AGEOD Forums

using the new patch 1.02 the Peninsula army dissolves and wellington disappears, on turn 16. I have back tracked this about 3 times and it happens every time
Ron

That might be the Cintra event, Wellington (or rather Wellesley) left the Penninsula around that time, to return later with a new Army.

Ah didn't think of that, that event pre 1.02 never happened in the couple of attempts I had with this scenario
ron

deleted

Yes, I had the Cintra event happen to me a few times pre-patch. Don't worry, Wellington will be back.

Surely Moore was the guy in charge when they evacuated the Peninsula?

Wellington was the first British commander in the Penninsula, just before Cintra he was replaced by Dalrymple, after Cintra Dalrymple, Wellington and another one were recalled and Moore arrived, finally Moore evacuated and died to be replaced with Wellington with a new Army.

In game terms I believe this is simply represented by Wellington and Dalrymple leaving after Cintra and Wellington later returning... I believe Moore appears at the same time (I haven't played this scenario in 1.02 yet).

Exactly

As a side note, Cintra should really be spelt Sintra...

In fairness to the French, I think there should be about a 30% chance that Wellesley should get sacked after the Cintra event.

Edit..I'm an idiot, I didn't read your post correctly.. my apologies

Sol Invictus wrote:In fairness to the French, I think there should be about a 30% chance that Wellesley should get sacked after the Cintra event.

"Fairness to the French"? That is a contradiction in terms...

No, I don't think there should be an alternative outcome to the "Cintra (that is the british spelling) Court of Inquiry", but I do think Moore should leave the game immediately before Wellington returns.

I'm not sure about it, is Moore a 3* and therefore immune form being killed in battle in 1.02?

Regards, Henry

I was just being silly.

Sol Invictus wrote:I was just being silly.

In not recognizing that, so was I...

You could redeem Yourself by answering my stupid, lazy question about Moore, though...

Regards, Henry

I am afraid that I have no idea about Moore. I feel like such a failure. leure:

This question about Moore and his death (January 1809), is a real debate we discussed about in beta forum.
Instead of altering statistics especially for him, a special "Moore's death" event is probably better, considering his stature.

Adlertag wrote:This question about Moore and his death (January 1809), is a real debate we discussed about in beta forum.
Instead of altering statistics especially for him, a special "Moore's death" event is probably better, considering his stature.

Well, without trying to derail this thread into another "should 3* bite the dust, too?" thread, and I still think they should , thank You for Your answer, and I concur, an event killing him off would be fine...

Regards, Henry

Henry D. wrote:Well, without trying to derail this thread into another "should 3* bite the dust, too?" thread, and I still think they should , thank You for Your answer, and I concur, an event killing him off would be fine...

Regards, Henry

Why an event?

Why not just a small % chance that any 3 star could get killed in battle. And an even smaller % chance a 4 star could die. Things would be so much more realistic that way.

I have always viewed wargaming as beginning with everything the way it was historically and proceeding from there with all bets off. Your choices determine what happens --including the loss of a commander that historically didn't die or get captured. Napoleon included. Just think of how many times he and allied commanders barely avoided being captured or killed.

Otherwise we are just replaying what happened historically --and that is plain boring and unimaginative, IMO.

No insult is intended for anyone here.

If in NCP a unit that historically survived a specific campaign has the possibility of not surviving the campaign, why isn't it the same for the leaders?

Well, as I say, I concur, but the whole topic has been discussed to death ever since AACW came out. Also I think it is still pondered by the team, but lack of time and manpower and the need to address other more pressing issues regarding both games first prevented them from doing something about it yet.

There are a few threads (and hijackings of perfectly innocent threads like this here one) on the topic, You may want to do a search for "leader death" or "leader casualties" to pinpoint most of them.

As an example of the discussion, as well as of my own vanity, take this one: http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=5122&page=2&highlight=leader+death. Post #32, by Yours truly, kicked off the discussion about 3 and 4* there, and most of the proponents for both opposite points of view on the matter took part as well. Enjoy.

Regards, Henry

Just a matter of interest, when does Wesley return?

Le Tondu wrote:Why an event?

Why not just a small % chance that any 3 star could get killed in battle. And an even smaller % chance a 4 star could die. Things would be so much more realistic that way.

I have always viewed wargaming as beginning with everything the way it was historically and proceeding from there with all bets off. Your choices determine what happens --including the loss of a commander that historically didn't die or get captured. Napoleon included. Just think of how many times he and allied commanders barely avoided being captured or killed.

Otherwise we are just replaying what happened historically --and that is plain boring and unimaginative, IMO.

No insult is intended for anyone here.

If in NCP a unit that historically survived a specific campaign has the possibility of not surviving the campaign, why isn't it the same for the leaders?

Yes, replaying the exact reality would be boring, gaming experience is more like that.
But where are the limits of what to do, or not, to simulate history ?

I would be a bit confused, for example, to play with Moore at Waterloo or having Marshall Lannes leading a corps in Russia....fortunately, scenarios like those in NCP won't show that oddities because they don't cover the entire period but think of a longer Campaign.
So, event or not ? I don't have a definitive answer but sometimes, an event will solve many further problems...

goodwood wrote:Just a matter of interest, when does Wesley return?

Historically, April 1809, at Lisbon.