Matrix Games Forums

So, I set up my Grand Armee I with 3 corps (3rd Corps, 4th Corps & Reserve Cav Corps iirc), and I attached the 2 Imp Guard divisions on the early on, as I tried to get Grand Armee I down to Switzerland and then Tyrolia asap (I posted another thread about some problems I had figuring out attachments: Movement Failure). Now based on answers provided in that thread, I came to understand that there is a cost to attachment, but many turns after that attachment has been successfully completed, and in some cases even where I have had Grand Armee I sitting in the same province, with no attachment/detachment activity, it is often the case that my Imperial Guards are AWOL (in fact out of maybe 5-10 detailed battles that I've done with Grand Armee I, only in one case have the Imp. Guards shown up simply as a normal included division). Often (but not always) one of the two Imp. Guards divisions shows up as "reinforcements", which means it way behind the rest of my troops, starts fatigued and with half supply. In this case I guarantee you that the other Imp. Guard will be a no show. In a recent case, the Imp. Guard division which showed up in this way then became detached from the main army, and now I have to go through the whole attachment process again. [:@]

What's up with these Imp. Guard divisions?! I notice that they always show up last in the list of divisions in their respective corps. I also have 21 divisions in Grand Armee I, is there some chance for any given battle of leaving a few divisions behind? If so, is it more likely to be the ones at the end of the list? And if this is so, is there any way to edit the ordering?

Any help in understanding what's going on here would be appreciated. Assistance in getting my recalcitrant guard troops to show up would be even better!

is there some chance for any given battle of leaving a few divisions behind?

yes, see 3.2 Battle Limits in the manual

not sure what the process is for choosing which divisions are included

Many players insisted that not having the battle limits would ruin the game for them.

Agreed. The concept of limiting battle sizes by terrain type and such, as described in the rules, is excellent IMO, for a variety of reasons.

Even as it is, battles can be ahistorically large, but without these limits they'd get grotesque (again, IMO).

Thufir - my guess is that if you removed a Corps from the total Army forces the Guards are in, the Guards would begin to show up.

I often have an occasion where some division I KNOW I attached a few turns ago shows up later in the battle as a reinforcement. It's never been more than one division, and I've repeatedly had to add it to the army I had added it into before. It's a quirky little annoyance, but not a game breaker, for sure.

I always make sure that my Guard divisions are built into a corps, and not just attached to an army, though.

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

Many players insisted that not having the battle limits would ruin the game for them.

Sure, I would agree that the battle limits are good idea.

My point is that I always have the same two divisions being excluded. And on top of that, on those occasions where they show up as reinforcements, they are prone to being kicked out of the army, after the battle is over.

ORIGINAL: Grand_Armee

I often have an occasion where some division I KNOW I attached a few turns ago shows up later in the battle as a reinforcement. It's never been more than one division, and I've repeatedly had to add it to the army I had added it into before. It's a quirky little annoyance, but not a game breaker, for sure.

I always make sure that my Guard divisions are built into a corps, and not just attached to an army, though.

This sounds like the same problem I am having. However I am sure that my Guard divisions have been built into the corps. I would bet that this problem that I am having is highly repeatable - that is, if I started the 1805 and built up Grand Armee I in the same fashion, I think I'd find that the Imp. Guard divisions were prone to showing up as reinforcements, and prone to being kicked out afterwards.

ORIGINAL: Russian Guard
Thufir - my guess is that if you removed a Corps from the total Army forces the Guards are in, the Guards would begin to show up.

Thanks, I'll give this a try.

There is a post somewhere, where it is explained that under certain circumstances the French can "squeeze" an extra division or two into an Army.

Perhaps you have also stumbled upon this, and are exceeding the actual Army limit by 2 divisions. This might explain why the game is jettisoning these two on occasion, when it at some point "notices" the extra divisions.

As to why always these two Guard divisions, just some guesses - last two divisions attached? The game picks them by type in some hierarchy of precedence?

Again, I'd remove a cpl other divisions from the Army and then see if the Guard divisions stop disappearing and/or getting jettisoned.

Battle limits? In the Napoleonic Era? The Battle of Leipzig alone had 500,000 men in it.

It may be battle (programming) limits that have been referred to. (Shh...)

Ahhh...

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

Many players insisted that not having the battle limits would ruin the game for them.

With all respect, I think you will find more players who will say the opposite and that limits ruin the game for them. It wouldn't be as bad if you could chose which troops enter the battle and that those who don't enter from the start could be summoned as reinforcements. I've been trying to find another game with such a rule but haven't been able to think of any...

I too had problems with the French Guard units refusing to enter the battle and detaching afterwards. As a French Guard fan, very frustrating.

It may be a harsh thing to say but I have stopped playing the game. There are just too many things that don't add up and too many bugs that haunt the game. It is sad to see such a promissing game lose my attention so quickly and although I understand that it needed to come out for commercial reasons this is exactly why I never ask designers to release their product before it is ready. The TCP/IP bug is a good example of way to little testing. How on earth could it be missed? We played 1 hour and it was obvious...and that was with patch 1.2.1.3 We couldn't even get it to start without that patch.

