Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

While fatigue for forced marching would certainly be a useful addition to the game engine - especially with the large maps that we now have - the treatment of fatigue has always been more sophisticated (even in the BG games) than the way that disruption is handled.

The straightforward and rather simplistic system in which a unit is either in good order or disordered could surely be improved upon?

Also the fact that disrupted units have their movement reduced by 1/2 doesn't really make a lot of sense, especially when the troops are attempting to get away from the enemy.

So, I'd strongly recommend that disruption should only have an impact on combat effectiveness, not on movement. Instead, perhaps highly fatigued units should have their movement allowance cut by 1/2 and medium fatigued units by 1/3. Units at max fatigue could have movement reduced to 1/3 normal rate.

Also, I'd suggest a disruption system on a scale of 0-9 (or maybe 0-99 would be better), so that the more disrupted a unit becomes, the less effective it becomes in combat. Perhaps a unit reaching max disruption should automatically rout?

Every time a unit gets shot at or meleed it would become more disrupted. Movement would continue to have some chance of causing disruption, especially in difficult terrain, but with a graded system of disruption this would be less severe than with the current <i></i>line movement disruption<i></i> optional rule. Forced marching would be liable to cause disruption as well as fatigue and there should also be a chance of losing stragglers.

Although movement would no longer be reduced by 50% for disrupted units, a disrupted unit could use up part of its movement allowance attempting to recover from disruption - automatic if more than 5 hexes from the enemy or out of LOS, but still possible to attempt if near the enemy. Units stacked with a leader would have a greater chance of recovering from disruption.

Revising the disruption system would make a significant improvement to the game engine and would penalize forced marching and encourage players to rest their troops more and move them back out of the front line when they start to become brittle due to accumulating fatigue & disruption.

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

Rich, just thinking off the top of my head, and I'd want to think about the ideas more before I endorsed them, but how about keeping the movement penalties for units <b>in line</b>, as that formation is bothered by being "disrupted".

FML Gary McClellan
Generalissimus
Imperial Austrian Army

That makes sense about units in line, but only if it's possible for units to change from line or square into column while disrupted, otherwise retreat becomes a real nightmare.

However, with a multiple-level disruption system, it would make sense that low level disruption wouldn't neceasarily prevent formation change - but the more disrupted a unit became the harder this would be. But maybe however disrupted a line or square became it would still be able to go back to column - or failing that a new loose disordered formation - in order to retreat at full speed. Of course that new "formation" might well be especially vulnerable to enemy cavalry!

Modifying the disordering mechanism in the program would be a major job, and probably unnecessary. A disordered unit could be disordered for 3 reasons; 1 - disorganized for whatever reason (loss of command, casualties, tripped over a ditch, too many beans for supper, whatever), 2 - They are tired (marched to far, ran up some hills, behind the guy with the beans, too much melee), or 3 - loss of moral (too many casualties, wet/cold/dirty/hungry). I suppose also 4 - some combination of the first three reasons. Any of those reasons would effect the ability of the unit to move and/or engage in combat effectively, so the current method of disordering, while annoying, does work and is fairly reasonable within the scope of what a program can do.
The bigger issues are how much it effects the units, and how fast they recover. The game already detracts from combat ability, albeit not quiet as specifically as others suggested, but generically okay. How fast is again a programmed response, the more disordered they are, the longer it takes. If you find the current 0-9 insufficient, then adjust the PDT and make it 0-10, or 0-12, or 0-15. Each point above the 9 makes it that much tougher for the unit to regain it's combat effectiveness. Once past 10, they are pretty much done for the day, or even longer if you have a multi day scenario. You can also tinker with the fatigue recovery % in the PDT. In the BG games the standard is 15% chance daytime, 75% chance nightime. You can always adjust it up or down to suit your desire. I have tinkered with it and upped the recovery to 75/95 and still find a lot of units getting caught in the red. If there is any shortcoming, it is there. I have seen units get 1 fatigue point, then sit around and do nothing for several hours, and just by chance roll they do not recover. Yet other units, get into the red, and within that same time recover time and again. This is a flaw in the system. There is no adjustment made to reflect a unit resting. If you want to build something into the program, add a plus or two for sequential turns with no activity. That way, retirement from the line and rest actually do what they are intended, beyond just avoiding an increase in fatigue. Rests would allow troops time to eat (hopefully not more beans), and change their socks. If you have ever been a soldier or marine and out in the woods, you know what I mean. It is amazing how much of a morale boost you get from a full belly, and dry feet. This rest also gives the Sergeants time to redress the lines.


Cadet William Davis
Royal Military Academy

Richard,

When I first read your post I tended to agree with you in the sense that the program seems to handle the ordered/disordered state of a unit in a rather simplistic way. It's only after trying to understand what was Cadet Davis' point that I figured out that the gradation of the state of disorder is <u>somehow</u> taken care of if you combine it with the fatigue level of a unit.

Let's take an example: A unit is in good order but is also be fatigued. Couldn't we just say as per your standards that it is at a "4" level of disorder (on a scale from 1-9)? At "4" it still in a state where it can change formation but it is less combat effective and more prone to route. On the other hand, an other unit in a state of disorder but with low fatigue would be at a level "6"... not able to change formation but should be able to reform quick with the help of a good chain of command[?]


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