| Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC) https://www.wargame.ch/board/nwc/ |
|
| Flank Morale Modifier: Arguments For and Against https://www.wargame.ch/board/nwc/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=11216 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Bill Peters [ Sun Jan 09, 2011 6:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Flank Morale Modifier: Arguments For and Against |
As noted in the H&R settings group the use of the FMM brings about unhistorical results. I contend that throughout all of the long history of this option in the game I am having a good laugh over the various arguments against it. Here they are: 1. The main one: it allows the troops to remain on the field too long. Result: turn it OFF. Problem: that is WHY troops stayed around longer (one of the reasons): they had "supports" - ok, so you knock down the morale ratings but leave the option ON. I can live with that. 2. A corollary: turn the option OFF because it allows a unit that is too small to hold an entire hex to have supports that are not next to it. Not heard as often but I can buy into this one much more than #1. Now the pros: 1. Miniature rules the world over use it. Written by guys who are both historians and gamers this kind of rule has been in most rulesbooks I have ever played. I cannot remember it in the various editions of Empire but I do remember it in others. That alone sells me on it. 2. Historical usage: many batteries, when seeing that their supports were gone, would limber up and pull out. Not really a morale issue but when the going go rough they would limber up and pull away. Frankly if anything the H&R folks say nothing about the gatling guns we have for batteries. Instead of vanilla coating the PDT artillery table they aught to be low morale rating the batteries. This would stop the unhistorical usage of the guns being there and firing as long as the army has ammo. Surprised they didn't look into that one. 3. Rolling up the flank: one of the reasons why a flank was rolled up was due to the issues surrounding this rule. The flank would fail and the units would drift away one by one or get hit on the flank. This rule allows units that under normal conditions (that is a morale test with their NORMAL morale) to hold rather than run due to the fact that they have comrades with them on the flank. I can list more cons and pros but that about does it. Any discussion of discarding the use of the FMM option fails in the light of historical usage. So lower the morales if you want but leave the rule ON. Along with Rout Limiting it is the only way I play the games. Otherwise in those cases where you have less maneuver elements than your opponent it becomes a romp for the attacker. Just run after the routing defenders ... Wonder where Ken Jones is in all of this? He was the biggest proponent of helping the defender in the series being that the French usually outnumbered his Brits. Any discussion of lowering British morale should be making him pale. |
|
| Author: | Alexey Tartyshev [ Sun Jan 09, 2011 9:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Flank Morale Modifier: Arguments For and Against |
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=11200&p=55078#p55078 |
|
| Author: | Bill Peters [ Sun Jan 09, 2011 10:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Flank Morale Modifier: Arguments For and Against |
The contention that Napoleonic battles were not bayonet clashes never enters consideration for the series. We already knew that. I wish you guys would quit harping away at that. That is NOT what a melee is in the game. It is a close in firefight and when a player decides to press the melee button what you are saying is that the men would not attack, would see the loss of men as something they could not afford to do ... and SHOULD ROUT! Baloney. That is NOT Napoleonics. Time and time again the French would attack the British, would suffer losses, would get the usual instant counterattack. If it happened once it happened at least thirty times during the Peninsular Wars. If your assumption of the fear of losses is correct then why did the men do heroic deeds at all? You guys are living in dreamland. Your reference to Nafziger is fine and he is correct it it your application of what he is saying that is not. And he is not correct in some of what he is saying otherwise men would not have walked into the maelstrom that was the Great Redoubt. Regular units, not Guard. Your D rated units would bolt the first time someone hits them for 25 men losses. Along with them will go the entire French line due to Rout Limiting being OFF. And in what cases do you have FMM ON or OFF. Like you can really mandate when a man felt the loss of his flank buddy or when it didn't matter to him. You are saying that the result is wrong. I am saying that the way that the troops are used is wrong. That is the difference. You would like to see the men walk up to the line, get hit and run away, and call that terribly historical. I would like to see the men walk up to the line, a battle of wills ensue for two turns max, which is about what happens in my games and THEN one or the other runs away. From what I am hearing I get the idea you are seeing units last on the line for something like 5 - 6 turns before they run. Never happens in my games. And yet I can cite to you battle experiences where one regiment fought all day at the same post under great fire. H&R doesn't believe that ever happened. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|