Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

Mssrs.,

Although I thoroughly enjoy the current HPS games, Lt. Motko has raised a very valid point. It IS ridiculous that units can be continually on the march and yet suffer no consequences for it. Remember, our electronic soldiers aren't simply taking an extended hike, they are typically carrying 60-100 lbs of equipment on their backs between musket, ammo, food, etc.[B)] The 30 miles/day rate calculated by Mark is not, <i>per se</i> "unrealistic". The instances in which units marched such distances to battle, however, were noted as exceptional occurrences in contemporary accounts and only elite units accomplished such marches without becoming combat ineffective. The more normal rate of march was closer to 20 miles/day since it included stops to rest the soldiers every 3-4 hours.

The biggest recurring complaint about the "historical accuracy" of the game engine is that it facilitates "blitzkrieg" tactics. Well, a key factor in these lightning tactics is the fact that there are no adverse consequences to marching EVERY unit on EVERY turn. [:(!]Moreover, although it might be difficult to key the number of MPs available to a unit's fatigue level, adding fatigue points per hex moved should be fairly straightforward. Thus, the player can force march a unit for 8 hours (32 turns) if he wishes, but there will be a price paid for that continual movement. Alternatively, the player that periodically stops to rest his troops will be rewarded by having them arrive in a fresher condition[^].

Regards,

Paco

<i>Maréchal</i> M. Francisco Palomo
<i>Comte de Marseille
Duc d'Abrantes</i>

Can any of these ideas be implimented now via editing the pdt files ?

If so maybe we can play test this ...

Marechal John Corbin
Chief of Staff
La Grande Armee

Paco

The 30 miles / 24 hours is also based on no obstacles, (hills, streams, forests etc). These would all serve to reduce the distance covered.

The penalty for consistently moving at this rate is that the forces soon leave their supply behind and that could well be fatal if they make contact with the enemy.

I'm not sure what the standard march rate was, but the movement rate equates to only 1.5 miles / hour, so consider it a move of 2 miles an hour with a 15 minute rest every hour. The game only represents average movement for the units, if it allowed maximum movement with fatigue and the need for periods of non-movement to recover, we would have infantry units able to move 16 hexes in 15 minutes, (equivalent to 4 miles / hour). Then we would see blitzing on a scale that you can not imagine[:0] The solution to this would of course be to reduce the timescale down to 5 minute turns, the games would then take three times as long to play!

Regarding the game engine facilitating the movement of every unit on every turn, this is correct. But it is the player who decides to behave this way and is more to do with their tactics than the game. Even if they do move all their units, the pace of 1.5 miles / hour, (the same pace my elderly mother uses round the supermarket with a fully laden trolley), is not particulalry tiring. You may even consider that they moved for only half of the 15 minute period and rested (or fired) the rest.

In reality, the majority of troops spent a lot of the day standing under arms in formation, their involvement in the battle was limited to a relatively short, highly stressful period. No matter the extent of physical fatigue preceding that, I suspect that adrenaline would carry them through that period.

To try to sum up my thinking on this:-

Units using road movement can achieve 3 miles / hour and cover about 30 miles maximum in a 24 hour period. It's hard, but it can be done. They will be strung out along a road with their supplies falling behind at an alarming rate. An army corps of 30,000 men with artillery would be strung out along about 60-70 hexes. Requiring more than an hour for the tail to arrive with the head, and then more time to deploy. Its supplies would be falling behind by 1 hex for every 2 hexes moved forward. In moving this way, screening forces on the flanks of the road could not keep pace, leaving the formation vulnerable to ambush / attack. So, possible to do, but unwise in the presence of the enemy. Eventually the units will have to rest (one day for every 2 days marched at this rate) to allow their supplies to catch up, assuming the enemy have not captured them! So, yes this is all possible, and rightly so, but it is the player's choice to behave this way.

Movement off road is 1.5miles / hour on level, clear terrain. That is a slow walk. The men could have moved faster than this so this represents an average speed over many turns, including an allowance for rest, or time to shoot, (why can units that do not fire, not move further than units that do fire ? - that's another question though[:)]). This pace would not cause much fatigue and, even if it did consider that, if not firing, half the time must have been spent standing still or they would have moved much further!

