Request another honest answer (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Empire in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815



Message


Le Tondu -> Request another honest answer (3/7/2004 3:29:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bart Koehler on 3/4/2004 1:25:49 PM in another thread:


Yes, we are close. We have, over the past few months, modified some of the combat routines and diplomacy routines to make them more in tune with the original game. The mechanics needed to be reworked and thus, we had to do more testing. I am finializing the remaing art/map changes and we are really at the end of the road. No worries, it will not be much longer. As with all of our games, we want to get it right.

Bart


Since we are at the end of the road, will there be any Fog of War in the game? Last I saw, it was up in the air. I'm just wondering how it landed. Thanks.




onkelh -> RE: Request another honest answer (3/8/2004 1:28:12 PM)

Well i hope not as it is not in the board game :)

Onkelh




Marshall Ellis -> RE: Request another honest answer (3/8/2004 4:22:53 PM)

Extended FOW will not be available in the initial release! I say extended because there is a slight FOW built into the board game (Chit selection, corps strengths, etc.)

We spoke about this in the past and the testing that we did found the following negatives aspects to FOW.

AI would group all forces together since a lone corps was as good as dead. This wasn't too fun and didn't create a lot of massive combats because while the French might be cruising North to Berlin, Prussia could cruise South toward Paris. These monster stacks would never see or fight each other. They were just large occupation forces.

Russia became too powerful with the Cossack units. These units became inexpensive scouts of which, no other nation had access to. I know, I know ... "Add a similar type unit to the other nations" well then we start going down a very dangerous road of affecting game balance.

Short Answer is that "We are not going to add FOW at this time ... Honestly"

Thank you




Le Tondu -> RE: Request another honest answer (3/8/2004 4:40:44 PM)

So the unrealistic satellite view of everything is going to stay. Spain with it's historical intelligence assets will be able to know exactly where every Turkish or Russian Corps is -in real time. Too bad. I appreciate the answer though....Honestly.




Le Tondu -> RE: Request another honest answer (3/8/2004 6:40:01 PM)

My friends,

I post here NOT to flame or have a fight and I really do respect the desire of others to retain the game as it was when it was published. Tradition has a value and I honor it.

I beg that only common sense be considered after the initial release. The lack of FOW as it exists in the board game simply did not exist historically.

Please do not take my word for it. Baron Antoine Henri de Jomini and General Carl von Clausewitz are the two foremost military historians to come out of the Napoleonic Wars. I felt it was important to bring the experience of someone who at the very highest of levels fought on both sides during the Napoleonic Wars.

It is from Jomini's "The Art of War" that I wish to share the following.

Oringally published in 1838, (in its entirety,) from CHAPTER II on Military Policy, ppg 39-40
quote:



ARTICLE XI


Military Statistics and Geography


"By the first of these two sciences we understand the most thorough knowledge possible of the elements of power and military resources of the enemy with whom we are called upon to contend ; the second consists in the topographical and strategic description of the theater of war, with all the obstacles, natural or artificial, to be encountered, and the examination of the permanent decisive points which may be presented in the whole extent of the frontier or thoughout the extent of the country. Besides the minister of war, the commanding general and his chief of staff should be afforded this information, under the penalty of cruel miscalculations in their plans, as happens frequently in our day, despite the great strides civilized nations have taken in statistical, diplomatic, geographical, and topographical sciences.

I will cite two examples of which I was cognizant. In 1796, Moreau's army, entering the Black Forest, expected to find terrible mountains, frightful defiles and forests, and was greatly surprised to discover, after climbing the declivities of the plateau that the slope to the Rhine, that these, with their spurs, were the only mountains, and that the country, from the sources of the Danube to Danauwerth, was a rich and level plain.

The second example was in 1813. Napoleon and his whole army supposed the interior of Bohemia to be very mountainous, ---whereas there is no district in Europe more level, after the girdle of mountains surrounding it has been crossed, which may be done in a single march.

