Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

The Rhine Tavern

*   NWC   NWC Staff   NWC Rules   NWC (DoR) Records   About Us   Send Email Inquiry to NWC

*   La Grande Armée Quartier Général    La Grande Armée Officer Records    Join La Grande Armée

*   Allied Coalition   Allied Officers   Join Coalition

*   Coalition Armies:   Austro-Prussian-Swedish Army   Anglo Allied Army (AAA)   Imperial Russian Army

 

Forums:    ACWGC    CCC     Home:    ACWGC    CCC
It is currently Fri May 09, 2025 12:20 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 61 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Jan 01, 2011 9:00 am 
Anton,

Thank you. I thought I had read about Russians (and others) using adhoc formations at the bn level as you described combing coy's from different rgts.

Interesting to note also in Gunther Rothenberg's Napoleon's Great Adversary (Sarpedon 1982) on page 113 in reference to the Austrian General Mack's modified infantry regulations, he writes: "In combat, the two-company division became the main movement element." Rothenberg footnotes the orginal German to support the statement.

The above would support splitting the Austrian bns into two seperate 'counters', and as each company (coy) had a theoretical strength of 201 (Bowden Napoleon and Austerlitz (Emperor's Press 1997), pg 123), yielding 402 men per 1/2 bn counter.

Just food for thought.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jan 01, 2011 9:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 29, 2001 3:54 pm
Posts: 660
Location: Eboracum, Britannia
I haven't had a chance to test it thoroughly but I like the look of what you guys have done. Very promising. 8)

_________________
~ Field Marshal Antony Barlow ~
~ 51st Light Infantry (Second Yorkshire West Riding) ~
~ 4th British Brigade, 4th Division, II (Anglo-German) Corps, Anglo-Allied Army ~
~ 1st Company, 3rd Battalion, 1st Regiment of Foot Guards ~


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jan 01, 2011 11:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 28, 2001 1:57 pm
Posts: 208
Location: USA
Just finished reading everything, and their is quite a bit that makes sense.

I disagree with the premise that all artillery should be the same -- aside from gun quality & powder which you address in your comments, their was variable training/skill levels between armies as well. When we get to the peninsula, will Spanish batteries be as good as the French or British batteries??

I like the higher cavalry attack values, but disagree with no multiple melee for cavalry -- without it you don't have the ability to model the cavalry overdoing things and plunging themselves into the thick of the enemy lines. I understand your reasoning, but the disorder penalty reduces their attack effectiveness enough to cover this and if we stick with your premise that most often units broke before actual contact was made you don't get the effect of the cavaly following through and cutting down the retreating forces from behind. A unit that doesn't elect to form square in response to a cavalry threat deserves to be decimated.

Along these lines another thought -- do the losses in HPS necessarily reflect only battle casualties (killed, wounded, captured), or might ethey be intended to model the force becoming combat ineffective? You have addressed/modelled this better by reducing actual losses more and having the unit actually rout while thereafter remaining physically present though being of limited utility, but you may need to increase the value of objectives significantly since casualties will be a far smaller part of the points a given side can accrue.

A question with regard to melees resulting in disorder -- if we accept your premise that most charges didn't result in actual contact, should the victorious unit in a lopsided melee victory automatically be disordered?

I do feel that there ought to be some differences in movement rates or at least the cost of a formation change based on unit quality and nationality (HPS has the same drawback and I'm not sure there is a way to model this without an engine change). The superior training of elite units caused them to make formation changes more rapidly and smoothly thereby effectively increasing their ability to cover ground. Simply wheeling a line to face a different direction could be a complicated maneuver for a poorly trained unit (possibly resulting in disorder and perhaps even panic if this is in reponse to a threat appearing on their flank), whereas for better trained units it was relatively simple. The better trained a unit was, it could also advance in line more rapidly without becoming disordered -- line movement restriction partly addresses this with regard to disorder probability, but doesn't quite get there. Also, the superior tactical flexibility of French forces on the battlefield - particularly in the 1805-1809 time frame - was a major factor in their success, but with all units of a given type of all countries being the same this is not reflected well. The French may be slightly less likely to disorder due to the command structure which partly represents this, but is insufficient. Consider Davout at Auerstaedt -- his units came out of the defile and deployed into line, formed square to beat off Blucher's cavalry, formed back into line almost as if on the parade ground with hardly an interruption in their forward momentum. There weren't but a handful of formations that could possibly duplicate this and none of them would be Prussian or Austrian and for Russia only perhaps the guard. In the game there are many formations that coud duplicate or even perform it better than can Davout's Corps.

