOPHOLE mentioned above (he pointed it out but had the honor not to use it) on turn 1, we never would have seen the Turks capture Napolean. .

Well dont know who was the turkish leader so the possibilty for the turkish leader to success the outflank on turn 2, but it's not so much a loophole as even by committing the guard on turn 1, Napoleon as 1/2 opportunity to win this battle.

What will be the best to avoid this farseeing knowledge, is then hidding the opponent choice of chit, force strength, morale and the table that will be used.

[Murat]

An errata sheet went out in the General (and from ADG too I think by mail if you ordered it) stating that if you had no chance of breaking the enemy you could not commit the guard at all. As for committing the guard to prevent losses and allow an escape, that's Waterloo. Nappy commited the guard in hopes of breaking or at least shielding him personally so that he could either break a pincer or retreat from his army and avoid capture (a la Russia). I will get my copy out and look at it.

[Titi]

ORIGINAL: Murat

An errata sheet went out in the General (and from ADG too I think by mail if you ordered it) stating that if you had no chance of breaking the enemy you could not commit the guard at all. As for committing the guard to prevent losses and allow an escape, that's Waterloo. Nappy commited the guard in hopes of breaking or at least shielding him personally so that he could either break a pincer or retreat from his army and avoid capture (a la Russia).

Just reread the errata available on the net http://members.fortunecity.com/lobodeoro080888/eia/links.html (as far as
i know they were no others available in the general) and didn't find any evidence of this point.

So i think it's a rumor rather than an fact and no official rule prevent the use of the guard if you can't break the enemy.

[Murat]

Actually the rules Errata was a feature in the same issue of the General with the 1792 version of EiA, I will go pull it out of my attic and look at it.

[Roads]

ORIGINAL: pfnognoff

I've allways used commiting the guards early to escape big losses, and I see it still as a valid option in EiA game.

There is a huge difference between "commiting the guard early to escape big losses" and "commiting the guard on the first round to cover for bad chit choice". I think one is sensible and one of the reason guard corps should exist, while the other is silly and unfair. And I do think that adding a small tweak can make this (the second) a much less attractive thing to do. Something along the lines of what meyerg is suggesting, where an opponent who has a lot of morale after the guard is commited gets a big bonus on pursuit.

[Murat]

ORIGINAL: Roads

ORIGINAL: pfnognoff

I've allways used commiting the guards early to escape big losses, and I see it still as a valid option in EiA game.

There is a huge difference between "commiting the guard early to escape big losses" and "commiting the guard on the first round to cover for bad chit choice".

What's the difference? If you are in the field and realize that you are about to be enveloped and commit the guard to retreat, are you not doing both (committing to escape big losses AND to cover a bad chit pick)? Did not Nappy himself lie to his own troops about the advancing Prussians (claiming it was French reinforcements) and commit the Old Guard to escape at Waterloo?

[Murat]

Also, I have checked EVERYWHERE I can think of and this must be one of our house rules that you could not commit the guard unless you had a chance of breaking your opponent, but obviously if you cannot break you opponent, there is no reason to do a 2 shift ^_^

[9thlegere]

ORIGINAL: fjbn

This is a very especific case, basically your enemy's army must be composed of militia or feudal infantry, because I don´t remember that you can make a -3.0 morale loss in first round, maybe only against Turks, not the other powers

You can inflict -3.0 morale in the first round. You will need a good die roll though and/or the Guards.

eg 100 French (with Napoleon) Defend vs 100 Austrian (with Charles) Probe. THe French defender is on the 3-2 chart. If he releases the guards the first turn +2 steps he gos to 3-4. Roll a 6 or 7 (if Napoleon for example) and you've done it.

What worries me here though is if the French rolled a 4 (+1)= 5 and inflicted 2.9 morale and 15% losses whilst the Austrians on the 1-1 could actually with a 1, 2, 3, 4 die roll cause ZERO losses and still win the battle!!!! Final result in this battle 15 Asutrian factors lost 0 French!

I personally think that such a event would be unlikely (for one thing 100+ factors each side with no cavalry), but you never know.

[tbg1955]

To paraphrase---Infantry wins battles, but cavalry makes them worth winning.

[Titi]

ORIGINAL: Murat

Also, I have checked EVERYWHERE I can think of and this must be one of our house rules that you could not commit the guard unless you had a chance of breaking your opponent, but obviously if you cannot break you opponent, there is no reason to do a 2 shift ^_^

Thanks for your honesty [;)]

But again to try to avoid what some see as cheating why not hide the opponent choice of chit until you can detect it (maybe a succesful strategic roll for te leader), exact enemy force strength and morale (knowing the unit flag is enough hint [8|]) and the table that will be used. If the computer is doing the math and acting as referee it's sure there will be no cheating and no need to know those informations.

More elegant way to solve the problem and shine the computer version?

