How realistic is CotD

[Rasputitsa]

In the v3.04 AAR I have been experimenting with reorganising the corps, transferring units and thinking of exchanging the commanders. Rosenberg was involved in battle whilst on the move and not all his units were involved, resulting in some of them badly damaged, whilst others were untouched. It would be useful to reconstruct a corps with undamaged units, provide a new commander, and let the wavering Rosenberg take the damaged units away to safety to recover.

Scenarios start with some units attached to Army commanders (Napoleon and Charles) and previously these units could change attachment to the corps commanders, but not back to the Army commander again. In v3.04 Frank added the ability to attach units to Army commanders, so that now the game has complete freedom to transfer units and commanders, or detach units to act independently. I found this useful, but wondered how realistic it was to play around with the corps structure so much.

Re-reading the 1809 campaign I see that Napoleon altered the corps structure regularly, adding units in, or taking them away, as the tasks for each corps changed. His best commanders, Lannes and Davout were moved about and had corps constructed around them for particular tasks.

In this respect the game is completely accurate.

Comments have been made about how little information you see on enemy units, no strength indication and only one counter visible, even though there may be more there.

In the lead-up to the battle of Aspern-Essling, as the French army moved onto the North bank of the Danube, the Light Cavalry was with the first units over the bridge to scout ahead. They completely missed the presence of 110,000 Austrians just across the Russbach stream, who were not seen until the Austrian attack emerged out of the pre-dawn mist to hit the French positions.

During the early part of the campaign Napoleon was often in doubt over the positions of Charles and his army, thinking that he had the Austrians pinned against the Danube, after the Battle of Eckmuhl, but was totally unaware of other Austrian forces at Regensburg and that Charles was taking his army over the bridges through that town towards Bohemia, with a two day start.

Infuriating as it may be, the game is quite accurate and although it is easy to be an armchair general, win the battle with a quick flanking movement, it not so easy in reality, when you don't know where the flank is.

[Agathosdaimon]

good thing with this game is too, that simply ordering a flanking maneuver can itself be met with obstacles, delays, false reports, poor weather, etc etc - all the stuff that makes the reality of implementing a strategy so interesting. who was it that said: In war everything is simple, but even the simplest thing is difficult.

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: Agathosdaimon

good thing with this game is too, that simply ordering a flanking maneuver can itself be met with obstacles, delays, false reports, poor weather, etc etc - all the stuff that makes the reality of implementing a strategy so interesting. who was it that said: In war everything is simple, but even the simplest thing is difficult.

Carl von Clausewitz ; which is the test of a great game. [:)]

tm.asp?m=4153729

Got there first. [:D]

[Agathosdaimon]

ha! aye that you did! I should have known this - well i was thinking it was someone from the Nappy period which Clausewitz was, - Any game which can parallel any discussion of Clausewitz is alright by me also !