_________________
Maréchal d'Empire Theron Lambert
Grand-duc de Montereau et Duc d'Angers


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jan 01, 2011 11:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 10:18 am
Posts: 6156
Ok - I got done with most of the moving - now unpacking - and taking a different tack here. Here are some ideas to ponder:

1. I had thought that larger area for a hex might be nice - maybe 150 meters - but doing this now will not work. Just too much labor. Unless John can "stretch" the maps and I know that this will not happen but hey I could ask I guess.

2. Cavalry should NOT be stopped by any ZOC other than other cavalry. Pure and simple. We have all seen how they would "swirl" around a square, taking fire YES, but still moving. NOT into a different turn either. So I am going to ask John to suspend the ZOC if possible during cavalry charges as outlined above. If you have a serious problem with this let me know but as you all know once cavalry gets in behind the lines they often get wiped out anyway. So this is not a huge issue. And all I can say is ... stack your guns with squares if you feel that a cav threat exists.

More to come. Want to keep an open mind here.

_________________
Image

Generalfeldmarschall Wilhelm Prinz Peters von Dennewitz

3. Husaren-Regiment, Reserve-Kavallerie, Preußischen Armee-Korps

Honarary CO of Garde-Ulanen Regiment, Garde-Grenadier Kavallerie

NWC Founding Member

For Club Games: I prefer the Single Phase mode of play. I prefer to play with the following options OFF:

MDF, VP4LC, NRO, MTD, CMR, PR, MIM, NDM, OMR (ver 4.07)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jan 01, 2011 11:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2006 4:11 pm
Posts: 1765
Location: New Zealand
Theron great comments I agree. The national aspects of the armies feels like they have been sterlised out a bit. As I say it's a good effort but that would be my principal concern.

_________________
Marechal Knox

Prince d'Austerlitz et Comte d'Argentan
Ordre national de la Légion d'honneur

"What is history but a fable agreed upon"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jan 02, 2011 10:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 10:18 am
Posts: 6156
From Theron's post: "Along these lines another thought -- do the losses in HPS necessarily reflect only battle casualties (killed, wounded, captured), or might ethey be intended to model the force becoming combat ineffective? You have addressed/modelled this better by reducing actual losses more and having the unit actually rout while thereafter remaining physically present though being of limited utility, but you may need to increase the value of objectives significantly since casualties will be a far smaller part of the points a given side can accrue."

Most of us know that unless you get really lucky with cavalry they are going to be a one-shot deal for the most part. I can recount several times where the same regiment fought multiple times during a battle. Hard to pull off in this series as is. Usually the attacker is taking tons of losses even if they win big.

Also: losses for the attacker were negligible if they won, again for the most part, citing what was said in the PDF that one side or the other would fall back before actual contact took place.

One thing I want to say is that a melee for infantry was a point where the defender would fire at almost point blank range if faced to the attacker. If hit from the flank and they could turn to fire (a company or whatever) they might hold but being hit on the flank in any period of warfare usually means falling back from the days of the chariots to the Gulf War. For shield carrying forces their right was more vulnerable than the left. Rarely could a unit hold off a flank attack. Only veteran or better units for the most part.

If the attacker could brave the fire then usually the defender would fall back in confusion. As was stated in the doc the guys have written and in Nosworthy's "With Musket, Cannon and Sword" very little bayonet warfare ever occured. Badajoz, Cuidad Rodrigo, etc. and in cases where the French fought the Russians or in attacks on strong points but rarely on the field of battle.