So, overall I don't think that the game allows unrealistic movement of units, it is the way players choose to move their formations that is unrealistic.

Regards

Mark
VII Corps

Go on some errands for the day and see what happens. Gee whiz.

They way that I see it, Fatigue in our game is about <font color="orange">physical</font id="orange"> fatigue.

It is scientificly known that an individual walks at a 3 mph average speed and that is <u>without</u> carrying any burden, let alone 60-100 pounds. Yeah, its hard going to do 30 miles, but doing that for 3+ days without a rest and then fighting a pitched battle where you melee for your life a half dozen or more times? No way. It is unrealistic in the simplest sense.

Please don't forget that we're talking about men <u>and</u> horses here.

When training for endurance races (commonly 100 miles in length,) many times I would dismount and run along side my horse just to give it a break -especially down a hill. Here is a photo of someone jogging with his horse <u>at the finish line</u> for one race in the Arab Emirates.
http://www.endurance.net/worldcup2001/D ... Race38.jpg

Here is another photo appropriately entitled "Keeping the safety of the mount in mind..." See what he is doing?
http://www.endurance.net/worldcup2001/D ... Race39.jpg

Horses are magnificent creatures. They are beautiful, big, strong, and intelligent. <font color="orange"><b>They are not machines.</b></font id="orange"> Right now, without distance being tied to fatigue levels, we have our horses (and troops) <font color="orange"><b>literally</b></font id="orange"> acting like they are machines.

<font color="orange"><b>If that isn't <font color="red">Panzer Tactics,</font id="red"> then nothing is, IMHO.</b></font id="orange">

The suggestions that I've given in this thread are meant to only be constructive criticism with only the greatest of respect for JT and everyone else connected with the making of these games. I am deeply appreciative for these games. I cannot understate that fact. They've given me hours and hours of enjoyment. [:)]

Cheers,
Rick


<center>Lieutenant Rick Motko
1er Bataillon, 33° Régiment d'Infanterie de Ligne
2eme Brigade, 11eme division
IIIe corps, Armée du Nord</center>

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Le Tondu</i>
They way that I see it, Fatigue in our game is about <font color="orange">physical</font id="orange"> fatigue.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Maybe you see it that way, but go back to the manual for the BG games and you will see that Tiller intended it to represent psychological fatigue.

The mechanism for incurring fatigue is when you are shot at or take casualties. This is not particularly tiring, but it is frightening. Psychologically stressful.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It is scientificly known that an individual walks at a 3 mph average speed and that is <u>without</u> carrying any burden, let alone 60-100 pounds. Yeah, its hard going to do 30 miles, but doing that for 3+ days without a rest and then fighting a pitched battle where you melee for your life a half dozen or more times? No way. It is unrealistic in the simplest sense.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The 30 mile / day movement rate can only be attained by units moving on roads. As I have written, if they do this, which they can, they would arrive at the battle, run out of ammunition and be routed in short order. If they move at a rate whereby their supplies can keep up with them, they will be covering only a leisurely 15 miles / day.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Please don't forget that we're talking about men <u>and</u> horses here.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Thank you for your reminder, I had completely forgotten[:D]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">When training for endurance races (commonly 100 miles in length,) many times I would dismount and run along side my horse just to give it a break -especially down a hill. Here is a photo of someone jogging with his horse <u>at the finish line</u> for one race in the Arab Emirates.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

This is a race though. We are not talking about a race. The cavalry would be able to match the pace set by the infantry by leading their mounts all the way.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Horses are magnificent creatures. They are beautiful, big, strong, and intelligent. <font color="orange"><b>They are not machines.</b></font id="orange"> Right now, without distance being tied to fatigue levels, we have our horses (and troops) <font color="orange"><b>literally</b></font id="orange">acting like they are machines.

<font color="orange"><b>If that isn't <font color="red">Panzer Tactics,</font id="red"> then nothing is, IMHO.</b></font id="orange"><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Not that it's of any relevance to the issue we are discussing, but I see this 78 mile race took the winner 6 and a quarter hours. An average rate of about 12 miles an hour, for an unencumbered horse, bred for this purpose, in temperatures up to 35 celcius. What I am referring to is a maximum road movement rate of 3 miles an hour, that allows the cavalry to cover a distance of 30 miles in a 24 hour period. That is not going to over-exert the horses, bred for this purpose. This pace could be attained leading the horses at a walk most of the way. So please don't give me anymore of that treating horses as machines crap.

