Detailed vs. quick batle

[Grand_Armee]

It really cheeses me off when I choose QB because I have a 3 to 1 superiority and lose. Especially when my guys are at better than average morale and the Dons of Turks are attacking with mostly militiaamd irreg. cav.

Playing Turkey recently I think I made a discovery. I had tons of cav. whereas my Russki opponent had mostly infantry, some artillery, and some cavalry. Anyways, I won the QB.

Can anyone back me up on this?

BTW...how many Spanish-speakers were on the development team? Seems the Don's are always way ahead of richer powers in this game.

Maybe it's me, but I find it galling to see France surrendering huge tracts of her land to the worst army in Europe. I haven't played France yet...but when I do, making Spain a non-entity will be my first goal...after surviving the initial offensives of the German-English brigade, that is.

[Ralegh]

I agree.

a) Particular troop mixes sometimes fair better in quick combat than they ever could have in detailed battle. People who like PBEM need to get a good grasp on what troop mixes work better in QC.

b) Spain starts most scenarios with more territory than she has the troops to defend [that's just a fact of history], and can often do quite well in the game. Its a difficult balancing act, though - especially since it can be hard to Spain to stop other players romping home for a win. New leaders and leader promotion may make countries like Spain even more competative in version 1.2 (currently in beta), and the cavalry changes will make even experienced players rethink a bit.