Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Finaly broke down

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Campaigns on the Danube 1805 - 1809 >> Finaly broke down Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Finaly broke down - 8/5/2017 5:28:33 PM   
Yogi the Great


Posts: 1747
Joined: 4/10/2007
From: Wisconsin
Status: offline
So I've been thinking of buying this one ever since I bought Piercing Fortress Europa and I finally broke down and purchased it.

The manual was a little daunting describing how all the calculations are done but I decided to not worry about having to know all of that beyond basic requirements.

So far I have just played a few turns to try to figure out how it works. Since it is so different the experience in previous games doesn't help all that much. Looks like I will have to learn a lot of new strategies.

You can't count on things here like his other game Europa or Brother against Brother this one takes that to a whole new level of uncertainty and confusion. Should be fun though. For those first turns of playing I was trying to keep Corp pretty much together but it looks like the need to scout with cavalry or even a few Infantry might be helpful. I was winning the initial battles but the AI was certainly sending out it's feelers and suddenly I found the enemy was all around including behind me.

Well it should be interesting to figure this all out. I can see why too that it was listed by several posters on the most realistic game thread.

_____________________________

Hooked Since AH Gettysburg
Post #: 1
RE: Finaly broke down - 8/6/2017 3:18:43 PM   
Yogi the Great


Posts: 1747
Joined: 4/10/2007
From: Wisconsin
Status: offline
Playing more into a game, fun but have to admit confusing. Watching the movement seems to make little sense.

Moves, then moves back same move sequence perhaps more than once?

Just moves away no where near where it was ordered to go without reason or logic that a real unit would do even somewhat suicidal leaving the Corp? Brother against Brother does this somewhat but not near as dramatic.

Corp units just don't want to stay together as they divide and go to different places even when ordered together?

Hard to keep track as enemy units often end up staying in the same hex after a turn or even combat. You only see top unit so easy to think only that side is in the hex as in most games. Interesting that you order that Corp out believing only you are there to get the surprise that the enemy is still there.

March to the guns interesting to use, but seems to require some thought as suddenly a Corp you placed to block enemy moves off leaving the area wide open. Also suddenly off goes most of your army 3 or 4 Corps chasing someone and now a large amount of the enemy is behind you to do what they want in the rear.

I figure some of this you get use to and figure out how to expect, but quite the surprising learning curve and frustration factor wondering why the hell your units more ore less just ignore the orders.

_____________________________

Hooked Since AH Gettysburg

(in reply to Yogi the Great)
Post #: 2
RE: Finaly broke down - 8/12/2017 8:51:10 PM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 2247
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline
New to v3,05, you can now shuffle through the units in each stack, both enemy and friendly units will show, except that the enemy commanders do not appear, but they can be identified by the corps I/D on the unit counters, or in the battle info, if a battle occurs.

I have tried to show in the forum posts how important it is to issue the correct orders for each situation. When on the move, corps get spread out, but will concentrate nicely when given an objective to defend and the time to concentrate. The orders you choose can have a big effect on the results and what happens is mostly historically accurate, even if frustrating when commanders seem to have minds of their own, which is realistic.

The results can be very different whether a corps gets caught on the move, or after they have had time to consolidate on an objective.

The choice of ‘stance’, objectives and retreat points can have a big effect, so it pays to select orders with care, all the information is there, but has to be teased from the map and info panels.

I also suspect that FOW is acting on all units and they may not always be where they appear to be.


_____________________________

"We have to go from where we are, not from where we would like to be" - me

(in reply to Yogi the Great)
Post #: 3
RE: Finaly broke down - 8/13/2017 5:19:54 PM   
Yogi the Great


Posts: 1747
Joined: 4/10/2007
From: Wisconsin
Status: offline
Played it through for first time as French and surprisingly managed a win taking Vienna with only about 8 - 10 days to spare. Still a few uncertainties maybe the great Rasputitsa knows all

For the most part I tried to run all supply through the communications center. At one point in the game I was pretty much out. I did move the center closer to the main front when I could and tried to transfer supplies from other cities to the center. Is it better to assign a different supply city to some of the individual corps?

