Russia campaign unusual

[Heretic]

Is this normal?

In the invasion of Russia scenario, I chose to take Riga on the way east.
This meant a large proportion of the Grande Armee passed north and then east of the Russian forces.
The Russian army proceeded to attakc Brest-Litovsk, and indeed harass some south german/polish cities as well.
By Aug 16th I have taken Moscow, and have a reasonable line of defence back on the road (approximately) Smolensk & Minsk.

Now, unless the Russians have a whole load more armies I cant see (possible) or pull back their forces in south poland (given present behavoiur seems unlikely), then I have made a simple enough victory. Surely it is not this easy?

Also, I do have another 15 or so turns to go, so maybe the suprise is yet to come.

The other option I suppose is to go on and take Petersburg as well just for the 'crushing win'.

As a side note, the Russians seem to hove many victory points, but (in my view) have failed in a key objective of preventing me from capturing Moscow.

Any experiences others have of this campaign would be welcome.

[ltr213]

The victory conditions for all of the scenarios have been updated to more closely reflect National Morale considerations. I think you'll see these updates in the next patch.

[Henry D.]

Plus, the russians currently start about 1.200 VP ahead of the french, that is a pretty high initial disadvantage for the french player to overcome, even if he fares very well early on. However, if You hold on to Your objectives until scenario end, Your VP score will outweight the russian considerably.

Regard, Henry

[Heretic]

I forgot to mention I have not yet applied patch 1.02.

I suppose my main question is, have I totally wrong-footed the AI here, or will they react and try to defend instead of attacking (non-key) French assests in Poland/Prussia?

[Pocus]

With the update on objective values, a new try should lead to the AI defending more the key cities, hopefully.

[Micke]

Yes, I have noticed the same as Heretic. When playing the French against a russian AI, the russian units tend to go west by attacking in Polen through the south of the map or along the baltic cost. As result important cities in the center of the map such as Smolensk, Minsk and even Moscow are left unprotected by the russian army. A great battle such the Moskowa in front of Moscow will probably not happen when playing agains IA.
In this scenario what is also anhistoric is the early commitment of the russains armies located on the south of the map. Historically they were operational only in August or possibly early September. Perhaps the scenario should plan to lock these armies until this period.

[Zaap]

I finished the Russia campaign as the Russians with a victory.

I dropped back with my troops as Napoleon advanced into Russia his main force only got as far as Polosk / Smolensk by the end of the game. Which is about halfway to Moscow

At end game

I had a force of some 81,000 troops in Poland moving on Brest Litovsk for the south and 140,000 troops in Moskwa area with about the same in the Orel area.

Losses Russian 108927 French 79444
Morale Russian 110 French 109
Victory Points Russian 2186 French 885

[Nial]

The Russian AI army has concentrations in the south and attacks the Austrians almost every time. If you have moved your army east skirting that concentration of Russian forces? You could be in for a nasty suprise flanking move that cuts off your supply line and leaves your Grande Army eating snow. Thats what Id do...LOL ........sounds almost historical.

Nial

[Heretic]

Is there any way to check supply line?

Or is it simply a string of towns along a road all beloning to the inavder's side?

Can supply be traced accross any suitable road, or does it need to be the most direct?

I ask because these things are not clear, and it would be nice to understand why I win or loose.

[Nial]

Is there any way to check supply line?

Or is it simply a string of towns along a road all beloning to the inavder's side?

Can supply be traced accross any suitable road, or does it need to be the most direct?

I ask because these things are not clear, and it would be nice to understand why I win or loose.

It is a string of towns +3 or better, or provinces with a supply depot in them.
Recomended that you have one or the other every 3 to 5 provinces. I try not to go more than 4. You will get a message if a unit/ force is partialy or fully unsupplied.

There is also a map filter that shows supply.

Nial

[ltr213]

Actually guys, towns do not produce or convey supplies. CITIES do, however, according to their size.

Supplies are sent over any terrain that's passable, not just the road network.

In the Russia campaign I would try to have a Depot in every 3rd province. The size of your forces in Russia is quite large compare to other scenarios and even being in supply range doesnt guarantee that enough supplies are getting funneled to your troops. In other words, you can be in supply range, and still not receive enough supplies.

The latest manual does a fairly credible job explaining supply.

With regards to the Victory Point and AI issues, the scenarios have all been revamped as far as Victory Conditions are concerned. With the NYP release. the campaign should play along more historical lines.