_________________
Image

Generalfeldmarschall Wilhelm Prinz Peters von Dennewitz

3. Husaren-Regiment, Reserve-Kavallerie, Preußischen Armee-Korps

Honarary CO of Garde-Ulanen Regiment, Garde-Grenadier Kavallerie

NWC Founding Member

For Club Games: I prefer the Single Phase mode of play. I prefer to play with the following options OFF:

MDF, VP4LC, NRO, MTD, CMR, PR, MIM, NDM, OMR (ver 4.07)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 03, 2011 7:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 4:46 pm
Posts: 449
Location: Malta
Quote:
I think this will reduce the endless melee fest and encourage a more historical way of fighting. I am not sure about the btn split thing though. I read the rationale for this somewhere in the pdf perhaps you can remind me. Seems weird.


REASON 1. for the split is the assumption that NO battalion formed in line and above 450-500-strong can fit Into 100m hex (PDF page 14-15). This is not just a simple pedantic formality. The reasons are on page 15-16. In short, if you keep 600-700-800 strong battalions operating along the 100 meter hexes > they create unrealistic machine-gun-like fire > cavalry cannot break through them > they are not afraid of cavalry >they do not have to form squares > the whole interconnection of Napoleonic era tactics goes bust.

REASON 2. Secondly, as you know there is a 900 infantry hex limit (the reasoning is on pages 11-13). If you stick to 600-700-800 strong battalions this creates very odd situations where players tactical decision making is driven by OOB parameters of the scenario and not by tactical situations.

For example, consider a regiment which has 4 battalions of 400-450 troops in each. In case the player needs to carry a bayonet assault he can just stick two battalions in one hex which will give around 800-900 troops in a stack. It is the maximum concentration which can be achieved and only this concentration gives a reasonable chance of success in melee.
Now consider a regiment which is made of 3 battalions of 600-650 troops in each.
The battalions are stronger but for the purpose of the bayonet assault they are almost useless as they cannot form a stack which would have 2-to-1 advantage over the defender in a one given 100 meter hex. Hence, despite having the same headcount the player with battalions of 600-650 cannot initiate melee as his battalions are not “designed” for this from OOB perspective.

So what can be done? You can say that troops limit per hex can be increased. OK. But to what extend? To 1,000 or 1,200? This will not solve the problem as you get battalions of 700-800 men strong. So the limit has to go to 1600. As soon as you increase the stacking limit > you go back to the REASON 1, cavalry cannot break through. Ok. So let’s increase the hex limit for the cavalry as well > but this, in one’s turn makes cavalry battles unrealistic (PDF pages 3 to 6).

Increased stacking once again, contribute to the excessive losses and to the endless melee fest which has nothing to do with reality. As soon as you increase the staking limits, this will allows players to achieve overwhelming superiority > high probability of success in melee > abnormal losses to the defender and all over again.….. this takes us back to the same issues the original game has.

As long as we have 100m hexes, without major engine changes around melee/losses, historical size of battalions do not fit HPS 100m by 100m world. But as we know the world is not perfect, so we deal with what we have at hand. Hence we had to prioritise.

Our goal was to maximise the realism of the tactical aspect without using house rules, which never work or without changing the code of the game which we can’t do anyway. Considering this goal, the priority was to achieve more realistic tactics, casualties, the flow of battles (casualties over time) and overall tactical outcome at the expense of less accurate representation of battalions on a tactical level.

The result is that in H&R, infantry regiments, brigades and divisions have the same criteria for their usage in battle. The differences of morale, leadership and headcount are still there. But at no point, the tactical decisions will be driven by: “Ok, this division is made of 700 men battalions so they are useless in melee, instead they can machine-gun everyone to pieces. Also they dont have to bother about forming a square. Hence I will position them here on the open….”

In reality, commanders could shift companies around as they wanted. Al and Anton gave a few examples of how commanders could shift troops from battalion to battalion depending on their tactical needs. French, used to detach elite companies and create a “converged” grenadier battalions. At Waterloo, some of the British and German battalions were committed to battle by 2-3-4 companies (half battalions). In fact considering that de facto average battalion in Napoleonic wars had about 450-600 men, we are not too far away from reality.

I understand the concerns about this but unfortunately it’s a matter of priority and I hope the above explains the rationale behind. I understand that it lacks the feel of national characteristics but this is compensated by the introduction of regimental leaders. Anton might be able to provide further details on this once he is back from holiday next week.