I don't understand how you consider movement of men and horses at rates that they are capable of to be Panzer tactics? Panzer tactics are actions like the use of road movement on a battlefield in the direct face of the enemy when, in a turn based game, this enables you to out-manoeuvre your opponent by using movements (that would never have been performed on a Napoleonic battlefield) just because your opponent can not respond.


Regards

Mark
VII Corps

Oh Mark. You really should read your User's Manual for the game. Here is the definition of Fatigue that is clearly available:

<font color="orange"><font size="4"><b>"Fatigue refers to the detrimental effects combat has on the physical condition of the fighting units."</b></font id="size4"></font id="orange">

Note the word "physical."

So, now we have problem. Combat is the only thing that can tire our units and movement does not, even though the <font color="orange">lack of movement</font id="orange"> facilitates the recovery of Fatigue. What's up with that?

I say that we have movement rates that are unrealistic because they're not tied to Fatigue. This is especially true when our units are continually used like we can use them in these games. They give us the ability to go beyond what is possible for horse or human when you consider that they fight one or more set-piece battles on top of moving some very long distances.

It causes all of us to use our units like they're machines, --which <b><font color="red">is nothing but panzer tactics, IMHO.</font id="red"> </b>

1. It is clearly a <u>tactic</u> (quoting you, now) <font color="orange"><b>"that would never have been performed on a Napoleonic battlefield." </b></font id="orange"> Just because both sides have it available, doesn't make it any less important an issue.

<font color="yellow">There. I've just <u><b>expanded</b></u> on the definition. </font id="yellow">

Panzers (or tanks, or any other machine) usually operate (like people and horses) until they break down due to the lack of maintenance.

I can clearly see that you've never owned or cared for a horse for any extended period of time. What you call "crap" only highlights that fact. A rider has a similar goal whether he is participating in an endurance event or campaigning during the Napoleonic Era. It is to be able to use the horse again. Who knows how long a campaign will last? This same rider certainly would want his horse to carry him to safety should the battle or campaign go bad. So you see, it was in the rider's best interests to make sure his horse was always in a useable condition and not ridden to harm or death. (BTW, lame horses don't take you very far either.)

Sure, some riders did harm their horses. They usually did that in order to shirk away from having to participate in combat. They wanted to be sent to the rear and our games were never intended to model that.

Regards,
Rick



<center>Lieutenant Rick Motko
1er Bataillon, 33° Régiment d'Infanterie de Ligne
2eme Brigade, 11eme division
IIIe corps, Armée du Nord</center>

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Le Tondu</i>
<br />Oh Mark. You really should read your User's Manual for the game. Here is the definition of Fatigue that is clearly available:

<font color="orange"><font size="4"><b>"Fatigue refers to the detrimental effects combat has on the physical condition of the fighting units."</b></font id="size4"></font id="orange">

Note the word "physical."<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

This will be my last post on this subject as we are obviously not going to agree on this point. I am posting only to correct a couple of omissions you appear to have inadvertantly made.

The full quote form the manual (npb help file) should be as follows:-

<i>Fatigue refers to the detrimental effects combat has on the physical condition of the fighting units. This does not refer however to the state of being winded from physical exertion but rather the longer term effects of combat fatigue.</i>

If you then follow the link to the design notes you find:-

<i>Why does it take so long for units to recover from Fatigue? In the Battlegroundä games, Fatigue is used to represent combat fatigue, not the physical state of being winded. As such, the physical effects of combat fatigue are felt long term and do not wear off through simple rest. In many Napoleonic battles, the end of the battle was determined by fatigue and not by losses. In larger battles, commanders had to be careful to rotate their fighting units and not commit any one force too long to battle. Having higher Fatigue recovery rates would permit the unrealistic ability for commanders to rest units for short periods of time and then recommit them to battle, something that was not common historically.</i>

I accept that Tiller uses the word physical in his description which may cause some confusion. He does however, make it clear that he is not talking about being winded, a fatigue arising from over-exertion. What he is talking about is combat fatigue, and that, for me, is psychological stress for want of a better name.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">So, now we have problem. Combat is the only thing that can tire our units and movement does not, even though the <font color="orange">lack of movement</font id="orange"> facilitates the recovery of Fatigue. What's up with that?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