All European officers held the same erroneous opinions in reference to the Balkan and the Turkish force in the interior. It seemed that it was given out at Constantinople that this province was an almost impregnable barrier and the palladium of the empire, ---an error which I, having lived in the Alps, did not entertain. Other prejudices not less deeply rooted, have led to the belief that a people all the individuals of which are constantly armed would constitue a formidable militia and would defend themselves to the last extemity. Experience has proved that the old regulations which placed the elite of the Janissaries in the frontier-cities of the Danube made the population of those cities more warlike than the inhabitants of the interior. In fact the projects of reform of the Sultan Mahmoud required the overthrow of the old system, and there was no time to replace it by the new : so that the empire was defenseless. Experience has constantly proved that a mere multitude of brave men armed to the teeth make neither a good army nor a national defense.

Let us return to the necessity of knowing well the military geography and statistics of an empire. These sciences are not set forth in treatises , and are yet to be developed. Lloyd, who wrote an essay upon them, in describing the frontiers of the great states of Europe, was not fortunate in his maxims and predictions. He saw obstacles everywhere ; he represents as impregnable the Austrian frontier of the Inn, between the Tyrol and Passau, where Napoleon and Moreau maneuvered and triumphed in 1800, 1805, and 1809.

But, if these sciences are not publicly taught, the archives of the European staff must necessarily possess many documents valuable for instruction in them, ---at least for the special staff school. Awaiting the time when some studious officer, profiting by these published and unpublished documents, shall present Europe with a good military and strategic geopraphy, we may, thanks to the immense progress of topography of late years, partially supply the want of it by the excellent charts published in all European countries with the last twenty years. At the beginning of the French Revolution topography wans in its infancy : except in the semi-topographical map of Cassini, the works of Bakenberg alone merited the name. The Austrian and Prussian staff schools, however, were good, and have since borne fruit. The charts published recently at Vienna, at Berlin, Munich, Stuttgart, and Paris, as well as those of the institute of Herder at Fribourg, promise to future generals immense resources unknown to their predecessors.

Military statistics is not much better known than geopraphy. We have but vague and superficial statements, from which the strength of armies and navies is conjectured, and also the revenue supposed to be possessed by a state, ---which is far from beng the knowledge necessary to plan operations. Our object here is not to discuss thoroughly these important subjuects, but to indicate them, as facilitating success in military enterprises."


Bold was added by me for emphasis.

Geography is something far more permanent than the strengths of armies and navies, yet such an important science was woefully lacking even to Napoleon when he controlled all of Europe as is expressed in Jomini's 1813 example. Even contemporary authorities got it wrong.

During the entire time, that I publicly wished for some kind of FOW for this game, I felt that the gamer should have the choice of the original FOW or something more realistic. I still do.

As it is now according to Marshall, the gamer will still have knowledge which will gives him an edge that simply wasn't there historically. I pray that will change.

To Marshall, the examples you gave forgets that a player would easily know what is going on in his own provinces and hence detect an army crossing the frontier. It was the other's provinces that he has the least ability to know about as is explained by Jomini. This is a tough nut to crack, but I believe that it can be done.

Lastly, I apologize for the length of this post if anyone is bothered by that.

Respectfully yours,
Le Tondu

PS. This post has been edited only to correct typos.




Mark Breed -> RE: Request another honest answer (3/8/2004 11:07:40 PM)

Le Tondu,

As you point out, not all players share your view on Fog of War. In my opinion, any more detail than in the original game does not mean a better game. EiA is a great game. I am very concerned with the changes that are being made to it as I was not fond of the EiH rules.

If you add detailed fog of war rules you change the vary nature of the game. You will have to add significant rules to handle the intelligence gathering capabilities that the leaders of the period did have (cavalry pickets, scouts, spies, peasants in villages, etc.)

So, my preference is for Matrix to make the game as authentic as possible and, only then, make optional rules to accomodate players that want more bells and whistles. If you change the game too much, it will no longer be computerized EiA and that is what I want to buy.

Regards,
Mark




Le Tondu -> RE: Request another honest answer (3/9/2004 12:22:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mark Breed

Le Tondu,



....So, my preference is for Matrix to make the game as authentic as possible and, only then, make optional rules to accomodate players that want more bells and whistles.....

Regards,
Mark


Mark,
I'm with you on that account.




NeverMan -> RE: Request another honest answer (3/9/2004 2:58:11 AM)

Yes, Mark I also feel that it is unfortunate that Matrix is ruining the computer EiA by installing EiH rules (which I don't like at all) and making many of them not options but standard game play. It's really unfortunate, and could be a cause of me not buying the game, that and no TCP/IP or IPX play.




pooroldflick -> RE: Request another honest answer (3/9/2004 5:28:12 AM)

personally i liked the EiH additions.. but either way, i won't complain about what Matrix adds or doesn't add. to boycott the game because of a few things that you dislike is kinda silly, if you ask me.