Laurence

[Sean E]

I have also played the Russia campaign twice and found this. Smolensk, Minsk and Moscow all undefended. Yet the AI Russians are more interested in futile attacks against Krakow.

As for the scenario being too easy as the French I think it has to do with the supply rules. I found it too easy to supply my troops. All that I have read on this campaign talks about the poor to non-existent roads, the poor foraging and the huge preparations Napoleon went to before the attack to keep his forces supplied. None of this seems to come into play, nor the reason Napoleon had to abandon Moscow and retreat. The winter seemed to be no problem to my forces.

Also I captured Moscow with a huge amount of supplies, what happened to the scorched earth and Moscow burning? Plus Moscow being a depot my troops were all bought back to full strength at the furthest point inside Russia.

I haven’t played a full game of the Spanish campaign but I suspect the same is happening here and making it too easy.
Maybe depots need to be automatically destroyed when captured forcing the player to build new ones?
The loss of more supply and cohesion for foreign units inside Russia due to winter. While the Russians are unaffected, at least the Cossacks?
Any other ideas on this?

Also should there be a fort at Boridino?

[PhilThib]

I'll have to investigate that point, because Scorched Earth should work and Moscow depot should burn upon capture. Could you send us a save of your game at support@ageod.com

Thanks

[Nial]

I have also played the Russia campaign twice and found this. Smolensk, Minsk and Moscow all undefended. Yet the AI Russians are more interested in futile attacks against Krakow.

As for the scenario being too easy as the French I think it has to do with the supply rules. I found it too easy to supply my troops. All that I have read on this campaign talks about the poor to non-existent roads, the poor foraging and the huge preparations Napoleon went to before the attack to keep his forces supplied. None of this seems to come into play, nor the reason Napoleon had to abandon Moscow and retreat. The winter seemed to be no problem to my forces.

Also I captured Moscow with a huge amount of supplies, what happened to the scorched earth and Moscow burning? Plus Moscow being a depot my troops were all bought back to full strength at the furthest point inside Russia.

I haven’t played a full game of the Spanish campaign but I suspect the same is happening here and making it too easy.
Maybe depots need to be automatically destroyed when captured forcing the player to build new ones?
The loss of more supply and cohesion for foreign units inside Russia due to winter. While the Russians are unaffected, at least the Cossacks?
Any other ideas on this?

Also should there be a fort at Boridino?

Supply wasn't an issue for me in the Russian campaign as Nap either. Been along time since I played the French in Spain. Certainly Spain was not as bad as Russia in the supply area. Though the roads levels and speed of movement in the Pennensula are way to high. If you read Marbot he talkes about roads that can't accommadate horse coaches at all. But are only good for riders and mule carts. Certainly moving across the breadth of Spain in under 15 days is a bit fast for an army of any size.

Maybe all movement should get a second look. Poland was also devoid of almost any decent roads in this time frame. Maybe drop road levels in Spain, Poland and Russia. Or could increase attrition in some provinces to simulate how slow the going was in roadless areas. JMHO

Nial

[Pocus]

The chance to have a depot burned upon capture is 20% according to the Scorched Earth settings in the campaign.

[Nial]

The Russian campaign is a hard one to get a handle on. The more I look into it the more I wonder? How many of Naps mistakes should we as players be saddled with?

There is the fact it was one of the worst winters in recent history.

But napoleon could/ should have been better prepared. Some say he never expected to get anywhere near Moscow. That he was just trying to get the Czar to sue for peace. Thats the reason Marbot gives for his indecisiveness on the march as well as once he got to Moscow. That it's the reason he stayed there for so long before beginning the retreat. The retreat itself was badly managed. Traveling back along the scorched earth corridor instead of shifting his march into un- scorched or less scorched country side would have helped some. But would have cost precious time. It didn't help that Nap's army foraged more than most armys of the time period. Equating more supply wagons with a slower, less versatile army or force. So in a way? The things that made his army so efficient and versatile in normal conditions? Helped conspire against him in the Russian campaign. Leaving his so called allies with fully complimented armies in his rear was not the smartest move either. If he had taken those corps to Moscow and left two French corps in his rear? His supply lines would have been better guarded and His retreat would have been much easier. Not to mention those troops wouldn't have been in any shape to take the field against him in the months ahead. Personaly, I think by the Russian campaign Nap was a bit infatuated with his own press clippings. Hubris has a way of getting even the best generals in trouble.

