Does it matter if we don't finish the game?

[John Cook]

Depends on when and where, surely? A retreat in horse and musket battles seldom got cut up as badly as one might expect, whereas one retreating from a light cavalry steppe army might get away with 10% of its men if the commanders were skilled and lucky.

True enough, even with decisive battles such as Jena, or Waterloo (yawn), parts of the defeated army, though disorganised, retreat without being utterly destroyed, even if there is a vigorous pursuit.  I only go back as far as the medieval but defeated armies seem to come out of it far less well.  Not sure why but I suppose it might be something to do with the nature of combat - more hand to hand.

[steve_holmes_11]

Always have a reserve but don't save it for a future your army no longer has!

I seem to spend a lot of time griping about rules here.

Keeping a reserve seems like good practice in real battles.
An awful lot of established rules are organised to make it impractical:
 * Convoluted interpenetration rules - preventing them reaching the action.
 * Army morale - they have to retreat once the main body is 4 elements down.
 * Rules designed for long lines and anchored flanks.

[Shapur II]

Not so in a campaign context though.

The Campaign context is quite critical.   Hard to do effectively because most campaigns I have been involved in end up with all of the units at one place and facing one large battle for all the marbles, Lines of Communications be damned.

I'm not sure I agree that armies did not suffer large losses post battle in the Napoleonic Era. Statschen Pond, at Austerlitz or the Crossing of the Berezina They may not have been ridden down and massacred as the might have been 300 years earlier but they certainly deserted the colours in droves and were not present for duty.  If troops are pursued and unable to rejoin their units they just disappear. If they are not, for whatever reason, their officers regain control and they are available to fight the next day. 

In 1809 the same Austrian, French and Bavarian, regiments were in action day after day with the Austrians giving ground each day, retreating in good order and the French/Bavarians often unable to pursue. 

Post ligny, a well managed aggressive pursuit by Grouchy should have prevented the Prussians from reinforcing Wellington.  Poor reconnaissance and superb staff work by the Prussians enabled the Prussians to fight at Waterloo. The fact that Grouchy/Soult/Exelmens lost touch with the Prussian army and could not determine their line of march was a critical factor.  Once that critical Cavalry task went unfulfilled the rest is history.

Many battles contain the codicil that there was nothing available to pursue the defeated force.  Even when there was, a well organized and determined rear guard could protect the defeated army.  As with Sir John Moore's retreat to Corunna.

[FierceKitty]

Most Napoleonic actions that come to Ming....

Corrected the capitalisation so as not to provoke the Chinese. The free world can probably beat Russia or China, but both together? Not even Napoleon.

[FierceKitty]

The best-managed retreat in history must be Ieyasu's after his defeat at Mikata-ga-Hara.

[Shapur II]

-bd

[Shapur II]

Corrected the capitalisation so as not to provoke the Chinese

Corrected the capitalisation so as not to provoke the Chinese

Keeping a reserve seems like good practice in real battles.
An awful lot of established rules are organised to make it impractical:
 * Convoluted interpenetration rules - preventing them reaching the action.
 * Army morale - they have to retreat once the main body is 4 elements down.
 * Rules designed for long lines and anchored flanks.

I agree fully.  Most rules do not reflect the napoleonic battlefield at all.  By and large, especially of late, they are vehicles to sell miniatures.  Thus they are aimed to put as many miniatures on your painting table as is humanly possible.  You will note the distinction between painting table and game table.

This is my soap box too.

So units are always deployed in columns, just so there is enough room for all of them.  Movement has to work so everything is made as loose as possible to enable all the units to attack on frontages that would have been suicide.  Ask the Imperial Guard advancing on the British at Waterloo in closed column of companies or columns of divisions.  I cannot find the reference right now but I understand that the columns were  formed without intervals instead of the normal half or full company intervals. No way that formation could maneuver or defend itself once it came under fire. I suspect the intent was to scare the British.  I'm sure all they saw was a massed target.

I think we aim too high when it comes to playing with our toys.  But we are here to have fun so is people are happy go for it.  But Im not satisfied by what is on offer.  I'm looking far lower down the chain of command to create my battles.

Stu

[steve_holmes_11]

Corrected the capitalisation so as not to provoke the Chinese. The free world can probably beat Russia or China, but both together? Not even Napoleon.

If my history's correct, Napoleon couldn't beat one of the pair.

