Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Androklis

Given the fact that in the Napoleonic wars there were not many successful outflanking maneuvers (and not one successful enveloping maneuvre),

What about at Ulm in 1805?

But, nonethless you do have a point about flank attacks being quite easy to perform with even an average leader.

Does anyone think that the Defender outflank is really unbeatable even by "Probe" if the flanking force is big enough to still inflict big losses?

I hate attacking Napoleon, always outflank with a massive force. [&:]

ORIGINAL: 9thlegere
Does anyone think that the Defender outflank is really unbeatable even by "Probe" if the flanking force is big enough to still inflict big losses?

Agreed. In defence with good leader I almost everytime go for outflank.

I agree with you. This is the difference between a really good leader (strategic/tactic) and the others. If you think you are really outnumbered, you choose withdraw without problems. And if you have enough forces to smash your opponent, you choose defensive outflank. You can implement tactics that other leaders like mack cannot, and that makes the difference.

ORIGINAL: Ozie

ORIGINAL: 9thlegere
Does anyone think that the Defender outflank is really unbeatable even by "Probe" if the flanking force is big enough to still inflict big losses?

Agreed. In defence with good leader I almost everytime go for outflank.

I think this is just the first step toward losing a battle : being predictible. If you almost everytime chose the same chit, it will become more easy to defeat you. Even if the table is in favor of some chits, it's a bad idea to always chose them.
Another way to prevent a defensive outflank is for the attacker to select one, preventing the split of force or the strategic roll so even mack can do it.[:D]
And there is always that small occurence when napo will fail the arrival of the outflanking force.

Finally attack the french supply chain, the french reinforcement, another stack or march on Paris if you think you don't want to attack Napi directly.

Yeah, your right about the predicable part but....

Napoleon with the French army fighting outflank vs another outflank is still usually going to win, with the +1 die roll and superior morale.

I find that to hope his flank won't arrive and pick something else simply results in your destruction and no chance for andother go!

I like the idea of avoiding him- but what if he is in your capital!

I would like there to have been an attack chit that was a bit like the defensive cordon- ie good against a flank attack.

At the very least Probe would be better if the outflank did not double its comabt effect.

the pop of the question should be ... why are you attacking NAPO !!!!!!!!!!

Now , not kidding, probe is good is you are defending , even if attacker doesnt take Outflank ... and you have better morale ... but if, you attack, and the defender is a high strategic valued general ... you should look for another option if you really want to gain those VP's ...

ORIGINAL: 9thlegere

Yeah, your right about the predicable part but....

Napoleon with the French army fighting outflank vs another outflank is still usually going to win, with the +1 die roll and superior morale.

I find that to hope his flank won't arrive and pick something else simply results in your destruction and no chance for andother go!

I like the idea of avoiding him- but what if he is in your capital!

If he is in your capital than marsh on Paris, it's a great road for forage and a great way to force him to move. And other capitals and country are less friendly for forage... so attrition the french army.

Otherwise someone like British can give you some money while nobody will give money to the french player, so even with your capital occupied it's not a vital goal to free it.

And finally the feeling that Napoleon is for a reason or another nearly unbeatable is quite correct[;)]

ORIGINAL: 9thlegere

ORIGINAL: Androklis

Given the fact that in the Napoleonic wars there were not many successful outflanking maneuvers (and not one successful enveloping maneuvre),

What about at Ulm in 1805?

But, nonethless you do have a point about flank attacks being quite easy to perform with even an average leader.

Does anyone think that the Defender outflank is really unbeatable even by "Probe" if the flanking force is big enough to still inflict big losses?

I hate attacking Napoleon, always outflank with a massive force. [&:]

Well funily enough, I just managed to beat Wellington with a bunch of Turks in this exact scenario. I had +1 to the roll for Cav superiority, he missed the outflank arriving and the end result from a battle that consisted of 70 British Factors with morale 4.1 and 69 Turkish factors with morale 2.8 was losses to the English 8 Cav, 18 Inf and 5 mil. Losses to Turkey 8 Feudal Inf. Our English player now has a solid amount of respect for Pelchivan Khan.

I think that your opponent didn´t choose the right chit. I think that brit doesn't have to destroy Turk army, but only defeat it, that it's less risky. Chits based on morale and few losses like echelon or probe would have been more efective, I think, because of Turk's low morale in comparison with british morale.

ORIGINAL: fjbn

I think that your opponent didn´t choose the right chit. I think that brit doesn't have to destroy Turk army, but only defeat it, that it's less risky. Chits based on morale and few losses like echelon or probe would have been more efective, I think, because of Turk's low morale in comparison with british morale.

HOwever he was the defender, so neither of those options were available to him. He chose outflank and I chose the probe.

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk
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.

It wasn't anything like an intended 2-part flanking force. They were supposed to unite and march on the guns. It obviously didn't turn out that way, but the intention was a single force under Davout.

ORIGINAL: Roads

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk
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.

It wasn't anything like an intended 2-part flanking force. They were supposed to unite and march on the guns. It obviously didn't turn out that way, but the intention was a single force under Davout.

The order Bernadotte received said something to the effect that if you are with Davout when you receive this order you can march with him but that "the Emperor expects you at Naumberg (a city roughly between jena and auerstadt close to the rear of both halves of the Prussian army)". Napoleon didn't know that Naumberg was almost both halves of the Prussian army, he thought he was facing the whole force at Jena. Unintentionally, it was a 2-part flanking force. If Bernadotte hadn't taken 8 hours to march the 6 miles he would have been in position to either attack either half or both halves of the Prussian army from the rear or at least interfere with the horde of Prussians running away from Jena. As it was he did nothing once he arrived at Naumberg. The slight ambiguity in the orders probably saved him from getting court-martialed. As to why he didn't march with Davout, Bernadotte apparently admitted later that he didn't want to take orders from someone like Davout.