Triumph of Nations Errata

[deadtorius]

D rolls ought to help but the combination of a high I rating and exceptional generals can make it a bit predictable. Maybe we should set a maximum and/or a minimum plus on the d-roll of 3 and 5 respectively so the worst case is not more than a net difference of +2? But see the new set up proposals!

We've played two games with the new initiative and tactical points options. I posted in the FOGN V2 forum my findings which basically are that its even more lopsided against the skilled with an initiative of 1 army than the original system.
The only way to win initiative would be for the 1 initiative army to roll a 6 and the exceptional 3 initiative army to roll a 1. If the roll is 3 or more then the 3 initiative army wins period. Throw in a skilled division commander and the initiative 1 army can't out roll their opponent, a 6 vs 1 roll coming out equal which makes the 3 initiative army 100% will be attacker every game.

Its explained more clearly in the V2 forum, but in my opinion its not working.

[BrettPT]

The only way to win initiative would be for the 1 initiative army to roll a 6 and the exceptional 3 initiative army to roll a 1. If the roll is 3 or more then the 3 initiative army wins period.

or you could take a couple of skilled commanders ...

[pugsville]

"Let's see in 1812 the Russians conducted how many offensive battles?"

By choice. My point is during the first phase of the 1812 campaign the Russian armies chose to avoid major combats , which they generally did pretty successfully. My point is that they were better at the strategic manoeuvring than a 1 initiative suggests. Just because they were outnumbered and chose to avoid battles does not mean they were bad are the operational level. Should thee Russian amy in 1812 be judged to be of low initiative because they chose to sensibly avoid battle? Or should they be judged on their operational manoeuvre capaiability?

What does army initiative value represent? Ability to manoeuvre operationally to get the battle on the best terms? or simple who's generally attacking?

[hazelbark]

What does army initiative value represent? Ability to manoeuvre operationally to get the battle on the best terms? or simple who's generally attacking?

I think the practical game impact of the Initiative is to determine who defends. Under current rules it has no more effect than that.

[deadtorius]

Other than it forces certain nations to become professional defenders as they can rarely, or now, never have a chance at ever attacking. I would have thought that a nations initiative would have somehow reflected how they carried out their campaign.
So Russia's low initiative is their decision to either withdraw or to await the arrival of the French and then offer battle. In 1809 Austria was more aggressive but their 1 initiative does not reflect their invasion of Bavaria or that they attacked first almost as often as they French did. Completely ignores the fact that the French were the ones sitting around Aspern Essling while the Austrians moved up and attacked them.
Of course I could be totally wrong on this point about what initiative represents, but some nations are going to be defending 100% of the time now.

[MDH]

Brings up a question that has always bothered me, in 1805 the Allies made the first move towards the french at Austerlitz. Yet they have to be the ones standing still during almost all 1805 games as they have a low initiative. Granted Nappy drew them into a trap and he managed to exploit their movements to his advantage, probably one of his best performances. 1809 Austria takes the initiative and moves into Bavaria. At Eggmuhl they attacked the French positions. At Aspern Essling they once again moved on the french. Similar thing at Wagram. However in 90% of our games my Austrians are defending and must stand and wait for the French to move on them.

I agree with Russia. In 1812 from what I read it seemed the Russians were normally encountered by the French waiting for the enemy to arrive so in some kind of prepared position type situation as it were. During the retreat it seems like a mostly Cossack battles even but agree it was the cavalry that was able to keep up with the French.

Having looked at this thread again and at the list on page 8 I think that the "1" is a straight unspotted typo or other goof as we give the Reserve Corps a 2 and the Army of Poland and Bohemia a 2 it makes little sense . So that is an official correction. If I had not been so focused on pre 1800 games the last year I might have noticed it sooner myself. Should we have given it an option of an exceptional Corps commander? I'll discuss that with Terry.

As to the new system well I would not want it to make things even harder for low initiative and low General armies if that is how it plays out. Neutral effect at worst.

Strangely my regular opponent who usually has a French army, says he prefers to defend! Maybe players should have the FoG(AM) option of passing the initiative back? As one who invariably ends up defending, the main thing I miss is not having the flank march option. The terrain seems to end up all in the wrong place anyway! Otherwise I quite like to counter attack and deploy my forces with that in mind.

[marty]

Not sure if this has come up before.

In the 1809 Austrian infantry corps on the Danube it specifically mentions that advanced guard mixed division can have an artillery attachment but at the end of the list it limits artillery attachments to 1 per infantry division.

I assume you can actually take an attachment in each infantry or mixed division?

Martin

[MDH]

Not sure if this has come up before.

In the 1809 Austrian infantry corps on the Danube it specifically mentions that advanced guard mixed division can have an artillery attachment but at the end of the list it limits artillery attachments to 1 per infantry division.

I assume you can actually take an attachment in each infantry or mixed division?

Martin

Yes in brief.

As the only mixed divs you can have in this list are constructed as advanced guards and they MUST have an artillery attachment ( in lieu of an artillery unit) the optional " up to one per infantry division " applies to the rest, which are perforce infantry Divisions . This is unless of course you import a division from the Reserve Corps which may be either an Infantry or a Cavalry Division and which have slightly different requirements in the way of artillery attachments and units depending on the mix for cavalry.

[marty]

In the 1814 German Confederation 3rd corps list the "Thuringia and Anhalt" infantry in the "Optional units" section appear to be rather more compulsory than the title would suggest (min 4).

Martin