nwg

"It was not possible to determine the dimensions of the image."
Damned me (or am I do clumsy), I am so often in war against those 'IMG'!!! I am unable to offer you the original text, sorry.

Translated:
"Question: There will be a head of army ... but the other what will they do?

The other players will be responsible one or several army corps units.
They will receive the orders of the Head of Army through messages 'graphs' specifying the missions to accomplish.
LG integrates a manager of layers placed on the 2D map layers which serve to support the description of the actions.
The players can thus place text or draw lines or arrows.
These players are also used to refer messengers toward the Chief Army or toward other heads of body.
In short, these messages serve as links between the various players of the same camp.
It remains, therefore, to the receipt of an order of the execute ... or even not ... or change ...

For the rest, each player cannot send orders only to troops which it has the control. It is of course always possible to make changes of assignments between body, thus same between players."

Pesonnal comments: it jumps to eyes, how vandals will be those who use modern system of communication than this implement by JMM. I, in my magnanimous, could admit those treacheries towards the history and to JMM, if before the beginning of the game all players will be advised we will cheat face to history.
Whispering comment: I admit I don't fully understand the last sentence from JMM, in relation to his answer, even in french . Please don't repeat to anybody. Of course as a separate sentence, I understand.
I am really very confident all will be clearer when the game will be released. During my live? Less and less sure

Question: What are then the or the unique skills of the head of army?

Answer from Montebello at HistWar:
A small explanation concerning the method multi
before connecting the player selects its camp
as soon as it is connected, it sees appear a box containing 1 icon by Corps + 1 icon for the head of army
He chooses the icons it will lead (in the screen i chose the head of army + Corps 2 + Corps 3).
Concerning the head of army:
On one hand it has a field of vision substantially more important than the heads of Corps;
Of the other hand, it is the leader; it is to him to run the battle and therefore to say to the heads of Corps what they have to do (offensive, diversion, defense, battle zones of each body ...) in their sending messages

Well on The head of Corps remain responsible for the movements and actions of their troops ... and if they do not follow the head of army it could end by MP quite steep

Answer from JMM to Montebello:
Pour que ce soit compréhensible, il faut comprendre que Montebello a choisi un nom de combat un peu compliqué que je ne saurais reproduire.
Théoriquement, à cette place, l'on doit retrouver le nom choisi par chaque joueur.

Ce tableau indique donc la correspondance entre chaque joueur et le ou les entités prises en charge.
Quant à la vision.. il en existe plusieurs. des réelles et des virtuelles.
En MP, les différents joueurs -chef de l'armée ou les autres- sont soumis aux même règles.

JMM

Translation:
For this is understandable, it must understand that Montebello has chosen a combat name a little complicated that I cannot reproduce.
Theoretically, to this place, it must regain the name chosen by each player.

This table indicates therefore the correspondence between each player and or entities supported.
As to the vision.. there are several. of the real and virtual.
In MP, the various players -head of the army or the other- are subject to the same rules.

Very interesting GP. I didn't quite understand the last bit, but I assume this is a reference to the probability that players will use ventrillo or other voice chat system to co-ordinate their moves rather than the 19 century methods provided by the game (ADC and a horse!). Many things will become clear once we get our hands on the game, but I'd certainly be interested in a gentleman's agreement, amongst serious gamers, that we don't use voice chat and only use in-game couriers.

Ultimately I doubt this will be a huge problem as I suspect many games will end up being 1v1 - BIG 1v1's mind you, but for some reason I don't foresee a lot of 3v3 or 4v4 games being played via the net. At wargaming clubs, where you meet and have a beer I'd say LG will possibly start to replace peoples miniatures and massive games will be held with many many players over extended periods. The advantage clubs will have is the ability to replace commanders in the game when one or more loses interest or simply doesn't show up. This has been a feature of miniatures gaming for many years.

Moopere

The voice chat is a real worry, can you see anyone who currently use's that stopping ?.....not a chance.

But there is also the text chat which is also a potential problem ??????.

Well, I don't know Gun. You may be right. If we just come right out and ask for a Gentlemans agreement and if certain folks ignore that then they become known as _not_ being worthy of trust right? I'm not sure of the best way ahead there.

I don't know how the text chat might work either? Maybe the enforced use of couriers will make direct communication pointless anyway (??). Imagine the various generals all sitting on the same hilltop, they can talk together sure but can't order their troops any more quickly because all orders still have to go by courier.

Its probably still too early to guess what game communications are going to be enforced (by the game itself) and which will be flexible or abused.

M.