Pippin -> RE: Request another honest answer (3/9/2004 5:30:59 AM)

I am pretty sure that even those who claim EiA does not have a Fog of War mechanism, break a major sweat time to time during their chit selections. What do you think may be causing that? :P




onkelh -> RE: Request another honest answer (3/9/2004 11:25:34 AM)

For Le Tondu

Matrix is making EiA and not some Napoleonic wargame and thats why there is not any FoW, it has nothing to do with realism or anything else. U can take this as a flame or whatever iam just getting tired of seeing u write FOG OF WAR every other second on this board.

Regards Onkelh




Hoche -> RE: Request another honest answer (3/9/2004 4:10:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pippin

I am pretty sure that even those who claim EiA does not have a Fog of War mechanism, break a major sweat time to time during their chit selections. What do you think may be causing that? :P



[:D][:D][:D]




NeverMan -> RE: Request another honest answer (3/9/2004 4:48:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pooroldflick

to boycott the game because of a few things that you dislike is kinda silly, if you ask me.

I never said "boycott", I just said I wasn't going to buy it based on the fact that I wouldn't like it. Why would I buy something I wouldn't like? Anyways, I don't know if I will like it or not, I can't wait to find out though, Im excited about the release, whenever that may be.




EricLarsen -> A Great Fog of War System (3/9/2004 5:51:44 PM)

Le Tondu,
If you're looking for a Nappy game with a great Fog of War system then check out Frank Hunter's new Danube Campaigns 1805 & 1809 game. While only an operational Nappy game instead of a strategic one the game does a great job of putting you in control of either side and the Full Fog of War is truly the best ever done. You do not know where enemy units are until they are spotted, and even then those enemy sightings are time delayed so you see what your units saw maybe several days prior. Even better is you don't have real-time info on where your units are, they also report to you on a time-delayed basis.

I agree that EiA could have been improved with fog of war, though that also would add to the production time of the game. FoW was tough to model in boardgames and hopefully they will put in some FoW later as they've intimated they might as the computer can do such a great job of handling FoW.
Eric




Le Tondu -> RE: Request another honest answer (3/9/2004 5:58:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

....... Why would I buy something I wouldn't like? Anyways, I don't know if I will like it or not, I can't wait to find out though, Im excited about the release, whenever that may be.


I guess that is the whole point.

To onkelh,

I will not apologise for having a politically incorrect opinion. I feel that I was lobbying for nothing more than historical accuracy. Before the forum became what it is now, the question of Fog of War was left up in the air. Read the very first posting to this thread and you will see that I just wanted to find out how it went. Now we know.

If folks want to be able to know where every unit is on the board at all times, that is fine with me. Without any options for some sort of FOW, the game will be nothing more than a caricature of the Napoleonic Wars. In my opinion, it will be incomplete.

Do not for one minute think that you will be making the same decisions that a national leader would have made back then, because you will have way more information at your disposal than any leader could possibly have had. And that would be especially true if you played one of the poorer nations like Spain or Turkey.




Le Tondu -> RE: Request another honest answer (3/9/2004 6:01:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

....... Why would I buy something I wouldn't like? Anyways, I don't know if I will like it or not, I can't wait to find out though, Im excited about the release, whenever that may be.


I guess that is the whole point.

To onkelh,

I will not apologise for having a politically incorrect opinion. I feel that I was lobbying for nothing more than historical accuracy. Before the forum became what it is now, the question of Fog of War was left up in the air. Please read the very first posting to this thread and you will see that I just wanted to find out how it went. I then cited historical evidence showing good reason to have an option added in the future. That is all.

If folks want to be able to know where every unit is on the board at all times, that is fine with me. Without any options for some sort of FOW regarding the knowledge of the location of every unit, the game will be nothing more than a caricature of the Napoleonic Wars. In my opinion it will be incomplete, because the player will have FAR more information at his/her disposal than any leader could possibly have had back then. And that would be especially true if you played one of the poorer nations like Spain or Turkey.