These ramblings are of course JMHO.

Nial

[Franciscus]

The chance to have a depot burned upon capture is 20% according to the Scorched Earth settings in the campaign.

This value, IMHO ,should be greatly increased (90% ??), at least in the russian campaign, and maybe set to 50% in the other scenarios

[Adlertag]

The Russian campaign is a hard one to get a handle on. The more I look into it the more I wonder? How many of Naps mistakes should we as players be saddled with?

There is the fact it was one of the worst winters in recent history.

But napoleon could/ should have been better prepared. Some say he never expected to get anywhere near Moscow. That he was just trying to get the Czar to sue for peace. Thats the reason Marbot gives for his indecisiveness on the march as well as once he got to Moscow. That it's the reason he stayed there for so long before beginning the retreat. The retreat itself was badly managed. Traveling back along the scorched earth corridor instead of shifting his march into un- scorched or less scorched country side would have helped some. But would have cost precious time. It didn't help that Nap's army foraged more than most armys of the time period. Equating more supply wagons with a slower, less versatile army or force. So in a way? The things that made his army so efficient and versatile in normal conditions? Helped conspire against him in the Russian campaign. Leaving his so called allies with fully complimented armies in his rear was not the smartest move either. If he had taken those corps to Moscow and left two French corps in his rear? His supply lines would have been better guarded and His retreat would have been much easier. Not to mention those troops wouldn't have been in any shape to take the field against him in the months ahead. Personaly, I think by the Russian campaign Nap was a bit infatuated with his own press clippings. Hubris has a way of getting even the best generals in trouble.

These ramblings are of course JMHO.

Nial

Well said Nial, Napoleon really made numerous mistakes, the first one was not seeing that his Continental Blocus system severely affected Russian economy, thus the Tsar got closer to England and was ready to brave Napoleon's armies. ( to say it short).

Below is a screenshot of French armies losses in Russia along with temperatures of this severe winter.

[Pocus]

The chance to have a depot burned upon capture is 20% according to the Scorched Earth settings in the campaign.

Warning! It seems that such low percentage was not the intent of the Historical Team, perhaps a confusion in the documentation to script the rule ... so, bottom line, expect a much harder Scorched Earth set of rules for the incoming patch 1.03.

[Nial]

Warning! It seems that such low percentage was not the intent of the Historical Team, perhaps a confusion in the documentation to script the rule ... so, bottom line, expect a much harder Scorched Earth set of rules for the incoming patch 1.03.

Cool........*funny look*.......Uh...I'm reminded of the saying "Be carefull what you wish for"

Nial

[Sean E]

The Russian campaign is a hard one to get a handle on. The more I look into it the more I wonder? How many of Naps mistakes should we as players be saddled with?

There is the fact it was one of the worst winters in recent history.

But napoleon could/ should have been better prepared. Some say he never expected to get anywhere near Moscow. That he was just trying to get the Czar to sue for peace. Thats the reason Marbot gives for his indecisiveness on the march as well as once he got to Moscow. That it's the reason he stayed there for so long before beginning the retreat. The retreat itself was badly managed. Traveling back along the scorched earth corridor instead of shifting his march into un- scorched or less scorched country side would have helped some. But would have cost precious time. It didn't help that Nap's army foraged more than most armys of the time period. Equating more supply wagons with a slower, less versatile army or force. So in a way? The things that made his army so efficient and versatile in normal conditions? Helped conspire against him in the Russian campaign. Leaving his so called allies with fully complimented armies in his rear was not the smartest move either. If he had taken those corps to Moscow and left two French corps in his rear? His supply lines would have been better guarded and His retreat would have been much easier. Not to mention those troops wouldn't have been in any shape to take the field against him in the months ahead. Personaly, I think by the Russian campaign Nap was a bit infatuated with his own press clippings. Hubris has a way of getting even the best generals in trouble.

These ramblings are of course JMHO.

Nial

Just a note about Napoleon's retreat route, initially he intended to follow a southerly route through the Kaluga district, then still well supplied with food and fodder but Kutuzov tried to intercept at Maloyaroslavets. Though the battle was indecisive it induced Napoleon to return to the northern route via Borodino and Smolensk.