Protecting the rear and of course the communications center became quite a problem as the campaign advanced further. Leaving whole corps back really hurt the main push making it hard to advance and hard to have enough strength to win battles on offense or defense. Any advice on how best to protect the supply lines without hurting your advance and strength?

While I was able to order an objective to be an enemy unit that wasn't on a road or in a city, I couldn't order an off road objective if no enemy was there. Is that correct?

Back to keeping a force reasonably together. I found myself as the game went on using the defend stance even when advancing the offensive. (using defense stance but selecting an objective that takes the unit forward) Early I always wanted to use the engage Stance but it seemed that when in that stance individual units kept advancing forward on their own after a battle. The result being they became very susceptible to enemy counter attacks and it was hard to keep corps and the main body so to speak together. Is this the way the game does work or am I missing something? (late in the game when the enemy was retreating and fairly weak I found that engage worked well, but when the enemy was fairly strong it seemed a much riskier tactic)

Any advice on when defend or defend in strength is best? How about when frontal assault or escalating assault is best?

For awhile I thought the feature to destroy a bridge wasn't working as I would order a bridge to be blown and nothing happened for multiple turns. I sent the engineer to another bridge and then another and it was able to destroy both a them. Then I tried another bridge and again nothing happened for multiple turns. Perhaps there are major and minor bridges I don't know. Are some bridges unable to be damaged and/or destroyed?

Thank you my friend,
Yogi





< Message edited by Yogi the Great -- 8/13/2017 5:24:11 PM >


_____________________________

Hooked Since AH Gettysburg

(in reply to Rasputitsa)
Post #: 4
RE: Finaly broke down - 8/14/2017 6:29:52 AM   
Biondo

 

Posts: 16
Joined: 3/29/2016
Status: offline
quote:

Back to keeping a force reasonably together. I found myself as the game went on using the defend stance even when advancing the offensive.


Hello Yogi, yes, correct. I think the word "DEFEND" probably can bring some misunderstanding. From what I understand, Stance set the aggressiveness level of a unit. You have to think at DEFEND as to "strictly follow your orders" and at ENGAGE as to "you're free to search and destroy any enemy you'll find on your path; so if your Corps find an enemy some hex away, it will turn to engage him regardless of the destination you set for that Corps. Then, when the battle is over and if your Corps is still in a good condition, it'll resume march to the objective you set.


quote:

For awhile I thought the feature to destroy a bridge wasn't working as I would order a bridge to be blown and nothing happened for multiple turns. I sent the engineer to another bridge and then another and it was able to destroy both a them. Then I tried another bridge and again nothing happened for multiple turns. Perhaps there are major and minor bridges I don't know. Are some bridges unable to be damaged and/or destroyed?


Probably there's a bug here. It happens the same to me. It seems that it's possible to blow bridges only from one side of the river. Just made a test at Gunzburg; from south bank, no bridge damaging regardless of supply or Corps near. If I move engineers north of the river, BOOM! at first turn; I remember to have tried this for many other bridges.


quote:

Any advice on when defend or defend in strength is best? How about when frontal assault or escalating assault is best?


Depends on the situation; I use defend in strenght if I absolutely need to hold the position AND if the enemy is not too powerful respect me (otherwise you risk to be completely destroyed on spot). Frontal Assault is the reverse of defend in strenght so if I have number advantage I use it. Escalating Assault probably works better if you're waiting reinforcement to join the battle. About this point Rasputitsa or other experienced players know better than me.


Cheers


< Message edited by Biondo -- 8/14/2017 4:49:58 PM >

(in reply to Yogi the Great)
Post #: 5
RE: Finaly broke down - 8/14/2017 4:14:06 PM   
Yogi the Great


Posts: 1747
Joined: 4/10/2007
From: Wisconsin
Status: offline
Thanks Biondo for the help,

Reference the Bridge issue,on the first one I tried (I think Main Bridge to Munich) when it didn't work I did go to other side of the river and try again and it still didn't work. So I still wonder if some bridges can't be blown at all. I would agree if it only works from one side it would seem to be a bug rather than intentional and if not how do you know which bridges and what side you would have to be on?

