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.
NWC
Login
FAQ