Enjoy.
[:)]




ASHBERY76 -> RE: Request another honest answer (3/9/2004 7:58:41 PM)

One less customer here im afraid.[:-]




Bart Koehler -> RE: A Great Fog of War System (3/9/2004 9:16:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: EricLarsen

I agree that EiA could have been improved with fog of war, though that also would add to the production time of the game. FoW was tough to model in boardgames and hopefully they will put in some FoW later as they've intimated they might as the computer can do such a great job of handling FoW.
Eric


I do not want to get too much into the FoW discussion again, but as I mentioned back then, we have always considered FoW, but just not for the initial release. We want to focus on getting out the core game in the best possible shape we can manage. There are always going to be features and functionality that we would have liked to have included. I think that Matrix has proven its level of support for games, post-release, so I would not worry that we are just going to leave it alone.

Carry on,




NeverMan -> RE: A Great Fog of War System (3/9/2004 9:37:22 PM)

As far as FoW is concerned, EiA has a FoW implemented in it. Although you can see corps markers, you do not know which corps it is and you do not know the strength of the corps. This is a FoW if you will. To have a complete FoW is absurd for any game. To look at a map and only know where your units are and not anyways elses is not only unrealistic, it would hinder the play of the game, and any game for that matter, immensely. To pretend that scouts didn't exist and that each country didn't have a somewhat idea of where particular corps were is unrealistic. In fact, more realistic is not so much not knowing the whereabouts of the corps, but not knowing the size and makeup of the corp, which EiA represents extremely well. I think Marshall posted earlier about large corps stacks running around like chickens with their heads cut off, this would certainly happen and it would make the game dull and very uninteresting.

The problem with this whole thread is that most of the people here, or at least in my impression, haven't really ever played EiA to any real degree, so they are not even sure about the gameplay, rules, mechanics, or long game turn effects of any of these things, so to say Matrix lost a customer because FoW isn't in the game just states: "I have never played EiA and I have no idea what I am talking about".

JMHO, no flame or insult intended to anyone or anything. :)




Bart Koehler -> RE: A Great Fog of War System (3/9/2004 10:16:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

As far as FoW is concerned, EiA has a FoW implemented in it. Although you can see corps markers, you do not know which corps it is and you do not know the strength of the corps. This is a FoW if you will. To have a complete FoW is absurd for any game. To look at a map and only know where your units are and not anyways elses is not only unrealistic, it would hinder the play of the game, and any game for that matter, immensely. To pretend that scouts didn't exist and that each country didn't have a somewhat idea of where particular corps were is unrealistic. In fact, more realistic is not so much not knowing the whereabouts of the corps, but not knowing the size and makeup of the corp, which EiA represents extremely well. I think Marshall posted earlier about large corps stacks running around like chickens with their heads cut off, this would certainly happen and it would make the game dull and very uninteresting.

The problem with this whole thread is that most of the people here, or at least in my impression, haven't really ever played EiA to any real degree, so they are not even sure about the gameplay, rules, mechanics, or long game turn effects of any of these things, so to say Matrix lost a customer because FoW isn't in the game just states: "I have never played EiA and I have no idea what I am talking about".

JMHO, no flame or insult intended to anyone or anything. :)


Thank you, what he said. I am giddy in my lack of sleep and coherent thought escapes me, thus I fall to others to be the voice of reason.




Hoplosternum -> RE: A Great Fog of War System (3/10/2004 9:31:35 AM)

Neverman,

You are spot on [:D]

The FoW in EiA is one of it's best points. Indeed it is at the heart of the game and the tactics are dominated by it. I too wonder whether those calling loudest for this have played the game much. The bluffing and deception done WITH THE CORPS is the best part of the game. FoW would kill this stone dead. Without it you are just left with the 'lottery' combat, poor VP system and unrealistic economic model [;)] The FoW that is already in the game is the best part of it. You may like it [:)] Please give it a try first. Compared to many boardgames (WiF, Third Reich, VG Civil War, WBTS etc.) this game actually as a good workable FoW and you want to bin it [&:]




onkelh -> RE: Request another honest answer (3/10/2004 2:13:46 PM)

Le Tondu

Well either u havent played the board game or u have missed the point it not about realism or the feling about being the commander of the franch army or whatever. Its in MY point of view about a game who is great as it is, cause of the interactions between diplomacy and the strategic aspect. So why put in FoW when u dont need it? U can play like 20 other napolionic wargames with FoW, just dont alter EiA cause of some1 who hasent played the board version. But well thats just MY opinion.

onkelh




Le Tondu -> RE: Request another honest answer (3/10/2004 4:16:56 PM)

To all,

It is with all of my heart that I wish for you to have many great experiences with this game. May it bring you years and years of joy. It is also my wish that Matrix sells many, MANY copies of it and that a great surge of Napoleonic games make it to a computer near you. [:)] Now that would be nice, wouldn't it?