Always worry that after you blow a bridge you find out you're the one who ends up needing it. My objective on the ones I did (or tried) to destroy was to stop those pesky enemy forces trying to get behind me to attack or hinder my supply lines.

(in reply to Biondo)
Post #: 6
RE: Finaly broke down - 8/14/2017 4:54:31 PM   
Biondo

 

Posts: 16
Joined: 3/29/2016
Status: offline
I just tested. If it was the Munich bridge, I'm not able to make it blow from NW hex but I can from SE hex.

I remember in my PBEM I needed to stop Austrians cross the bridge at Passau and the only way was to sacrifice my engineers moving on the wrong side of the bridge and then blow it. Imagine this situation in real life

(in reply to Yogi the Great)
Post #: 7
RE: Finaly broke down - 8/15/2017 12:17:46 AM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 2247
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline
The 'defend' order in the contact sense just means that if the corps encounters enemy units it will be marching in a defensive posture. This means if there is a battle the battle stance options will be limited to defensive stances, The battle stance also depends on the quality of the corps commander, some commanders are not capable of using the most aggressive battle stances.

The 'contact' stance just tells the commander what formation to advance in, the 'urgency' setting tells him how quickly to advance to the objective, which will always be in cities, or on the roads. The history shows that strategy was mainly confined to the roads, Quatre Bras, the high road to Moscow, etc..

Send a fully capable commander into action with an 'engage' contact stance and he will be able to use the most aggressive battle stances, but a less capable commander is best set to 'defend' which will open up the more cautious battle choices if it comes to a battle. However, you have to judge what your commanders might meet, or you may get an heroic charge into destruction. 'Engage' contact orders give little chance of successful withdrawal, as advancing in 'engage' formation means a fight, you are in the wrong formation to retreat in the face of superior forces.

Not sure about the bridges, as it is not something I have had to use, but interested to run some test turns to see what happens.

Generally what you are describing seems quite good historically, because if you send forces forward against an unbeaten enemy with 'engage' orders you are likely to get a Custer's Lsst stand situation. The French might be able to get away with that, but try it the Austrians.

< Message edited by Rasputitsa -- 8/15/2017 12:41:32 AM >


_____________________________

"We have to go from where we are, not from where we would like to be" - me

(in reply to Biondo)
Post #: 8
RE: Finaly broke down - 8/15/2017 12:54:12 AM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 2247
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yogi the Great

Any advice on when defend or defend in strength is best? How about when frontal assault or escalating assault is best?


Difficult to give advice because I keep getting these battle decisions wrong, mainly because I am not taking the time to really see and assess all the information. Assaults are risky unless you are sure you have a significant advantage in all arms. Even then other forces can enter the battle after it has started and a good position could go sour.


_____________________________

"We have to go from where we are, not from where we would like to be" - me

(in reply to Yogi the Great)
Post #: 9
RE: Finaly broke down - 8/20/2017 2:14:54 PM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 2247
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Yogi the Great
Protecting the rear and of course the communications center became quite a problem as the campaign advanced further. Leaving whole corps back really hurt the main push making it hard to advance and hard to have enough strength to win battles on offense or defense. Any advice on how best to protect the supply lines without hurting your advance and strength?


This is the main problem with all offensives, such as the march on Moscow (both 1812 and 1941) and any number of campaigns throughout history. The von Clausewitz answer is to concentrate on and destroy the enemy forces, so that then all geographic objectives can be taken. However, it is rarely as simple as that, which is why this game is so good at replicating the historical conundrum.

< Message edited by Rasputitsa -- 8/21/2017 10:52:05 PM >


_____________________________

"We have to go from where we are, not from where we would like to be" - me

(in reply to Yogi the Great)
Post #: 10
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Campaigns on the Danube 1805 - 1809 >> Finaly broke down Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.109