As above, the units Fatigue is not affected by movement, because Fatigue is a measure of combat fatigue rather than wind.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I say that we have movement rates that are unrealistic because they're not tied to Fatigue. This is especially true when our units are continually used like we can use them in these games. They give us the ability to go beyond what is possible for horse or human when you consider that they fight one or more set-piece battles on top of moving some very long distances. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

There is an element of unreality in the movement, because it is designed to average out over a 24 hour period. If you introduce actual movement rates and resting over night, you will have infantry battalions able to move 14 hexes, (not 14 movement points, but 14 hexes), in a 15 minute turn on the battlefield at the <i>pas de manoeuvre</i> or <i>pas de charge</i> of 120 paces / minute. This would be even worse than the 12 hex maximum used on road hexes at the moment.

On the move these formations moved at a set rate, uphill and down dale. The movement penalty for going uphill for example, does not mean that it took longer since the pace is maintained. The penalty therefore must reflect that the unit, having exerted itself in this movement, was unable to move as far that turn due to physical fatigue. So, for me, the effects of physical fatigue are built into the movement penalties for the units. [As an aside, why does a unit not suffer a movement penalty for going uphill just because it is on a road?].

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It causes all of us to use our units like they're machines, --which <b><font color="red">is nothing but panzer tactics, IMHO.</font id="red"> </b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I understand your point but can not accept it in a game with a turn based on a 15 minute time-scale. A unit moving at 3 miles an hour could move 12 hexes (not movement points, but hexes) in 15 minutes. Instead they move about 6 cross country, on the flat. So, for 50% of the time they are effectively imobile. At night, it's an even greater period of imobility. If you introduce a new category for recovery from physical exertion, as I stated above, you will have units during the limited day time able to make moves of more than twice the distance that they currently can. In a U-GO, I-GO game format that just doesn't work. Trust me, change a pdt file to give these movement rates and see what happnes. You will find that you are obliged to reduce the duration of the game turn and that will need changes to the fire tables, fatigue recovery rates and so on.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">1. It is clearly a <u>tactic</u> (quoting you, now) <font color="orange"><b>"that would never have been performed on a Napoleonic battlefield." </b></font id="orange"> Just because both sides have it available, doesn't make it any less important an issue.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

If quoting, please include the full quote to ensure that the context is maintained. This would be more helpful than the selection of colours. What I wrote was:-

Panzer tactics are actions like the use of road movement on a battlefield in the direct face of the enemy when, in a turn based game, this enables you to out-manoeuvre your opponent by using movements (that would never have been performed on a Napoleonic battlefield) just because your opponent can not respond.

There was no full stop after battlefield. I am refering to when both armies are arrayed against each other. One side then uses road movement to race around a flank to encircle the enemy, with the enemy unable to respond because of the turn based system. I have no problem with formations moving at this rate if not in the presence of the enemy, in doing so, they run the risk of being caught strung out along the road and if that's not disincentive enough, nothing is.

If the game was adapted by introduction of a further element for physical fatigue, tiredness for clarity, (which I would have found a welcome addition to the HPS engine, but would have required major re-engineering for some of the reasons previously indicated), units would be able to move futher cross-country in a Turn, than they currently can using road movement.

And that would be to introduce the ability to blitz on a scale that exponents of those tactics had only dreamed of previously.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> <font color="yellow">There. I've just <u><b>expanded</b></u> on the definition. </font id="yellow"><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

What are you on about? What definition?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Panzers (or tanks, or any other machine) usually operate (like people and horses) until they break down due to the lack of maintenance.

I can clearly see that you've never owned or cared for a horse for any extended period of time. What you call "crap" only highlights that fact. A rider has a similar goal whether he is participating in an endurance event or campaigning during the Napoleonic Era. It is to be able to use the horse again. Who knows how long a campaign will last? This same rider certainly would want his horse to carry him to safety should the battle or campaign go bad. So you see, it was in the rider's best interests to make sure his horse was always in a useable condition and not ridden to harm or death. (BTW, lame horses don't take you very far either.)

