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

[FierceKitty]

HI John I would normally agree. The issue I see is that rules do not deal with the drop in adrenaline that surely accompanies the thank F#$@k that's over moment. The desire to find wounded mates, limited or no ammunition availability, hunger, fouled muskets etc that accompany 6 or 8 hours of combat. Disordered units, a lack of officers to motivate activity are but some of the elements of friction that wear on engaged units.  Fresh units, which we gamers NEVER have just don't exist.

It's not all roses on the other side buy if they have formed units, some artillery and unengaged Cavalry to cover their movement they are invariably able to escape. 

We of course have no reason to keep any of that, so when the table situation reaches the I'm FUGGED stage is there any point to continuing?

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.

[Stewart.gibson]

I agree.  Most Napoleonic actions that come to ming usually cannot stay in contact because of a shortage of light Cavalry.  In contrast vary few battles end as did Waterloo did.  But being enveloped on two sides by superior forces after two days of rain and just having seen the Guard retreating led to disintegration of the French Army.

Vary many end with Napoleonic forces retiring behind an hastily assembled rear guard that is not pressed by the victor because, if we are to believe the commentator, there are insufficient fresh troops. Particularly Cavalry. 

No need for arbitrary draconian mechanisms.  Combat causes fatigue, fatigue causes friction, cold, wet, hungry, tired, shell shocked soldiers are really reluctant to seek additional combat, especially if they are short ammunition, have friends who are casualties and half their NCO"s and Officers are missing.

So the unit that normally activates might now activates on a 9 now activated on a 6, moral of the story, keep reserves!.  Sorry Sacriledge...

[Ithoriel]

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

[Stewart.gibson]

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

But who else's uniforms will be clean enough for the victory parade through (insert defeated enemies capitol city here)

[John Cook]

HI John I would normally agree. The issue I see is that rules do not deal with the drop in adrenaline that surely accompanies the thank F#$@k that's over moment. The desire to find wounded mates, limited or no ammunition availability, hunger, fouled muskets etc that accompany 6 or 8 hours of combat. Disordered units, a lack of officers to motivate activity are but some of the elements of friction that wear on engaged units.  Fresh units, which we gamers NEVER have just don't exist.

It's not all roses on the other side buy if they have formed units, some artillery and unengaged Cavalry to cover their movement they are invariably able to escape. 

We of course have no reason to keep any of that, so when the table situation reaches the I'm FUGGED stage is there any point to continuing?

I use computer moderated rules, and have done for a very long time.  The latest iteration of Computer Strategies games deals with most of the things you mention.  Ammunition supply, fatigue - gun crews just can't go on firing for hours at the same rates, one charge and it may take some time for a unit, particularly cavalry, to recover, units become less effective the longer they are in combat, officers are fundamental to the chain of command which has an effect if it is broken by them becoming casualties and so on.  In a campaign scenario it also deals with desertion, allows for some wounded to return to the colours after a battle, and so on. 
The players do not have to concern themselves with the mechanics of any this, though they need to be aware of it, because the computer deals with it leaving them to command.  I gave up dice in the mid-1980s, before Windows, and wouldn't return to 'steam' rules.
But, I agree there does come a time when there is little point in continuing a stand-alone game.  Not so in a campaign context though.
 

[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.

[Stewart.gibson]

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.

[Stewart.gibson]

-bd

[Stewart.gibson]

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.