|
Interesting discussion
I have usually played with both Rout Limiting and Flank Morale off (New Settings conditions), my objective being to reduce casualties in games by preventing units fighting to the last man.
Regarding these options, the Flank Morale modifier is, for me, an unneccesary bonus. In the BG series there is a morale check penalty to taking casualties from having an exposed flank attacked by enfilade fire or melee - I assume this carried over to the HPS games. This is the incentive to protect your flank. I see no reason to give an additional bonus for doing so, the negation of the penalty by sensible deployment is reward enough. Finally, on this point, why should a unit with a unit in adjacent hexes be rewarded with a morale bonus, when one (the central) of 3 units, in the same hex, (with even closer flank support), does not?
On Rout Limiting, I leave this off to discourage deployment in adjacent hexes. This has two purposes; first, it encourages players to not attack in one wave, but in multiple lines of battle; second, it generates a more realitic frontage for the battalions in line formation, [I tend to think of the two hex ZOC in front of the unit on the map as representing the extent of the battalion, rather than the single hex it occupies - it also allows cavalry and artillery, or battalions from the second line to move forward through the first line, without the unrealistic need for shuffling units to right and left to create the gaps].
Bill's point about armies in the games all moving to contact from Turn 1 is well made. I think this happens because, if the attacking player sends a small force forward, the defending player has the opportunity to overwhelm it locally with a greater number of units. With the (above) optional rules off, the armies maintain their structure much better in order to keep command and control and smaller numbers of units are engaged at any time, to reduce (not eliminate) the risk of massive routing. The massive routs will occur later in the game when units are fatigued from multiple melees - ask messrs. Barrett and Corbin how the full Barrett was defeated at Waterloo before a single Prussian arrived on the map!
I would happily play with rout limiting on, as long as flank morale was off. This would allow deployment in adjacent hexes without risk of a monstrous rout, but that would enable units to fight longer than they should.
If we want units to stay and fight longer, go for higher morale, they will rout less readily. However, the check and balance to this is that it should be more difficult to rally/re-order a routed/disordered unit. Perhaps half the current rate for both. Make the rout a much more significant event, especially for armies advancing en masse, which faile dto break the enemy with their first assault - it'll certainly make players re-evaluate their tactics for breaking the enemy position.
Finally a note on flank attacks, whether by ranged fire or melee. Bill mentioned the case of the French holding the granary / church in Aspern-Essling. It's absolutely right that they would likely go in the circumstances described. In the BG series, the ability to change formation in the defensive phase was very useful; threatened by enfilade fire - change to column, threatened by flank melee attack - change to square (or better still have a skirmish company with the appropriate facing, already deployed with the battalion). Probably as a minority view, I find the loss of this capability to respond to a threat a big sacrifice in the HPS series. However, the best way to deal with this threat is to defend these locations as the commanders would have done so, ie, not a battalion in line or column or square, but companies (skirmishers as the game equivalent) with multiple facings, thereby negating both enfilade fire or flank melee attack, and leaving the parent battalion(s) in an adjcent hex, (they can not be disordered by routing skirmishers - BG not sure about HPS) ready to counter attack.
I recently fought a 12 turn game in which most units were A quality or higher. A few units were routed during the game, all of which rallied on the next turn, even though the highest order commander (used for rallying) was division level. Re-ordering was, of course, more difficult, but since routing was improbable, they could spend several turns in my second line waiting to re-order. By the final Turn of the game the only routed unit was a French skirmisher which routed behind enemy lines so could not be rallied with the aid of a leader. The Austrians even had a quality A battalion of 450 men reduced to 46 men, routed, rallied, re-ordered and back on the front line within the hour!
Not sure if this helps with anything, but I would go for reduced re-order / rally and reduced fatigue recovery rates before considering changes to unit quality. Increasing unit quality starts to affect factors such as formation change probability in threat zone, melee attack bonus, fire attack bonus, which probably kick in at quality A and no difference in bonus between A, A+, A++ etc. By pushing all unit quality higher, the differential in these parameters is lost, making the only difference between units the probability of morale failure/and rallying.
Regards
Mark
|
NWC
Login
FAQ
</center>
</center>