AGEOD Forums

I think that the command structure doesn´t work as it should. Right now an average French division with 2 bdes and 2 batteries take just 6 elements, you can easily create a super division merging the units of 3 divisions, throw 6 of those superdivisions in a megacorps under Davout, 120k strong and with no command penalties. The fact that such a monster is possible indicates that the command structure doesn´t work as intended. I think the number of elements in a division should be drastically cut down to 6 or 7, and the number of divisions in a corps without penalty to 3 or 4 in order to get a more historical command structure

aryaman wrote:I think that the command structure doesn´t work as it should. Right now an average French division with 2 bdes and 2 batteries take just 6 elements, you can easily create a super division merging the units of 3 divisions, throw 6 of those superdivisions in a megacorps under Davout, 120k strong and with no command penalties. The fact that such a monster is possible indicates that the command structure doesn´t work as intended. I think the number of elements in a division should be drastically cut down to 6 or 7, and the number of divisions in a corps without penalty to 3 or 4 in order to get a more historical command structure

+1

I Agree.

To add. While i certainly agree with idea and original problem, before any changes is made. It should be considered that OOB wise the french for what ever reason enjoy a huge advantage in being shown as regiment per element in general while many coalition forces are shown as btn per element.
As u all describe u can make those monster divisions/corps as french many times u cant as coalition. Altering the number of elements per division to 6-8 would devaste the coalition division making abilties. So i cant recommend implimenting it less done for "french" only or making OOB changes so its the same for every one first.

Overall i dont understand why these decision was made, if in any way intentional. To make one side regiment sized elements and other in cases btn. Adds more in terms of difficulties IMO than help balance the game, command structure wise.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

I think the reason is that some Armies always deployed battalions (England for sure), while others tried to keep their regiments together (France), others yet used other systems (Austria which seems to have fielded both complete regiments and composite units).

And yes, I agree the super divisions are currently a problem, but not a major one.

Relatively speaking, Davout's I Corps in 1812 is a super Corps.

To put this in perspective, Nafziger tells us that there were 5 Divisions.

I Corps had 85 batallions, 10 foot batteries, 5 horse batteries, 6 company sized Sapper battalions, a company sized Pontoonier battalion, 5 light cavalry regiments, etc... not counting approx. 60 3pdrs.

Division 1 had 17 battalions
Division 2 had 17 battalions
Division 3 had 17 battalions
Division 4 had 14 battalions
Division 5 had 20 battalions

Just about each regiment was it's own Brigade.

It was a force of at least 65,000 men.

In my opinion, something like that out to be the [color="Red"]high water mark[/color] for a Corps in the game. ...and to top it off, not all French commanders (or any Allied commanders for that matter) could handle a force that large.

Maybe a new Special Ability should be established ---for some leaders? Maybe call it "Large Commands" or "Large Force" or "Master Commander"???

Anyone know if the Allies fielded an Army sized Corps that was that large?

It essentially was an Army in it's own right. Only an option for a general or Marshal that was excpetionally talented.

I had the pleasure of playing the role of Davout in a 15mm minature game of the Battle of the Fleches using Empire V (1 fig = 60 men). I was "pushing lead" of over 1,000 figs! Seeing all the units laid out was rather impressive.

Le Tondu wrote:Relatively speaking, Davout's I Corps in 1812 is a super Corps.

To put this in perspective, Nafziger tells us that there were 5 Divisions.

I Corps had 85 batallions, 10 foot batteries, 5 horse batteries, 6 company sized Sapper battalions, a company sized Pontoonier battalion, 5 light cavalry regiments, etc... not counting approx. 60 3pdrs.

Division 1 had 17 battalions
Division 2 had 17 battalions
Division 3 had 17 battalions
Division 4 had 14 battalions
Division 5 had 20 battalions

Just about each regiment was it's own Brigade.

It was a force of at least 65,000 men.