Quote:
I tested some currisser charges against 450 and 900 formed infantry in column and their was a very satisfactory result range. Am I correct in assuming the -60% only applies to infantry meleeing? The cavalry seemed historically as they would have been ie 1 oe 2 sqds should be enough to ride down a btn not in square.


-60 applies to all melees including cavalry charges. However, considering *9 cavalry charge bonus, this doesn’t really effect cavalry's ability to win the melee until their losses go above 30%.

A battalion which fails to form a squire does not stand a chance against two squadron. We did 200 tests of 2 squadrons of hussars (260 horsemen with a leader) charging a battalion in line (415 troops with a leader). Hussars had 95% success rate. For heavy cavalry, ulahns and Guards the success rate would probably be 100%. Charging against infantry in column is even more attractive as they cannot return fire effectively. Against two battalions, two squadrons will also have a very decent chance but the victory might be too costly.


Quote:
I was worried about the low morales but with less melees and regimental commanders this is offset to some degree.


Even with less melees and regimental leaders there would be a lot more routing. So don’t be surprised guys. Remember that the enemy will also have hard times keeping his units at place. This is one of the main reasons why H&R battles will last longer and have fewer casualties over time.
The demo scenario has 30 turns (5 hours) for French to seize the Austrian positions. It also took about 5 hours for Prussians to arrive at Waterloo. The demo kind of gives an idea about the challenge both the British and French players can expect at Waterloo using H&R settings.


Quote:
I disagree with the premise that all artillery should be the same -- aside from gun quality & powder which you address in your comments, their was variable training/skill levels between armies as well. When we get to the peninsula, will Spanish batteries be as good as the French or British batteries??


This is a good point and this can be considered for 1.02.
Possibly, morale rating “E” (-20 modifier) can be used to reflect the inferior training in the same manner as it is done for Guards artillery units which have rating “A” reflecting superb training and the human factor.

Although, we have to be very careful with this > the national trait variable is really hard to judge on objectively, especially when dealing with things like gun accuracy and FP.
Things like that are better to be decided on a club level by the committee of a senior club members or by a poll.


Quote:
I like the higher cavalry attack values, but disagree with no multiple melee for cavalry -- without it you don't have the ability to model the cavalry overdoing things and plunging themselves into the thick of the enemy lines. I understand your reasoning, but the disorder penalty reduces their attack effectiveness enough to cover this and if we stick with your premise that most often units broke before actual contact was made you don't get the effect of the cavaly following through and cutting down the retreating forces from behind.


I think there is a misunderstanding here.
The “Cavalry Charge Multiple” PDT factor remained unchanged. This means the charging cavalry unit, can melee different enemy units multiple times.
The part (page 47) from PDF talks about Multiple Cavalry Melee optional rule, which should not be used. Having this rule UNticked does not allow to melee the same enemy unit twice.


Quote:
You have addressed/modelled this better by reducing actual losses more and having the unit actually rout while thereafter remaining physically present though being of limited utility, but you may need to increase the value of objectives significantly since casualties will be a far smaller part of the points a given side can accrue.


Yes. Value of objectives are to be revised completely. The trick is to design it this way that to force players to actually care about their losses while forcing the battle to flow along the historical lines.

If the French player takes Raevski redoubt at Borodino it is not a sure victory. This position is only relevant in relation to the Russian army position and condition. If the French losses are 3 times higher and the Russian army is not enveloped or split in half this is not a victory. Similarly, if the Russian army is largely, destroyed and the rest is surrounded even though Raevski redoubt is not taken – this is a clear French victory.

Check out the victory points in the demo > the intention was to make players care about their losses but at the same time the location and values of victory objectives will motivate both players to control the positions.

Quote:
A question with regard to melees resulting in disorder -- if we accept your premise that most charges didn't result in actual contact, should the victorious unit in a lopsided melee victory automatically be disordered?