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

If my history's correct, Napoleon couldn't beat one of the pair.

Mine would appear to agree.

[FierceKitty]

If my history's correct, Napoleon couldn't beat one of the pair.

True, but he'd have a lot of allies against those ones by now.

[Chris Pringle]

If my history's correct, Napoleon couldn't beat one of the pair.

That's odd. This website
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Fourth_Coalition
mentions a War of the Fourth Coalition in which Russia has Prussia, England and others on its side, yet at the end of which a beaten Russia sues for peace, signs the Treaty of Tilsit, joins Napoleon's Continental System and engages in hostilities against Perfidious Albion. Just goes to show you can't trust Wikipedia.

[John Cook]

I agree fully.  Most rules do not reflect the napoleonic battlefield at all.  By and large, especially of late, they are vehicles to sell miniatures.  Thus they are aimed to put as many miniatures on your painting table as is humanly possible.  You will note the distinction between painting table and game table.

This is my soap box too.

So units are always deployed in columns, just so there is enough room for all of them.  Movement has to work so everything is made as loose as possible to enable all the units to attack on frontages that would have been suicide.  Ask the Imperial Guard advancing on the British at Waterloo in closed column of companies or columns of divisions.  I cannot find the reference right now but I understand that the columns were  formed without intervals instead of the normal half or full company intervals. No way that formation could maneuver or defend itself once it came under fire. I suspect the intent was to scare the British.  I'm sure all they saw was a massed target.

I think we aim too high when it comes to playing with our toys.  But we are here to have fun so is people are happy go for it.  But Im not satisfied by what is on offer.  I'm looking far lower down the chain of command to create my battles.

Stu

Well, even the best rules can't make a wargamer clever.  The fault here, it seems to me, is not so much the rules as the people using them. 

[John Cook]

I seem to spend a lot of time griping about rules here.

Keeping a reserve seems like good practice in real battles.
An awful lot of established rules are organised to make it impractical:
 * Convoluted interpenetration rules - preventing them reaching the action.
 * Army morale - they have to retreat once the main body is 4 elements down.
 * Rules designed for long lines and anchored flanks.

Can't comment on the rule you allude to but Room 101 would seem the best place for them.

[Shapur II]

The fault here, it seems to me, is not so much the rules as the people using them. 

Quite a sweeping statement. 

Personally I prefer rules that lead a player to learn and use correct tactics.  Not mandating them.  But most rules do not.  We have already heard statements about problems with interpenetrations and other tactical issues that could be solved by utilizing better mechanics. Typically that would mean recognizing that interpenetration under fire was well nigh impossible unless gaps were left between formations.  Thus needing more table space or fewer troops.

Playing a game to satisfy the whims of a computer program to reach the right precisely calculated odds sounds too much like a hex and counter board game where finding an attack factor to get to the optimal 3-1 attack is paramount. Fine for those who like that, but not my cup of tea. 



.

[T13A]

Hi

In my experience of playing computer moderated wargames (mainly Carnage and Glory, ECW, SYW, Napoleonics and ACW for around 30 years) they seem to work best when decisions (on the table top) are based on what (I think) happens on a real battlefield and the tactics of the time. Precisely beacuase they take into account thing like fatigue, ammunition supply etc. the kind of thing most paper based rules do not take into account but real commanders do. I'm probably not expressing this very well, but I find I am not 'playing the rules' or trying to understand what the computer is doing.

Cheers Paul

[John Cook]

Quite a sweeping statement. 

Personally I prefer rules that lead a player to learn and use correct tactics.  Not mandating them.  But most rules do not.  We have already heard statements about problems with interpenetrations and other tactical issues that could be solved by utilizing better mechanics. Typically that would mean recognizing that interpenetration under fire was well nigh impossible unless gaps were left between formations.  Thus needing more table space or fewer troops.

Playing a game to satisfy the whims of a computer program to reach the right precisely calculated odds sounds too much like a hex and counter board game where finding an attack factor to get to the optimal 3-1 attack is paramount. Fine for those who like that, but not my cup of tea.   