In my opinion, something like that out to be the [color="Red"]high water mark[/color] for a Corps in the game. ...and to top it off, not all French commanders (or any Allied commanders for that matter) could handle a force that large.

Maybe a new Special Ability should be established ---for some leaders? Maybe call it "Large Commands" or "Large Force" or "Master Commander"???

Anyone know if the Allies fielded an Army sized Corps that was that large?

Walloc wrote:To add. While i certainly agree with idea and original problem, before any changes is made. It should be considered that OOB wise the french for what ever reason enjoy a huge advantage in being shown as regiment per element in general while many coalition forces are shown as btn per element.
As u all describe u can make those monster divisions/corps as french many times u cant as coalition. Altering the number of elements per division to 6-8 would devaste the coalition division making abilties. So i cant recommend implimenting it less done for "french" only or making OOB changes so its the same for every one first.

Overall i dont understand why these decision was made, if in any way intentional. To make one side regiment sized elements and other in cases btn. Adds more in terms of difficulties IMO than help balance the game, command structure wise.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

Yes, it is odd. I think the logical thing to do was to use the Battalion as element, since it was a common unit in all armies, while regiments had different number of Bns in each army.
BTW in the 1805 campaign I formed an Austrian megacorps numbering 80.000+, it is not impossible for the allies either, but as you said the French had a clear advantage. In general the scenarios seem to be a bit biased in favour of the French, I wonder why

caranorn wrote:I think the reason is that some Armies always deployed battalions (England for sure), while others tried to keep their regiments together (France), others yet used other systems (Austria which seems to have fielded both complete regiments and composite units).

And yes, I agree the super divisions are currently a problem, but not a major one.

I'd say its exception to the rule that regiments arent deployed together for the coalition too, excetion being England. Yes Austria some times split up some of the regiments but thats normally for a reason. Light regiments splits up its btns to provide skirmish for different forces and so on.

I'd see no reason why not to in 95% of the cases making russian, prussian and austrian regiments combined and u can always show those that arent as btn no problems in that.

Beside the problem of the "super" division/corps it adds another IMO.
Smaller elements gets destroyed outright more easily than bigger ones. The coalition is much more proned to losing elements and therefor cant replace troops as easily as french.
Over the span of the longer campaigns this can certainly make a difference.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

Le Tondu wrote:Relatively speaking, Davout's I Corps in 1812 is a super Corps.

It was a force of at least 65,000 men.

Anyone know if the Allies fielded an Army sized Corps that was that large?

The numbers i've seen is even higher than 65000 if u count all in the corps.

No, the allied never did field a corps that size, but other than that neither did the french. This is really the exception to the case.
The largest allied corps i've come around has some 45000 men in it.

If u make an average of all corps at the start of the campaigns not counting pure cav corps and Spain there is a tendancy for the allied corps(called different things through out the periode) to be slighty bigger than french corps in the periode from '05 to '15. There is ofc alot of variation in that.

The opposite end of spectrum for the french from 1st Corps in the '12 campaign is the 6th corps in 1815. It was same size as a prussian division(called brigades) in the same campaign.

If u remove 1st French corps in russia as being the exception the allies field the larger of the corps, in generl, later in the periode.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

An idea......

Have each side that has a maximum size for a Corps that they can put together. Base it on historical OOBs -for that side. Leipzig and after for the Allies? I Corps 1812 for the French?

Then only allow the commanders that historically led something that large to actally command them. Give them a Special Ability. Call it ---"Superior Commander" or --whatever you like.

Then have a second level maximum size for a Corps that all other leaders must abide by.

Maybe there is a thrid level for those that couldn't handle even a moderately sized Corps. Their Special Ability may be something like "Inferior Commander" ---or whatever?

Just an idea.

With regards to creating "super-corps"... wouldn't the rules regarding "frontages" limit the effectiveness of these over-sized corps?