Yohan -> error (3/10/2004 4:17:34 PM)

does not compute




Roads -> RE: Request another honest answer (3/10/2004 9:49:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Le Tondu
....I beg that only common sense be considered after the initial release. The lack of FOW as it exists in the board game simply did not exist historically.

....
Let us return to the necessity of knowing well the military geography and statistics of an empire. These sciences are not set forth in treatises , and are yet to be developed. Lloyd, who wrote an essay upon them, in describing the frontiers of the great states of Europe, was not fortunate in his maxims and predictions. He saw obstacles everywhere ; he represents as impregnable the Austrian frontier of the Inn, between the Tyrol and Passau, where Napoleon and Moreau maneuvered and triumphed in 1800, 1805, and 1809.


Wasn't Lloyd an Austrian general? Sort of suggests that they didn't know the geography of their own country.

This whole argument is a big red herring. Look at Napoleon's major campaigns, remembering that the scale of EIA is provinces and months. There are few to no cases where a general did not know what region the enemy army was in. The Austrians in 1809 may be the only exception. Locations and movements on the scales of provinces and months were transparent to the enemy. When armies were surprised (as they often were) it was to the exact strength of the enemy army (Napoleon thought that Charles's army was smaller than Mack's in 1805), and it's location on the ten mile scale (he had no idea that the Prussians would be to the West of the Saale in 1806).

To pretend that Napoleon could move an army of 20,000 men (not to mention 100,000) around without everyone finding out about it is ridiculous, and totally unrealistic. Just as unrealistic as to believe that he could know the exact strength of his opponents and exactly what towns their armies occupied. The strategic intelligence was very good. The operational intelligence was horrendous. Which is why FOW is clearly needed in an operational game - it would be crazy without it. But FOW is equally clearly ridiculous for a strategic game.




NeverMan -> RE: Request another honest answer (3/10/2004 10:55:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Roads
Which is why FOW is clearly needed in an operational game - it would be crazy without it. But FOW is equally clearly ridiculous for a strategic game.


Truer words were never spoken, at least not on this thread yet. :)

This is exactly right and exactly to the point. FoW does not belong in a game of this size (strategic). The corp sizes are entirely to large. If I remember correctly, isn't it like 1 infantry factor represents 2500 men?

It's something similar to that, so if Nap is running around with 6 corp and approx, oh lets' say, 100 infantry factors that's what? 250,000 infantryman, not including the cav or artillery that could also be including within this six stack army. 250,000 is a fairly large city in the modern United States. How could you get around with all these men and not have someone see you, or word of mouth get around about your whereabouts? It's absurd.




Le Tondu -> RE: Request another honest answer (3/10/2004 11:07:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Roads

quote:

ORIGINAL: Le Tondu
....I beg that only common sense be considered after the initial release. The lack of FOW as it exists in the board game simply did not exist historically.

....
Let us return to the necessity of knowing well the military geography and statistics of an empire. These sciences are not set forth in treatises , and are yet to be developed. Lloyd, who wrote an essay upon them, in describing the frontiers of the great states of Europe, was not fortunate in his maxims and predictions. He saw obstacles everywhere ; he represents as impregnable the Austrian frontier of the Inn, between the Tyrol and Passau, where Napoleon and Moreau maneuvered and triumphed in 1800, 1805, and 1809.


Wasn't Lloyd an Austrian general? Sort of suggests that they didn't know the geography of their own country.

This whole argument is a big red herring. Look at Napoleon's major campaigns, remembering that the scale of EIA is provinces and months. There are few to no cases where a general did not know what region the enemy army was in. The Austrians in 1809 may be the only exception. Locations and movements on the scales of provinces and months were transparent to the enemy. When armies were surprised (as they often were) it was to the exact strength of the enemy army (Napoleon thought that Charles's army was smaller than Mack's in 1805), and it's location on the ten mile scale (he had no idea that the Prussians would be to the West of the Saale in 1806).