Not really.  It was quite specific in response to your complaint that "most rules do not reflect the Napoleonic battlefield".   I agree entirely about rules encouraging people to use the right tactics.    But which rules force people to cram an unrealistic number of units on a table that is too small to accommodate them?  That, it seems to me, is a matter of choice rather than anything else.  As far as computer moderated rules are concerned I seriously doubt that any computer program operates on a whim and what you describe is certainly not my experience, at all.  I wouldn't use them if it was.  They remove the overly inconsistent outcomes that are the bane of dice, which aren't a tool for gambling for nothing, onerous consultation of tables and reference to arcane procedures.  But, the rules one uses is not mandatory.

[John Cook]

Hi

In my experience of playing computer moderated wargames (mainly Carnage and Glory, ECW, SYW, Napoleonics and ACW for around 30 years) they seem to work best when decisions (on the table top) are based on what (I think) happens on a real battlefield and the tactics of the time. Precisely beacuase they take into account thing like fatigue, ammunition supply etc. the kind of thing most paper based rules do not take into account but real commanders do. I'm probably not expressing this very well, but I find I am not 'playing the rules' or trying to understand what the computer is doing.

Cheers Paul

I understand what you are driving at.  I think you mean that they allow you to concentrate on 'commanding'. The only down-side to computer rules is that somebody has to operate the computer and input the command decisions but with the advent of tablets with touch screens this is much less of an issue.  But as I get older I'm quite happy to sit anyway and in my small group of a couple of like-minded friends, it has never been the issue it is for some.   

[Shapur II]

A brief read of scenarios provided with rules like black powder suggests that playable battles can be played by two people on a 4x6 table with anywhere between 35 and 95 standard sized units.  Yes you are correct people could choose to play the 35 unit scenario but by and large we try to play Waterloo. 

Thé Plancenoit scénario calls for 78 standard sized units on a 4 foot front.  Obviously far too many.  That is typical of what I'm finding so I do find that is a trend.


No doubt the old school, to many modifiers paradigm is tedious as are buckets of dice.  That does not mean that computers are the solution.  After all they are the embodiment of the beliefs of the algorithm writers, often opaque to the user and once learned usually quite predictable and manipulatable.  So by whims you are correct, not of the software, it is after all simply a data manipulation and storage tool. More correctly the whims of the designer(s) Are there full designers notes?

I think if we change the scope of the action we make additional tools available to us that with some creative measure can result in new paradigms.  Am I the guy with the smrt's to do that, doubt it, but I am looking to start the conversation.

[John Cook]

....... are based on what (I think) happens ........

What I also meant to say was that you are spot on.  It is all about our perceptions.  It is our perceptions that make rules acceptable to us, or not, and there really is no possibility that any of us really perceive what Medieval/17th Century/Napoleonic warfare etc was like. 

[John Cook]

A brief read of scenarios provided with rules like black powder .......

I'm not familiar with Black Powder so, obviously, I can't comment except to say that the suggestion for Placenoit seems ludicrous to me but would it not be affected by the size of the figures used, for example it might well be possible with 2mm or 6mm figures but not with 28mm.  But I don't really see the need for spoon-feeding scenarios anyway.  I also don't like armies constructed around points and prefer to think for myself in the context of scenarios.  Similarly I don't like standard sized units – there's no such thing and, while were on the subject of dislikes, I dislike Waterloo intensely for all kinds of reasons, not least because it is an atypically Napoleonic battle, in my view.

But, returning to computer moderated wargaming, and not because I'm on a crusade to convert people but because you ask. 

They are only the solution if they meet the players perception of warfare in the period concerned and, of course, they do not suit everybody.  The two most popular, indeed the only ones I know of are Carnage and Glory and Computer Strategies.  The ones I'm really familiar with are Computer Strategies.  I like them because they allow the player to either accept the defaults or tailor them to suit their own preferences.  But, they have no influence on the player's generalship.  The players' are at complete liberty to make fools of themselves and competence is their own responsibility.  If you want to cram 78 units on a 4ft front you can, but, on the whole, you will be rewarded if you are sensible. 
 
The 'whims' of the designer are no less apparent than the whims of the designers of conventional paper rules and, yes, they do have user documentation, more comprehensive than some paper rules I've seen.  There are 73 pages of them, downloadable if you want to, with diagrams, explanations and rationale for the Battle (tactical) Module to Iron Duke (Computer Strategies' Napoleonic program) alone.  There is further user documentation for the Grand Tactical Module (wargaming at formation level), Naval Module, Campaign Module and Solo Module.  Far from constraining the gamer, they are far more dynamic than any paper rules I know, which I concede is not many these days.