I personally believe that even without the contact the attacking units would be disordered in most cases. As they approached the enemy line they suffer losses, casualties amongst officers and NCO contributed to the command chain failure, due to speedy movement it is very likely that there was a loss of alignment in the ranks (this is esppcecially true for the cavalry), some men would be out of breath and also physically the adrenaline rush does not last very long. So impetus was usually lost after the first charge and troops were very vulnerable for counterattack at this very moment. Disorder is possibly the best way of representing this.


Quote:
I do feel that there ought to be some differences in movement rates or at least the cost of a formation change based on unit quality and nationality (HPS has the same drawback and I'm not sure there is a way to model this without an engine change). The superior training of elite units caused them to make formation changes more rapidly and smoothly thereby effectively increasing their ability to cover ground. Simply wheeling a line to face a different direction could be a complicated maneuver for a poorly trained unit (possibly resulting in disorder and perhaps even panic if this is in reponse to a threat appearing on their flank), whereas for better trained units it was relatively simple. The better trained a unit was, it could also advance in line more rapidly without becoming disordered -- line movement restriction partly addresses this with regard to disorder probability, but doesn't quite get there. Also, the superior tactical flexibility of French forces on the battlefield - particularly in the 1805-1809 time frame - was a major factor in their success, but with all units of a given type of all countries being the same this is not reflected well. The French may be slightly less likely to disorder due to the command structure which partly represents this, but is insufficient.



This is a good point but this will require the changes on level of the game engine. As mentioned the only thing we can do to simulate this is to have a higher chance of command rating for the French. Because battles last longer in H&R, the 9% advantage in reorganisation probability, gives the French player a very significant advantage. French units are more combat efficient. Playing the Austrian side from the demo would give you a feel of that.



Great discussion and hopefully more to come so 1.02 can incorporate your folks feedback.

_________________
General-Leytenant Alexey Tartyshev
Leib-Guard Preobrazhensky Regiment (Grenadier Drum)
1st Brigade
Guard Infantry Division
5th Guard Corps


(I don't play with with ZOC kills and Rout limiting ON)


Last edited by Alexey Tartyshev on Tue Jan 04, 2011 1:22 am, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 03, 2011 9:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 29, 2001 3:54 pm
Posts: 660
Location: Eboracum, Britannia
I agree, this is a great discussion 8)

_________________
~ Field Marshal Antony Barlow ~
~ 51st Light Infantry (Second Yorkshire West Riding) ~
~ 4th British Brigade, 4th Division, II (Anglo-German) Corps, Anglo-Allied Army ~
~ 1st Company, 3rd Battalion, 1st Regiment of Foot Guards ~


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 03, 2011 9:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 10:18 am
Posts: 6156
The Napoleonic Wars were NOT the Seven Years Wars folks. This is where I depart from agreeing with the rationale of the fire vs. melee. A melee in this series is a CLOSE QUARTER FIREFIGHT! Nothing more. An attempt to take the hex yes, but not an attack with muskets. This has been known for YEARS too. It is NOT a bayonet exercise.

Anyway, having thought over a lot of this I still see the game as workable and adding in a split battalion is not the answer. We are adding in a mod to the next edition of the game that reduces 3 rank fire such that no longer will 1 large battalion be able to out fire 3 smaller ones. I will give numbers on this later on today if I get time. Off to the races ...

_________________
Image

Generalfeldmarschall Wilhelm Prinz Peters von Dennewitz

3. Husaren-Regiment, Reserve-Kavallerie, Preußischen Armee-Korps

Honarary CO of Garde-Ulanen Regiment, Garde-Grenadier Kavallerie

NWC Founding Member

For Club Games: I prefer the Single Phase mode of play. I prefer to play with the following options OFF:

MDF, VP4LC, NRO, MTD, CMR, PR, MIM, NDM, OMR (ver 4.07)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jan 04, 2011 9:00 pm 
Keep in mind the different features available in this game engine when creating the differences in the armies. I'm thinking of the "golden morale" feature, and the Optional Fire values optional rule to make artillery have a different feel to it.

If, one feels a particular country's artillery, or a specific battle where one side's artillery was noticably ineffective, then to simulate that a designer can set the artillery's quality level at 2 (E), and then put a minus (-) sign in front of it. Then recommend in the scenario description for players to use the Optional Rule with the High/Low quality modifiers. This will allow the "poor" artillery to fire with a minus, but the morale would still be in line with other countries with the golden morale bonus.