Sure, some riders did harm their horses. They usually did that in order to shirk away from having to participate in combat. They wanted to be sent to the rear and our games were never intended to model that.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

You misunderstood what I was calling crap. It was not that horses (and men) do not require rest. It was the insinuation that I was considering them to be automatons. As I describe below, the game models movement for a 24 hour period averaged over a number of turns. If you build in night / rest periods to the current engine without a major over-haul, you will end up with units being able to move far further in a 15 minute turn than they currently can - and that would not be a good thing for playability.

You are half right. I have never cared to own a horse; cars though, I have had my share. I think I get the general idea with a horse though: fodder in one end, horse-**** out the other; shoes for certain terrain and a hammer or musket to the head when it is no longer any good.

You look after your horse as best you can in the circumstances you find yourself in and, as you say, the game does not model this, (anymore than it does a brigade commander contracting the Kathmandu quick-step).

But I still can not accept that a cavalry formation could not cover 30 miles in 24 hours on the road, or 15 miles in the same period, across country on the flat. The road distance would have been made in 10 hours of the 24 at a walk rate of 3 miles an hour, leaving 14 hours of the day for looking after the horses, sleeping, resting etc. The game models this by allowing units to move this distance in 24 hours of turns rather than constricting it to 10. Once you start constricting the time you find that the units movement rate increases dramatically to enable them to cover the distances they could really cover in that time, rather than the averaged out distance for a 24 hour period.

As another example of units moving on the march, consider the army corps of the 1805 Grand Armee. These corps turned from the coast to the Rhine and averaged more than 20 miles a day. They did not leave their supply train behind them. The BG game models this as a road move of about 15 miles in a 24 hour period, (with supplies keeping pace), which is somewhat less than they achieved, increasing the infantry to a rate of 30 miles in a 24 hour period, could be sustained for a couple of days with then a days rest for the supplies to catch up. It's not perfect but it's a good enough simulation for me. The alternative prospect of battalions moving around my flank at 16 hexes / turn is an absolute non-starter as far as I am concerned.

I accept that I am unlikely to affect your view of what fatigue represents but I wante dto make clear my position and clarify your abridged quotes which I believe mis-represented my position and statements on the subject.

Regards

Mark
VII Corps

I think you made some excellent points, Mark, especially regarding the night turns. I always only thought of them as increased turn duration and it never occurred to me that by the same token they also represent drastically reduced movement. [:)]

As I said below, I appreciate that the design notes describe fatigue only as "combat fatigue", but I still think that JT himself has not been consistent in this, as is evident from scenarios where a column that has marched all night (but not fought) starts with heavy fatigue. I think there is a point where quantity becomes different quality, i.e. *very heavy* physical exhaustion can turn into a sort of stress that approaches the way in which being under fire makes a unit increasingly incapable of a standard combat performance.

<center>Général de Division D.S. "Green Horse" Walter
Baron d'Empire, Duc des Pyramides
Commandant de la [url="http://home.arcor.de/dierk_Walter/NWC/3_VI_AdR_Home.htm"]3ème Division[/url], VIème Corps Bavarois, L'Armée du Rhin
Commandant l'Ecole de Mars, L'Armée du Rhin
Commandant de la Brigade de Tirailleurs de la Jeune Garde
</center>

Mssrs.,

Let me first note that this has been a VERY interesting discussion and I would hate to see it spoiled by people getting hot under the collar[:)]. Mark and Rick have both raised very valid points. My hope is that, if a consensus can be reached, JT could be persuaded to implement the necessary changes.

Turning to the issue at hand, yes, "fatigue" within the context of the original BG games referred to the cumulative effect of being in action, not physical fatigue per se. Given that ALL of the BG games dealt solely with single-day battles, there was no pressing need to address the physical impact on the troops of extended marches. The much larger scenarios of the HPS series raised, for the first time, the possible need to address this issue. Unfortunately this, along with many other suggested changes[:(], were left "on the floor of the cutting room", so to speak. As has been noted elsewhere, revisions to the Napoleonic game engine is not high on John Tiller's agenda. John does respond, however, when a general consensus is reached on a given issue, hence the value of these types of discussions. The fact that <b>physical</b> fatigue has hitherto not been factored into the game's programming does not, of itself, answer the question of whether it <b>should</b>[:D].

