No Activation Rule: yes or no?

[Slick Wilhelm]

Hi everyone,

Just starting my first scenario(Sun of Austerlitz) after reading the manual and playing through the tutorials.

When I was reading the manual and came across the part where a commander had to pass an "activation roll" each turn, my initial reaction was "Come on, you've got to be kidding me". Thus, I'm seriously considering checking the "No Activation Rule" box in the options.

Being primarily a WWI and WWII gamer and history enthusiast, I don't know a lot about Napoleonic warfare. I've read exactly three books on Napoleonics(Chandler's "Campaigns of NP", Zamoyski's "Moscow 1812" and Barbero's "The Battle: a New History of Waterloo"). Thus, I have only a very rudimentary understanding of the warfare of the period.

Do you Napoleonic experts here agree with me checking the "No Activation Rule", or to be more ""historically-correct" should I leave it unchecked and play with that potential limitation?

Thanks!

[ltr213]

The Activation rule models actual conditions on the ground pretty effectively. It can be assumed to represent any number of conditions or events that might hinder command & control.

For example, a commander failing to pass the check might indicate lost or mis-communications, the failure of a subordinate command to carry out an order, indecisiveness on the part of the commander waiting for better intelligence, waiting for orders from a higher command which never come, a commander who is ill but remains in command, etc, etc, etc.

If you've read Chandler than you can cite for yourself dozens of examples in which the intentions of commanders were thwarted, altered, or ignored. Today, we just scratch our heads and think... why'd he do that, that's stupid... but back then, there was a reason for it.

When Napoleon reached Moscow, he just sat for considerable time doing nothing essentially... waiting for the Russians to give in as he expected they would. I'd say that qualifies as a turn on the Inactive list.

Of course thats just one example.

Note also that being Inactive means that the commander is less able to conduct operations NOT unable. He can carry out most operations that Active commanders can with the exception of assuming Assault or Offensive postures. Movement can still occur, it just takes a little longer.

I hope this makes the reasoning for the rule a little clearer. Whether or not you decide to use it is a matter of taste... and the reason why the designers gave you the ability to toggle it ON or OFF. Like the Hardened Attrition rules, some players prefer gaming to a certain set of conditions.

Laurence

[ajsrhanson]

Hi Slick,
for myself I always play with this rule on. Historically, there were very numerous examples of communication breakdowns among armies of this period.
Some of Napoleon's victories were less than decisive because some of the marshals failed to act/misunderstood orders, etc. Waterloo and Bautzen are good examples of this.

Napoleon's Russian Campaign failed in large part because directing 600,000 men without radios was beyond the communications and logistic systems of the era.

I think the rule simulates this well and works well with AGEOD's other games as well (Birth of America & Civil War).

[Slick Wilhelm]

After reading such reasonable and cogent arguments by you gents, I've decided to leave the box unchecked, and play with the Activation check.

Thanks for the replies.

[Pocus]

The box was made more as a debug tool more than anything else. I regard commanders always activated as highly ahistorical myself

[Dragoon!]

Also remember that you can change the activation rate on the AI opponent.
This option, I think, gives you the most variation in AI behavior..If you play on 'easy' (which is oddly named, seeing as it's the same restrictions humans play under!) you'll get a much more manageable AI Napoleon in the early scenarios.