Level Corps in the game

[kokono]

Hi, this is great news for me. I'm a big fan of the Commander series, and I would make an observation.

If the scale of the game is at the level of Corps, I see well that a body shall be represented by a tank, considering that in that war, the role of these vehicles was to support the infantry, as opposed to WWII where it Tank Divisions were created.

This error has been committed with the CNAW, which appear Corps Cavalry, or Artillery, incredible! That prompted many fans to the Napoleonic era did not see with good eyes the game.

I think it would look to check. From my point of view it would be best able to allocate the tanks to the infantry units that are assigned as the Leaders.

Thanks

[adherbal]

Armour, in this game, represent Infantry with Tank support. They are mostly identical to Infantry in terms of stats, but with additional offensive strength. They are certainly not the Blitzkrieg weapons capable of encircling enemy armies seen in CEAW. So basically, they ARE "attached to infantry units", but without changing the mechanics of the Commander series.

Artillery respresent the massed artillery batteries and ammunition supplies used to open a major offensive. Their use will be limited and very different from the intercontinental ballistic cannonball launchers from CNAW We have set their range to 2 hexes to allow a screen of Infantry protection between the Artillery and their target. More specific details on their behaviour will be revealed soon.

Concerning CNAW: the Napoleonic era is of our favorites, and most of the LGS crew would have preferred a different design for unit types and other features. Perhaps we will do our own CNAW2 some day In fact the CTGW engine is developed with such options in mind. For example it allows an unlimited amount of "sides", which, in case of a Napoleonic game, would allow the Ottoman faction to actualy make a 3rd side, at war with both France and Russia - or independant Pirate states harrasing unescorted Merchant ships.

But you have to accept a certain level of abstraction in any game. If you look literaly at the distance in km a hex covers, then of course a range of 2 hexes for Artillery is rediculous. But it is required to allow them to fire from behind the frontlines within the mechanics of the commander series. It's an abstracted solution to create a realistic situation.

[kokono]

Hello, I think it is right what he says about abstraction at the artillery range for CTGW but I still say that the level of abstraction at CNAW has been too high. As it says would have been better to create a unit "mother" to be attached to different subunits of Cavalry, Line, Line Infantry, etc ... we could produce units with a higher proportion of artillery or cavalry.
How about for a CNAW2? that would be very interesting indeed to wash the image of this game.
Thanks for your great work.

[ftgcritt2]

Armour, in this game, represent Infantry with Tank support. They are mostly identical to Infantry in terms of stats, but with additional offensive strength. They are certainly not the Blitzkrieg weapons capable of encircling enemy armies seen in CEAW. So basically, they ARE "attached to infantry units", but without changing the mechanics of the Commander series.

Artillery respresent the massed artillery batteries and ammunition supplies used to open a major offensive. Their use will be limited and very different from the intercontinental ballistic cannonball launchers from CNAW We have set their range to 2 hexes to allow a screen of Infantry protection between the Artillery and their target. More specific details on their behaviour will be revealed soon.

I like your idea for the use of artillery, but allow me to make one suggestion for the implementation of armor. Under your current model for "armored units", you would have to crate a whole new infantry corps with armored support. Wouldn't it be more realistic if the player could build armor and then attach it to whatever infantry unit he pleases? I think so, and I think it can be done without significant changes to the game mechanics. All you would have to do is make the armor function like a leader that takes a few turns to make and offers no leadership bonus but offers a substantial attack/shock bonus. This obviously wouldn't work with CEAW, since it wouldn't allow for pure armored units to blitz all over the battlefield. But with a war like the Great War, I think it would work perfectly. The first tanks to roll off the assembly line weren't shipped off to the front with brand new green infantry units. Instead, they were attached to units that had already been in existence for quite some time. I think this better represents that concept and also allows for more flexibility with the use of armor. Under this system, the player could even theoretically be able to reassign armor to different infantry units much like he already can with leaders.

[adherbal]

attaching armour like commanders isn't really functional unless we give that attached armour a seperate health value. Otherwise there is no way to actualy damage/lose tanks - it's either there or it isn't - only the infantrymen. And this (2 strength values) is not really something that works within the current Commander design. Also, in case of an Armour unit, experience (also) reflects the experience of the tank crews. If we had the ability to attach armour to an elite infantry unit that would mean you also get elite tank crews out of no where.
Since Infantry Corps units are recruited in such large qualities and frequently I think the fact that - technically - you are creating a whole new infantry corps whenever you built a detachment of tanks isn't really a big problem. All things considered I think it's still the most simple solution

[OmegaMan1]

I would love to see a "deluxe" treatment of CNAW much like CEAW has received. I think CNAW is a great game, it fills a void for a beer & pretzels strategic-level Napoleon game very well!