Just a thought.

al


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jan 04, 2011 10:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 10:18 am
Posts: 6156
Noted that the Cossacks are now battle cavalry. Why? They never charged for impact. I even would disagree that a Chasseur regiment should have impact ability but definitely cannot agree with the Cossack non-K type rating here. On the battlefield they were not useful. In a campaign role they were fine light cavalry. Definitely see the typical Russian influence here. Not being terribly critical guys. Just think that you are making a mistake in this area.

In tests with regular infantry having D morale in a current game project it is a terribly mistake as well. This was Conscript infantry. In our games WITH Rout Limiting ON we see A LOT of routs. It is why the series has avoided using D morale for regulars. Yes, going to B morale was a mistake and it is being corrected in the next Jena update. But dropping down the average morale to D is a huge mistake and it is being seen in the playtesting we are doing. Tomasz Nowacki can attest to that as he played me twice in the same scenario (he will remember which one this is) and in each case trying to keep THE ENTIRE CORPS from running away was a real chore. Turn OFF Rout Limiting and it would be a joke. If both sides are routing that often Napoleon, Kutusov, Charles will all be rolling over in their graves.

I can see your frontage issue. Again, I would love to change the map scale. that would solve it once and for all ... but I didn't choose the scale. Frankly it would allow me to cover more ground too. With less work needed.

Using a ground scale of 1 hex to 150 meters probably would allow us to deploy 1600 men per hex. Something for me more akin to history. I used 1600 for the stacking limit in one of my titles but increased it to 1800. Not that it mattered that much but it did help.

Using the process you have will turn the game more into the EAW series which is more of a firefight match but has its own issues too. Disparity in unit sizes (large 80 man British units vs. 20-30 man Continental companies) and trying to win a melee is very difficult in that series.

Fatigue accumulation is based on losses and fatigue hits. If you cut down on the amount of losses at close range you end up with the units lasting on the line LONGER than they did historically.

The entire issue comes down to the fact that players rarely pull a brigade out of the fight. It is not the system as much as how the units are being used.

One of my Historical Consultants, Bob Siegel, loves the system as is and he and another guy play the game using much less impact format. They do not march the entire army off on turn 1. Try that out sometime. It works. You end up with a good solid reserve. And more of a tendency to think like the commanders of the period too.

_________________
Image

Generalfeldmarschall Wilhelm Prinz Peters von Dennewitz

3. Husaren-Regiment, Reserve-Kavallerie, Preußischen Armee-Korps

Honarary CO of Garde-Ulanen Regiment, Garde-Grenadier Kavallerie

NWC Founding Member

For Club Games: I prefer the Single Phase mode of play. I prefer to play with the following options OFF:

MDF, VP4LC, NRO, MTD, CMR, PR, MIM, NDM, OMR (ver 4.07)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 05, 2011 12:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 4:46 pm
Posts: 449
Location: Malta
Bill, these are fair comments if you don’t read the PDF and don’t try the demo. I will address some of your points and for some I will just leave the page numbers where the relevant information can be found, no point in copy-pasting it here.

Quote:
Noted that the Cossacks are now battle cavalry. Why? They never charged for impact. I even would disagree that a Chasseur regiment should have impact ability but definitely cannot agree with the Cossack non-K type rating here. On the battlefield they were not useful. In a campaign role they were fine light cavalry. Definitely see the typical Russian influence here. Not being terribly critical guys. Just think that you are making a mistake in this area.

The explanation is on pages 26-28 of the PDF.


Quote:
In tests with regular infantry having D morale in a current game project it is a terribly mistake as well. This was Conscript infantry. In our games WITH Rout Limiting ON we see A LOT of routs. It is why the series has avoided using D morale for regulars. Yes, going to B morale was a mistake and it is being corrected in the next Jena update. But dropping down the average morale to D is a huge mistake and it is being seen in the playtesting we are doing. Tomasz Nowacki can attest to that as he played me twice in the same scenario (he will remember which one this is) and in each case trying to keep THE ENTIRE CORPS from running away was a real chore. Turn OFF Rout Limiting and it would be a joke. If both sides are routing that often Napoleon, Kutusov, Charles will all be rolling over in their graves.