To pretend that Napoleon could move an army of 20,000 men (not to mention 100,000) around without everyone finding out about it is ridiculous, and totally unrealistic. Just as unrealistic as to believe that he could know the exact strength of his opponents and exactly what towns their armies occupied. The strategic intelligence was very good. The operational intelligence was horrendous. Which is why FOW is clearly needed in an operational game - it would be crazy without it. But FOW is equally clearly ridiculous for a strategic game.


Hello Roads,

Jomini speaks for himself and that is why I quoted his article in its entirety without inserting any comment from myself. He was there at the highest of levels on both sides. He is the authority and I find it extremely laughable that you are disputing him.

I will say that you blurr things terribly by presenting Jomini's quote as my own. Your lack of attention to detail is amazing.

In regards to Lloyd, he clearly was deluded about his nation's geographical impact upon military operations and Jomini gave three examples to prove it. There is nothing odd there.

Jomini speaks for himself.

Regarding the FOW issue for EiA, Matrix has finally spoken and all I ever will have to say is something like this:


To all,

It is with all of my heart that I wish for you to have many great experiences with this game. May it bring you years and years of joy. It is also my wish that Matrix sells many, MANY copies of it and that a great number of new Napoleonic games finds their way to your computer. [:)] Now that would be nice, wouldn't it?

Take care.
[:)]




pfnognoff -> RE: Request another honest answer (3/11/2004 12:05:42 AM)

I appologize for comming a bit late to the show, but there is one, in my mind, important aspect not yet said in this thread. And that is French land phase double move, and British sea phase double move. If France selects to play last and then first (same goes for Britain at sea) they effectivelly have a doubled move allowance of (8 land areas/14 sea areas). If there is no knowledge of the exact enemy location, the player can't choose his best path. If you take that weapon away from the player playing France, then you unballanced the game in a very major way. France without an efficient double move is just another major power and not Dominant nation, and faces quite difficult task, right from the start.




Hoche -> RE: Request another honest answer (3/11/2004 5:44:13 AM)

Is there anyone in this forum that has played EiA that thinks FoW would improve the game?

All the posts against FoW so far have been posted by people who have played EiA and know that FoW would negatively effect the game. Bart has mentioned a number of times that FoW when tested completely changes the game in a negative way.

The FoW crowd doesn't seem to understand that FoW doesn't work for EiA. FoW works well in real time games. EiA is a turn based game. Turn based games inherently have FoW aspects to (you don't know where your enemy will move on his turn.) To add FoW to a turned based game, which isn't designed for it, will only serve to unbalance the game.

But for those of you who want a turn based Napoleonic game with FoW play Stratego.




dinsdale -> RE: Request another honest answer (3/11/2004 8:34:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Le Tondu
Jomini speaks for himself and that is why I quoted his article in its entirety without inserting any comment from myself. He was there at the highest of levels on both sides. He is the authority and I find it extremely laughable that you are disputing him.


1) Why shouldn't Jomini be disputed? This is not the word of God, but the opinions of a man writing a book. I happen to agree with most of what the man says, but there's no need to use someone's name as though he is the only authority on the subject.


2) The scale of this game would not lend itself to cavalry recon, this is a Province/Corps level game. If you want to play operational then take the previous advice and pick up Hunter's excellent games, or Zucker's board games.

3) Take 3 examples where the failure to locate a corps or ability to maneuver without the enemy being aware of strength or placement; after Rivioli, Jena/Auerstadt and Waterloo. Neither the disengagement of the Prussians after Ligny, the confusion both Napoleon and Hoenloe suffered in regard to which enemy lay at each town at the onset of Jena/Auerstadt, and the rapid march of Napoleon after Rivoli to stun Wurmser are all extreme examples of fog of war deceisively affecting the outcome of an operation. Each of those took place in an area contained within 1 EIA province, it simply isn't necessary to drill down to the operational and tactical level within provinces, as each commander could place his enemy with certainty in an area that size.

No FOW is quite acceptable for the game, we have to assume that all the dazzling affects such maneuvers could create are contained in an abstracted manner within the combat system.




Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.0703125