Within the context of a one day battle, Mark is correct in stating that the typical march rate for infantry in the HPS games, roughly 30 miles/day, does not require superhuman effort. The problem lies in the application of this march rate to extended, "super" scenarios, such as Bill Peters' monster, 500 turn Eckmuhl Campaign scenario. Everything from the "accordion" effect to the need to forage conspires against the continuous, rapid movement of a column of troops over extended distances.[B)] Hence, Chandler notes that "under more or less normal conditions [Napoleon] expected them to cover only an average of between 10 and 12 miles a day." <u>The Campaigns of Napoleon</u>, p. 149. The epic marches of 30+ miles were reserved solely for the immediate run-up to a battle, such as Friant's march to Austerlitz or Augereau's march to Castiglione. <i>Id.</i> The fact that elite divisions can, at a critical junction, march 30+ miles/day should not set the bar for entire corps, let alone militia units.

This, of course, begs the question of how to implement such a change. Perhaps a minimal "fatigue cost" of 0.25 per hex moved, would be workable. After an entire day's march, the unit would still be in a "low fatigue" state, but multi-day marches would render the units ineffective unless it rested, specially at night when fatigue recovery rates are highest.

Regards,

Paco



<i>Maréchal</i> M. Francisco Palomo
<i>Comte de Marseille
Duc d'Abrantes</i>

Well, I certainly can agree that we disagree Mark. No problem there for me. [:)]

Paco,
Excellent idea about the 0.25 increment per hex to fatigue levels for movement.

Thank you.
Rick


<center>Lieutenant Rick Motko
1er Bataillon, 33° Régiment d'Infanterie de Ligne
2eme Brigade, 11eme division
IIIe corps, Armée du Nord</center>

I havent had time to read ALL of the text here so if I miss something please let me know:

I advocate the following for our current system:

1. Add in an effectivness rating and a mental readiness rating (you figure out the name for the latter).

2. Fatigue would now become the physical fatigue. It would increase as you moved, fired or took part in melees.

3. Mental readiness would be a value that would increase as you took losses or drew near the enemy. The higher the lesser your unit's condition.

4. Effectiveness would be a cumulative value that would take into consideration your:
a. Mental readiness
b. Morale rating
c. Fatigue
d. Strength

Add in that I would like a Training grade too and you have a new game engine more than likely.

Now as to what we can do with what we have ... it would be nice to see fatigue increase with NIGHT movement at least. I also would like to see:

Fatigue increases:
a. 1/3 movement points used - 5 point
b. >1/3 to 2/3 MPs used - 8 points
c. >2/3 to Full MPs used - 16 points
(double for full movement as this simulates the concept of total movement/exertion using up alot more energy - 2/3 movement allows for a short break during the move)
d. 5 points when you fire (not for defensive fire)
e. Usual fatigue increase for Melees would remain as is.

4x the above for night turns (as each turn is an hour)

And these are just fudge numbers in the above.

Basically instead of asking John to base the night fatigue off the TYPE of turn (day, dawn, dusk, night) he would use the turn number length (15,60) so that designers could use 20 minute turns for day or 30 minute turns for night if they liked. Thus a 30 minute night move would have 2x the amount of fatigue loss than a 15 minute move.

This is just discussion at this point and its not something I have sent off to John. Got too many things off to him at this point as it stands.

Oberst Wilhelm Peters
2nd Kuirassiers, Reserve Korps, Austrian Army

Bill, I'd recommend looking back at how Age of Rifles handles movement & fatigue before bringing this subject to John's attention.

Apart from the issue of movement & fatigue, this old (1996) also has a number of other useful features that could be incorporated into the HPS engine - for instance, more formations (eg. march & attack columns, etc), dragoon type cavalry, troops trampling down corn fields and guns battering village hexes into rubble, etc.

Capt Rich White
4th Cavalry Brigade
Cavalry Corps
Anglo-Allied Army

In HPS Pz Campaign, the movement rates are addressed pretty well!
The movement rates of different types of units is effected by it's quality. As soon as something effects the quality of a unit (low amno, fatigue, etc.), the movement rates drops accordingly.

