From: Bedfordshire UK
Rasputitsa, I had considered modifying the speed of messengers based on the efficiency of the army HQ. At the corps level for example, when a messenger reaches Davout in 1809 he will react on that order faster than if it was Jellacic that was receiving an order. But the speed of the order to arrive in the first place is the same. That could be changed. In 1805 for example, Napoleon's HQ is better than Mack's in every respect. I could modify messengers under Mack's army to move slower to represent greater friction? The Austrians are already facing a tougher challenge vis a vis the French, however, so I didn't.
It's the continual problem of gaming, historical balance against playability, nobody wants to play a constant losing hand.
Playing as Napoleon is pretty safe, you are a unlikely to lose and what's the point of playing Coalition, if you always get hammered.
The enormous value in CotD is historical reality, but it has to be given some balance to make it playable. I am getting balance and the excitement of playing Napoleon, still with a very capable army, by removing some of the French corps to achieve balance, but not changing the historical capabilities of what is left. Which brings us to the prospect of a game editor, but only you can know your workload and then there is the hope for more campaigns.
I am not using 'To the guns' for the Coalition, as commanders were not expected to use initiative and were too frightened to do so, they would rather lose a battle than be blamed for not following orders.
In the game the player takes command and should not be penalised into suffering all the same command limitations of the historical figures you replace. The whole point is to see if you can do it better and this is where CotD scores so highly. Most games allow a huge dose of hindsight and God like control of the battlefield, whereas CotD has that priceless uncertainty, command delay and realistic FOW, which means that you are working with the some of the same limitations as the historical commanders, but can you organise command and control better than they could ?
The short answer to your question is yes and no, it would be good to have a completely historical game with all the historical delays, but with the option to improve command and control, which is what Charles was trying to do before he was thrown into a war that he didn't want.
It could be by editor, but that could be some way off, or is it possible to have variable settings, which can be chosen at the start of a scenario ?
'Historical' delay setting and 'Successful army reforms' delay setting.
"In politics stupidity is not a handicap" - Napoleon
“A people which is able to say everything becomes able to do everything” - Napoleon
“Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress" - Napoleon