[Roads]

That's a great idea. All you have to do is force the decision about whether to comit the guard (on the first round) to be made BEFORE you know what the opposing chit is. Solves all the problems.

ORIGINAL: Murat

ORIGINAL: Roads

ORIGINAL: pfnognoff

I've allways used commiting the guards early to escape big losses, and I see it still as a valid option in EiA game.

There is a huge difference between "commiting the guard early to escape big losses" and "commiting the guard on the first round to cover for bad chit choice".

What's the difference? If you are in the field and realize that you are about to be enveloped and commit the guard to retreat, are you not doing both (committing to escape big losses AND to cover a bad chit pick)? Did not Nappy himself lie to his own troops about the advancing Prussians (claiming it was French reinforcements) and commit the Old Guard to escape at Waterloo?

What's the difference? If you are in the field and realize that you are about to be enveloped and commit the guard to retreat, are you not doing both (committing to escape big losses AND to cover a bad chit pick)? Did not Nappy himself lie to his own troops about the advancing Prussians (claiming it was French reinforcements) and commit the Old Guard to escape at Waterloo?

That was hardly on the first round. There was never a case where he deployed for battle, observed the enemies deployment and sent in the guard so that he could get away.

[Murat]

No, that would be on round 3, but he still commited them at the time to cover his escape at a point where he would have faced another day of battle. I was pointing out that a bad chit pick is really a bad field position and that to escape such a dilemma by covering a retreat with the guard can be claimed to be for either "avoiding losses" or "covering a bad chit".

[Roads]

I don't think anyone wants to prevent players from commiting the guard to avoid a second day of battle, or even to cover losses on the second round. I certainly don't. But commiting the guard as the FIRST thing you do in a battle is unrealistic, and basically allows much riskier chit picking.

If the requirement were simply that on the first round you can commit the guard, but must do so after chits have been picked, but before they have been revealed the whole issue would be resolved.

[Forward_March]

Committing the Guard should be one of the final blows of any battle. Not a gamers trick. Since in both Napoleon's and the Russian cases, the Guards were the ultimate reserve...the knockout blow or the battle saving last roll of the die. I think it would be unfair to allow them to be treated as anything else unless they aren't stacked with regular infantry. They were very expensive toys.

If they were allowed to commit before the second round just to end a battle due to unlucky chit choice would make this game unenjoyable and therefore worthless. Allowing somebody to claim that they thought they could be lucky enough on the first round would ruin the whole trust issue.

A player would spend all of of his time finding other players of like mind who'd be willing to use "house rules". I don't want to have to bother with house rules...or worrying if the guy who said he'd abide by them wouldn't.

[ardilla]

I totally agree with you!!

And a question I rise is how will be treat the combats in PBEM Marshall??

1) You (austria) receive the french turn and moves and a message. "You are under attack!!"
2) Pick a chit and send it back.
3) Receive the results of the combat.

Next player turn.

The good thing will be to upgrade point 3 to receive each round of combat and ask you if you want to commit the guard.
But probably this will take too many e-mails and time, but it is the way it should be, take your decision in real time.

Of course, if any of the stacks have the guard present this will be resumed in the 3 above steps.

I will really like if it is not too much asking Marshall to explain it to us the combats in PBEM.

Thansk in advance.

[Ozie]

Murat any confirmation to "no commitment unless break possibility" rule?

Also any complete errata links would be appreciated.

Thanks.

[Murat]

10 posts up I noted that I could not find this rule anywhere, so it must have been a house rule. I think it is a good house rule though - noone should commit the guard unless there is a chance that they can break the enemy. If there is FOW and you do not know the actual morale of the opponents, maybe a nice pop-up from someone (Captain Jones says, "Sir, they still look pretty fresh...") might be a hint that you are about to commit early. ALSO, maybe a rule that if you fail to break the enemy you undergo a round of combat as the withdrawl chit (-v- whatever your opponent picked) would slow people down on early commitment [;)]

[Churruca_y_Gravina]

Many times the guard under cover my retreat when I have lost in the eleccion of the tactica and my opponent not have a lot of caballeria ¿ because not to sacrifice to the guard to avoid lost greater? It is an eleccion tactica as another any If is historic or not, is not our problem. Because if you change the history playing with countries that did not move barely in the Napoleonic wars (Turkey) are not going to do it with a revolutionary one tactica in the battle
Is more Historic a Turkey invading Austria ???

[ancient doctor]

Commiting the guard from the 1st round?Well ok it migh save you some casualties but you loose the fun of game,playing a battle which starts badly but goes well becasue your opponents dice roll is s...t.[:D].
Anyway i never do that.Lost battle means lost points and by commiting the guard early means that wont probably break the enemy and in that case i loose while playing a not promising battle is better than no battle at all.Especially with the modifications i had made to the original concept it made more sence the way i played.
Infact the whole guard issue reminded my strongly of only 1 battle-the last(Vaterlo) one and thus i didnt overuse it.