But again, the way for a unit to recover it's original quality rating (by recovering from fatigue, get supply etc.) would still be a problem to many players...[V]

just my two centimes... [^]

[url="mailto:pyguinard@hotmail.com"]Chef de Bataillon Py Guinard[/url],
6e Division, II Corp
AdN

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Voltigeur</i>
<br />In HPS Pz Campaign, the movement rates are addressed pretty well!
The movement rates of different types of units is effected by it's quality. As soon as something effects the quality of a unit (low amno, fatigue, etc.), the movement rates drops accordingly.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I don't think that's true, other than for low fuel.

<center>Général de Division D.S. "Green Horse" Walter
Baron d'Empire, Duc des Pyramides
Commandant de la [url="http://home.arcor.de/dierk_Walter/NWC/3_VI_AdR_Home.htm"]3ème Division[/url], VIème Corps Bavarois, L'Armée du Rhin
Commandant l'Ecole de Mars, L'Armée du Rhin
Commandant de la Brigade de Tirailleurs de la Jeune Garde
</center>

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Bill Peters</i>
<br />I havent had time to read ALL of the text here so if I miss something please let me know:.........................

Now as to what we can do with what we have ... it would be nice to see fatigue increase with NIGHT movement at least. I also would like to see:

Fatigue increases:
a. 1/3 movement points used - 5 point
b. >1/3 to 2/3 MPs used - 8 points
c. >2/3 to Full MPs used - 16 points
(double for full movement as this simulates the concept of total movement/exertion using up alot more energy - 2/3 movement allows for a short break during the move)
d. 5 points when you fire (not for defensive fire)
e. Usual fatigue increase for Melees would remain as is.

4x the above for night turns (as each turn is an hour)

And these are just fudge numbers in the above.

Basically instead of asking John to base the night fatigue off the TYPE of turn (day, dawn, dusk, night) he would use the turn number length (15,60) so that designers could use 20 minute turns for day or 30 minute turns for night if they liked. Thus a 30 minute night move would have 2x the amount of fatigue loss than a 15 minute move.

This is just discussion at this point and its not something I have sent off to John. Got too many things off to him at this point as it stands.

Oberst Wilhelm Peters
2nd Kuirassiers, Reserve Korps, Austrian Army

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I have nothing against making our combat model more dynamic. Training quality is a nice idea.

Aren't we making things just a little complicated? Different increases for 1/3, 2/3, full movement.....

I can see that players will want to move <font color="orange">one hex less</font id="orange"> than their full movement so as to on incur the "full" increase and only get a 2/3 level increase.

Why not just use a system where a fatigue amount is added per hex? Say .25 or .5 or .75 or 1.0 increase of fatigue each and every hex. Definitely double or quadruple it for night. This way, if you move, you pay for it --like in real life. The firing increase should be there for offensive and defensive firing. Maybe 1 or 2 points for that.

I do however think that some of the increases that Bill has given seem a little high. Standing still and firing a weapon doesn't seem the same as walking 300+ meters in terms of fatigue.

Yet, if we have to use Bill's type of system, these are the amounts that I would suggest (if it was agreed upon that the original numbers seemed too high):
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Fatigue increases:
a. 1/3 movement points used - <font color="orange">3 points</font id="orange">
b. >1/3 to 2/3 MPs used - <font color="orange">5 points</font id="orange">
c. >2/3 to Full MPs used - <font color="orange">10 points</font id="orange">
(double for full movement as this simulates the concept of total movement/exertion using up alot more energy - 2/3 movement allows for a short break during the move)
d. <font color="orange">1</font id="orange"> point when firing offensively <font color="orange">or defensively.</font id="orange">
e. Usual fatigue increase for Melees would remain as is.

<font color="orange">2x or 3x</font id="orange"> the above for movement during night turns.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I wonder. Will having too high a fatigue increase for movement really slow down our games?

I also think that we ought to keep the 15 minute daytime turns. Changing the time aspect of the AI's calculations might throw everything else off. Don't you think?

Wow. It really looks like we're moving in a good direction. Thanks Bill.

Cheers,
Rick

<center>Lieutenant Rick Motko
1er Bataillon, 33° Régiment d'Infanterie de Ligne
2eme Brigade, 11eme division
IIIe corps, Armée du Nord</center>