Laurence

The constraint is per side, so this would not be a problem specific to super-corps. Super-corps exists where the conditions are met: a leader with a high strat rating (with some bonus coming from the army cmd possibly) and nice abilities raising CP. With that you can maintain 5 divisions and some assets without combat penalty.

I guess what I was thinking with regard to the 'frontage' issue was that no matter how many troops you have in a force... in combat only a certain portion of the sub-units are actually deployed at any one time.

I'm picturing a super corps with only a few guys in the front doing anything... the rest are just waiting their turn.

Or have I been watching '300' too much...

Would the possibility of disease mitigate the utility of stuffing so many men into a "super corps" or is disease factored in by the region as a whole?

ltr213 wrote:I guess what I was thinking with regard to the 'frontage' issue was that no matter how many troops you have in a force... in combat only a certain portion of the sub-units are actually deployed at any one time.

I'm picturing a super corps with only a few guys in the front doing anything... the rest are just waiting their turn.

Or have I been watching '300' too much...

Yes it can works like '300', especially when fighting in constrained terrain, but it is not particularly a problem with super-corps, but with oversized formations of bad quality

ltr213 wrote:I guess what I was thinking with regard to the 'frontage' issue was that no matter how many troops you have in a force... in combat only a certain portion of the sub-units are actually deployed at any one time.

I'm picturing a super corps with only a few guys in the front doing anything... the rest are just waiting their turn.

Or have I been watching '300' too much...

To add to Pocus, just cuz i can!!

If u look at Borodino 1st corps doesnt have any problem of deploying, so yes battlefield in real life ofc matters much.

One has to think about that standart formation on the time for the french is a column. Lets say there is 720 men in a btn. Only 2 out of the 6 companies are in front. Thats alrdy 2/3 that isnt per say in "front".
Then Bde/ reg. wise the checkerboard formation is used
¤_¤
_¤_¤

¤ being a btn. Underscores are just to make space, as space wouldnt!
So now we down too 1/6 in actual "front". The frontage is still 2/3 tho, as there are holes between the btn, either to deploy first line btns in line or let 2nd row of btns attack through.
We havent started to discuss reserves on, divisional and corps/ army level.
So lets say the corps only have 3 divisions with 4-6 bde's in front the overall frontage isnt necesarrily all that big.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

Of course that formation does not apply to the British, as they tended to deploy in line rather than column. (Sharpes' DVD ftw )

No as said it in fact only applies to the french. Not either the other majors have same, tho similar columns. Some use 4 companies instead of 6 as the french. Which in essence mean they'd only have a 1/4 in front.
Ofc the british system is all togther different using 2 men ranks instead of 3 men ranks and usually have 10 companies so only 1/5 in front. Then they rarely fight in columns.

If ppl wana know more. This is all factual and fairly dry reading.

Nafzigers. Imperial Baynonets.
Brent Nosworthy. Battle tactics for Napoleon and his Enemies
Paddy. Soon comes with a book.

Are all great for learning how actually work in napoleon era and why.
Nosworthy do center a bit muhc IMO on British vs french tactics and never really get to show the difference in how the other major powers tactic works.
Non the less an excellent book.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

To add.

It isnt that uncommon for other armies at the beginning of this game other than the british to fight in lines. Both coalition armies in '05 and '06 fought in lines to some extend. The prussians in '06 most totalbly. the french have the bde formation called ordre de mix where a part of the bde is in lines.

So in fact it isnt only the british that uses lines they just most famous for it, as well as best. They ofc doctrine wise unlike other armies has the line as their main fighting btn formations through out the periode.

Rasmus

P.S or fun facts. It has been seen that prussian landweher btns actually was trained in which was bad idea since it requires more training than a column in '13.
It happend cuz some of the btn commander for the landwehr was old '06 officers that was trained and use to that formation. At some point according to folklore Yorch had a heated exchange with such one commander about the appropiate formation to use.

Hope you are supporting our troops over there!! Pushing around many figures sounds like me as a 12 year old playing with rubber soldiers in a sandbox. Yuck. T