Refer to the page 33 of the PDF. But to expand on this further:

Firstly, H&R has something that the original game hasn’t – regimental leaders (+1 for morale).

Secondly, you see a lot less melee in H&R, hence there are less losses and less morale checks.

Thirdly, with morale “C” units consistently take very high losses but often do not get routed. They rarely get routed even after losing the melee > historically that would almost guaranteed rout.

Finally, the game mechanics encourage players to create unhistorical stacks up to 1,000 cavalry and above 1,000 infantry. No wonder they occasionally see “THE ENTIRE CORPS running away”. H&R battle density is lower hence you do not get huge stacks massacring each other in deadly melee, hence you have less units taking the morale checks.

Furthermore, this is another reason why battles do not last too long in the original game. In H&R, you have more units, less density but the same frontage. Therefore, “average morale to D is a huge mistake and it is being seen in the playtesting we are doing” is irrelevant because it was tested under completely different settings. We DID test it with the current settings and there was a much more historical result in terms of casualties, the flow and the length of the battle.

Instead of a positional fighting to the death, there would be situations where the attack is beaten back by artillery and musket fire (the attacking units get routed) or the defender’s morale fails and they get routed. Nafziger in “Imperial Bayonets” makes it precisely clear that it was the morale game above all. In H&R units will run a lot more often and too avoid too much of it, players will have to watch the alignment of their formations – that is a historical positioning in depth. If players keep gaps between units, like it was done on the actual battlefields, there is no possible way “THE ENTIRE CORPS will be running away”. If players do not pay attention to the order of thier formations they will get massive routs and they cant complain.

Quote:
I can see your frontage issue. Again, I would love to change the map scale. that would solve it once and for all ... but I didn't choose the scale. Frankly it would allow me to cover more ground too. With less work needed.
Using a ground scale of 1 hex to 150 meters probably would allow us to deploy 1600 men per hex. Something for me more akin to history. I used 1600 for the stacking limit in one of my titles but increased it to 1800. Not that it mattered that much but it did help.

Yes, if the players want to stick to historical battalion sizes – most likely 150m hex slicing is the ultimate solution. Maybe one day….


Quote:
Fatigue accumulation is based on losses and fatigue hits. If you cut down on the amount of losses at close range you end up with the units lasting on the line LONGER than they did historically.

They do not last longer, because firstly, we introduced 150 default fatigue for all infantry units (225 for cavalry) and secondly as you noted, we reduced the morale.

Quote:
The entire issue comes down to the fact that players rarely pull a brigade out of the fight. It is not the system as much as how the units are being used.


With H&R settings players often will not have a choice but to pull out the brigade out of the fight. This is because if the brigade is struck hard, some units will get routed, some will get disordered, not too many will remain combat efficient and due to reduced command and leadership ratings leaders will not be able to cover all units (routed, disordered and still operational). What players are expected to do is to pull out brigades/regiments to rally and to reorganise and to replace them with the fresh ones. Rotation becomes a must. To facilitate and encourage this rotation we also increased the disordered movement costs ( further details on this are on page 20 of the PDF).

Quote:
I depart from agreeing with the rationale of the fire vs. melee. A melee in this series is a CLOSE QUARTER FIREFIGHT! Nothing more. An attempt to take the hex yes, but not an attack with muskets. This has been known for YEARS too. It is NOT a bayonet exercise.

We can only “pretend” it’s a “close quarter firefight”. Obviously, the intention was to design it as melee and that’s exactly how it is described in the manual, in game phases, PDT and not surprisingly this “event”, no matter how it’s called, has all the features and carries all the implications of melee [especially referring to the cavalry, the term “close quarter firefight” is a very questionable explanation and in game the “melee=close quarter firefight” logic is applied to cavalry and infantry in the same manner].

Quote:
They do not march the entire army off on turn 1. Try that out sometime. It works. You end up with a good solid reserve. And more of a tendency to think like the commanders of the period too.