[Sean E]

I'll have to investigate that point, because Scorched Earth should work and Moscow depot should burn upon capture. Could you send us a save of your game at support@ageod.com

Thanks

Saves located and sent.

I also feel that units are moving too fast. Maybe the road bonus is too generous given road conditions at the time. Or maybe non road movement is too fast?

[superBOB]

There is the fact it was one of the worst winters in recent history.


Nial

Don't want to start an argument here but I just heard some Napoleon "expert" on the tellie the other day saying the exact opposite. She reckoned it had been a relatively mild winter. If it had been severe, the Berezina would for example have frozen over, which it didn't.

[Nial]

*shrug* The common view, and what I've read in almost every place I looked, goes from that it was unusaly wet and cold all the way to the worst winter in decades. One site shows the temps at a consistant 30 below. Thats pretty cold.

Nial

[Le Tondu]

I think that SuperBob makes an excellent point, yet one has to consider the fact that weather and temps can be different at different times during a season. Also, temperatures can be different --in different places at the same time.

30 below what? Farenheit or Clesius? If it is Farenheit, consider that your pee will freeze before it hits the ground. I've seen 10 or 12 below in northern Ohio and let me tell you, it was cold even when I had the benefit of 20th century technology with gloves and the like.

How accurate were those temperature readings when they didn't even have accurate maps of where they were going? Where were temperatures taken? Did they even have Celsius? It seems that an accurate temperature gauge would be a rather rare thing almost 200 years ago.

Even today, one can see variances between different temperature gauges. (Just go into a store that sells a lot of them and look.)

Did different nations have different measuring systems for temperatures like they had for measuring distances? Take the ludicrous fable that Napoleon was a short person --as an example.

Folks had frostbite and they clearly suffered. It cold at times. It was warmer at times as well. It was winter after all. Beyond that things are very unclear, IMO.

[Adlertag]

If you just take a look at the graph I posted above, you'll see a nice -30°C on December 6th 1812 and average temperature around -20°C.
Concerning measures for that period, air temperature is a relative common measure with mercury thermometer (min -39°C) thanks to Reaumur (alcohol thermometer also), Celsius or Linné.

[Nial]

30 below what? Farenheit or Clesius? If it is Farenheit, consider that your pee will freeze before it hits the ground. I've seen 10 or 12 below in northern Ohio and let me tell you, it was cold even when I had the benefit of 20th century technology with gloves and the like.

Well....My parents were missionaries in an Eskimo village in Alaska when I was a kid. And it got 60 below F up there in the winter. I can assure you pee doesn't freeze until it -hits- the ground. Takes a sec or two for that 96 degree pee to cool down ya know.

And my GF is from your Ohio too. She says 15 below F. was not unusual when she was a kid either.

Nial

[Gresbeck]

Is this normal?

In the invasion of Russia scenario, I chose to take Riga on the way east.
This meant a large proportion of the Grande Armee passed north and then east of the Russian forces.
The Russian army proceeded to attakc Brest-Litovsk, and indeed harass some south german/polish cities as well.
By Aug 16th I have taken Moscow, and have a reasonable line of defence back on the road (approximately) Smolensk & Minsk.


Any experiences others have of this campaign would be welcome.

I had a similar situation (except I took Riga after Moscow, and I advanced along the road Vilnius, Minsk, Vitebsk, Smolensk). By mid September I had all of the objective towns, except St. Petersburg and Kiev. I had no problem to defend all of the conquered cities untill the end of the scenario, but the game ended with a stalemate, and the last 15 turns I couldn't gain either in terms of VP nor of NM, so I lost in terms of VP. Russia seemed to get more VP even from conquered cities (29 - 20, or something like that). I played on normal AI, historical attrition, before applying the Christmas patch. Now my question: is this normal? And if it's normal, how can I win as the French Empire? Is it necessary to capture all of the objective cities (that seems rather difficult)? Does it make sense to get less VP than the enemy even after conquering Moscow, Riga, Smolensk, etc.?
BTW, during an earlier game I got the grand armèe completely destroyed during the march to Moscow, but I conquered Riga, Vilinus and Minsk, and the game ended with a stalemate. Does it make sense?

[Nial]

I have won on points. But never been able to take St. Petersburg. Everything slows down soooo much after the first snow. Between the attrition and any combat I just havent been able to get that last VP city. Game on Hard with normal aggression.

Nial