The pill is especially sour because I payed 53$ right after the release. I don't mind the price, not even a few minor bugs, but the game is outright unplayable versus other humans over TCP/IP which is what this game should exell at. Even against the AI there are questionable features. To name only one, the undo feature is ammateuristic and that's being positive because it doesn't always work within even it's minimal fuctions. At times I seem to undo Austrian moves while playing the Russian! Worst of it is that the Russian moves stay [&:]

Buttom line is this game was released to quickly and I'm not very happy about that. To use an understatement

I have bought:
Korsun pocket
Battles in Normandy
War in the Pacific
Starships unlimited
and, obviously, COG.

Next time I buy from Matrix games, I'll be very careful.

All this asside, _please_ fix this game properly!

Best,
Glenn

1) Limits should be upped. Leipzig, Wagram, Borodino....huge battles with a couple hundred thousand men involved.

2) We should be able to select for ourselves which corps enter a battle. It's a bit silly having the Reserve Cavalry and Reserve Artillery enter with no infantry around. Completely unrealistic and ruins the game, it's completely random and can screw the best made plans over.

It may be closer to the reality that we should be more able to choose which types of units to put into battle when on the defensive, (1) without the uncertainty associated with the advancement into a new (or long-unvisited) territory the attacking side is likely to face and (2) due to enhanced geographical familiarity over time spent trying to identify the defendable positions and arrange best units to mount them. (Supposed the units that get into a province earlier are always defenders.)

Or, to make it simple, give equal scope of picking units for the fight to both sides.

Or, to make it simpler, just overlook my sentences as above. [:'(]

Gentlemen, not quite sure what you are talking about. Each little green cube in an army represents 10,000 soldiers. I have seen French and even Turkish Armies running around with solid perfect squares of little green cubes, something like 500,000 men.

Two Armies like that collide, without limits, and you have a million men battling it out in one battle. Ludicrous, given the period.

Here's the battle limits:

Base 22 divisions (already at 11x10,000 = 110,000 men per side), plus or minus:

+1 per 2 levels of road development
+0 to 3 Random bonus
-3 in winter
-2 bad weather in province
+1 defender bonus
+1 per difficulty level -1 for AI controlled teams
-5 any team crossed a river
Plus the worst of terrain crossed while entering province or central terrain if any:
-10 mountains
-5 forest
-8 marsh

The base 110,000 covers Austerlitz, Jena, Friedland, Quatre Bras, Aeurstadt, and most other Napoleonic battles, including any Spanish campaign battle and Waterloo.
With a higher difficulty level, a little random bonus luck, and in the right (more roads) province the minimum can rise to 160,000 or more, per side, easily covering Borodino, Wagram, and the rare larger battles. While that doesn't cover Leipzig, remember that Leipzig was actually several smaller engagements over several days, rolled into one.

Now if you are arguing that the game battles shouldn't be limited to "historical" sizes, that's another issue, but these rules, while stringent, do keep battles within reasonable historical limits.

Oh, forgot - you can reinforce battles over the base limit, as well.

Yes, agreed that you should be able to select which units enter the battle, or at least have SOME say - complete control might be a bit much, but not having the French Guard arrive is a bit silly, agreed.

Of course, a way around this is to enter battles with an Army size that "fits" the terrain, weather, and other limiting factors. Creates a bit more strategic planning, but isn't that a good thing?

ORIGINAL: Russian Guard


Gentlemen, not quite sure what you are talking about. Each little green cube in an army represents 10,000 soldiers. I have seen French and even Turkish Armies running around with solid perfect squares of little green cubes, something like 500,000 men.

Two Armies like that collide, without limits, and you have a million men battling it out in one battle. Ludicrous, given the period.

Here's the battle limits:

Base 22 divisions (already at 11x10,000 = 110,000 men per side), plus or minus:

+1 per 2 levels of road development
+0 to 3 Random bonus
-3 in winter
-2 bad weather in province
+1 defender bonus
+1 per difficulty level -1 for AI controlled teams
-5 any team crossed a river
Plus the worst of terrain crossed while entering province or central terrain if any:
-10 mountains
-5 forest
-8 marsh

The base 110,000 covers Austerlitz, Jena, Friedland, Quatre Bras, Aeurstadt, and most other Napoleonic battles, including any Spanish campaign battle and Waterloo.
With a higher difficulty level, a little random bonus luck, and in the right (more roads) province the minimum can rise to 160,000 or more, per side, easily covering Borodino, Wagram, and the rare larger battles. While that doesn't cover Leipzig, remember that Leipzig was actually several smaller engagements over several days, rolled into one.

Now if you are arguing that the game battles shouldn't be limited to "historical" sizes, that's another issue, but these rules, while stringent, do keep battles within reasonable historical limits.

This is a good argument, but still...they should have looked at Leipzig and said "Okay, lets back engineer from this." If they take Leipzig as the largest engagement of the period and say "This is the Maximum" I would be fine.

Leipzig was an aberration of a battle, and I would say 9 times out of 10 in a Napoleonic Wargame the situation where that sort of battle occurs should not come about, but still, for that one game where it should...it should work.

Maybe something to look at in a patch, maybe not.

Even if we are not allowed - by some stronger arguments (be they a priori or empirically confirmed) - to choose which parts of troops to be engaged,

at least plz toss aside, say, the situation where invariably the same 18 or 22 divisions are responsible for the (quick-resolved) fight in a province for a 12-month defensive struggle while there being 20 other divisions of comrades like sitting on the backseat looking on.