This is the same problem as with house rules – it creates imaginary barriers which are not driven by game mechanics but are driven by artificial “goodwill”. From the engine perspective, the rational thing to do is to march the entire army and to engage the enemy along the whole front. Anyhow, this is only the part of the problem (H&R deals with it though reduced command ratings and radius) - the other main ones are on the smaller tactical level (high morale, too efficient command and control, density and melee).

_________________
General-Leytenant Alexey Tartyshev
Leib-Guard Preobrazhensky Regiment (Grenadier Drum)
1st Brigade
Guard Infantry Division
5th Guard Corps


(I don't play with with ZOC kills and Rout limiting ON)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 05, 2011 10:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 10:18 am
Posts: 6156
But I have read the PDF. Again, it is just plain wrong. Period. End of topic. Your game will result in massive routs most of the time. D rated infantry does not stand up to a morale test. Your men will be running more than 50 percent of the time. It is similar to playing the Union in the ACW series where you have piss poor troops.

Sorry, but you are wrong and are being Russo-phile at the same time with your comment about Cossacks. I thought that would come out sooner or later. I guess I am owed an apology as I DID read the PDF and you keep on saying that I have not. Your model is NOT accurate. I have seen first year Napoleonic players in miniatures come up with better rationale than this.

I have played with D rated infantry - no thank you. You can have your system. Enjoy trying to rally 20 battalions a turn. Oh sure, THAT is historical. Sheesh, get me out of here.

_________________
Image

Generalfeldmarschall Wilhelm Prinz Peters von Dennewitz

3. Husaren-Regiment, Reserve-Kavallerie, Preußischen Armee-Korps

Honarary CO of Garde-Ulanen Regiment, Garde-Grenadier Kavallerie

NWC Founding Member

For Club Games: I prefer the Single Phase mode of play. I prefer to play with the following options OFF:

MDF, VP4LC, NRO, MTD, CMR, PR, MIM, NDM, OMR (ver 4.07)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 05, 2011 3:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2001 10:57 am
Posts: 2197
Location: Canada
Bill Peters wrote:
But I have read the PDF. Again, it is just plain wrong. Period. End of topic. Your game will result in massive routs most of the time. D rated infantry does not stand up to a morale test. Your men will be running more than 50 percent of the time. It is similar to playing the Union in the ACW series where you have piss poor troops.

Sorry, but you are wrong and are being Russo-phile at the same time with your comment about Cossacks. I thought that would come out sooner or later. I guess I am owed an apology as I DID read the PDF and you keep on saying that I have not. Your model is NOT accurate. I have seen first year Napoleonic players in miniatures come up with better rationale than this.

I have played with D rated infantry - no thank you. You can have your system. Enjoy trying to rally 20 battalions a turn. Oh sure, THAT is historical. Sheesh, get me out of here.


Bill

The Russo-phile remark is a bit much I think. Lets keep a veruy interesting discussion pleasent, ok?

_________________
Monsieur le Maréchal John Corbin
GrandeDuc de Piave et Comte de Beauvais
Camp de Vétéran
La Grande Armée


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jan 09, 2011 6:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 10:18 am
Posts: 6156
The doc calls the Flank Morale Mod. unhistorical. Meanwhile, most every miniatures rules I have ever played gave you a bonus for having "friends" on your flank or the lack thereof when it came time for a morale test.

It also says that Rout Limiting needs to be off. Ok, normal basic morale being D in this settings project you tell me how long your units will last on the front line? About two turns before the entire enchilada heads for the rear.

_________________
Image

Generalfeldmarschall Wilhelm Prinz Peters von Dennewitz

3. Husaren-Regiment, Reserve-Kavallerie, Preußischen Armee-Korps

Honarary CO of Garde-Ulanen Regiment, Garde-Grenadier Kavallerie

NWC Founding Member

For Club Games: I prefer the Single Phase mode of play. I prefer to play with the following options OFF:

MDF, VP4LC, NRO, MTD, CMR, PR, MIM, NDM, OMR (ver 4.07)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 61 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
POWERED_BY
Localized by Maël Soucaze © 2010 phpBB.fr