Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

I am currently playing the 1st scenario in a Wagram Campaign and I followed the Austrians a bit too far with my cavalry and ran into massive infantry forces. Now my troopers are getting shot to pieces with no way to counter. Cavalry units that have disrupted are moving their 3 hexes and Austrian battalions in line are following me step for step. I finally managed to disengage this past turn but only after I suffered very heavy losses. I realize that the mistake was mine but I think cavalry, even if disrupted, should be able to out distance infantry. I think a solution to this could be that cavalry retain it's full movement when disrupted with some type of restriction on their offensive capability. I would like to hear others thoughts on this.

Marechal Jonathan Thayer
Moyenne Garde
Duc de Saalfeld et Prince de Friedland
10/III
Armee du Nord




jonathanthayer@bellsouth.net

What offensive capabilities does disrupted cav have ?

<center>
[img]</center>
<center>Monsieur le Marechal Baron John Corbin
Duc de Paive
Commanding the Division de Cavalerie de la Jeune Garde
NWC President</center>

John,
My thoughts exactly. Bottom line - Marechal Thayer you should have left a screen of cav (the expendables) in front of the Austrian infantry and ran with the rest. BTW, why were they not undisordering? Did you forget C&C limits?

Take your lumps and learn...who was this allied officer to pound a Marechal?

General de Division Doug Fuller
Duc de Montmorail et Comte de Hainaut
2e' Grenadiers a' Pied de la Vielle Garde
I Corp Commander
AdN

You are right Jon.

It is plain crazy to suggest that a relatively un-fatigued horse in a disordered unit will not be able to move as far (in 15 minutes) as a horse with the same fatigue in a unit that is undisordered.

In a situation where all must flee to save themselves, they will flee in a mass exodus ---and damnation to any unit cohesiveness. This happened historically over and over during the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars.

IMO, this is just another reason why the entire combat model of this series is begging to be revamped and overhauled.

BTW, disorder is already a penalty for the unit's offensive capability. They don't need any more. Just a correction for the movement.

Cheers,
Rick
[:)]

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


Vive l'Empereur!

It is true that keeping its movement rate would help the cavalry to move away from trouble...[:)]

<font color="green"> <b>Général de Division David Guégan Comte de Toulon, Duc de Nimes</b>
Co 11eme division
III Corps, AdN
Co Division d'Infanterie de la Jeune Garde, Garde Impériale


http://home.earthlink.net/~davidguegan/</font id="green">

Jon: I have a couple of observations based on years of experience with these kinds of posts:

1. You post a thread that is based on your mistake. Talk to Paco about supporting your cavalry. You ran your cavalry into a trap and now want John Tiller to fix it. Ok - this sounds kind of harsh but I have been there pard. Have posted this kind of thread before. Always embarrassing to me when the developer shot it to shreds. Am trying to be kind here btw. Dont get offended please.

2. You havent looked at this issue from ALL angles. I dont know how much time you gave between your game move and this thread but it doesnt seem long enough for you to have opened up the Scenario Editor and looked over a test scenario, picturing the problems that would arise from such a change. This is what got me into trouble with a past change to the game engine. When you go to Rich H. with a suggestion be sure that you cover it from EVERY angle.

3. Cavalry that have charged are blown. This is in ANY good set of miniature rules that I ever played. They dont just go gallopping off each turn at full speed. Thus the disorder penalty you speak of dropping suddenly converts your horses into super animals. As far as Rick's comment about historically accurate this idea is NOT.

I have others to add in but want you to look over this issue from EVERY angle. Here was one I thought of:

Ok - so cavalry cant outpace infantry but why should a disordered skirmisher be able to be run down by formed infantry. Why not give skimishers MORE MPs or formed infantry LESS MPs. This is a broader scope answer/gripe on the current system. And the answer might come back as "because to so do would greatly unbalance the game." Or something like this.

So look this over more. Give it some real thought. I am no longer lobbying John for changes as I did before. Get something together and send it off to Rich H. but before you do make sure that you have a good reason for asking for John to spend time on this.

Note: there is discussion and possible changes coming that would give disordered units 2/3 movement but right now its in the early stages of testing and so on. Like you guys I dont like seeing the defender get run down. We discussed a Suave Qui Peut rule/toolbar button which the player could use to voluntarily rout his units. This too has pitfalls. This was something that I remember in Empire III by Scott Bowden. I am sure that such a rule would also have its own House Rules before long.

In other words: each change often has its own set of counters.

Still listening to you guys. Have been for years. We appreciate you and never get the idea that we arent taking your comments into consideration.

Bill Peters
HPS Napoleonic Scenario Designer (Eckmuhl, Wagram and ... more to come)

[url="http://www.fireandmelee.net"]Fire and Melee Wargame site[/url]

Still, there remains one very important angle (that hasn't been looked at) that should be considered. Non-disordered infantry can outrun a disordered cavalry unit. Likewise, an un-disordered infantry unit can chase down a disordered cavalry unit.

Those two possibilities are way unrealistic to say the least except in the case of "blown" cavalry.

<font color="orange">The disorder that cavalry can experience isn't always the result of charging.</font id="orange"> Simple movement (and an unfortunate use of the mouse) can disorder a cavalry unit in our game. What about taking fire from an enemy unit? How can that slow down a horse?

Here is another angle not considered: Not every Charge was done at the full gallop like Bill is saying AND not every charge caused the cavalry unit to be "blown". The distance that the unit had to travel has be important. A short Charge will allow a horse to recover quicker.

As a former horse owner, I know from considerable experience what a horse can do and I clearly know what a horse cannot do as I trained for Endurance riding. Yeah, they tired after a lot of exertion. Anyone would.

I am not for super horses. Give me a break. <font color="red">Super horses are already in the game.</font id="red"> Here is another angle that is conveniently overlooked: <font color="orange">If every Charge causes a horse to be "blown" as Bill puts it, why do they get their full movement rate when they become undisordered when the correct leaders are nearby???</font id="orange"> Do leaders really have that much affect on physics?

What I am for is a realistic fatigue model that comprehensively considers movement. A model that ties movement rates to the unit's fatigue level. (The higher the fatigue level, the shorter it can go in 15 minutes makes perfect sense.) I am also for removing a unit's disorder status from movement rates. Let's just keep that what it really is, --a combat modifier. In other words, tie movement to fatigue and leave it there.

Unfortunately, that simply does not exist in the current gaming engine and there is no hope of it ever changing. [:(]

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


Vive l'Empereur!

I agree with Jon for the most part. I think to be realistic the disordered cavalry needs to be able to move away from infantry faster than they can advance. The only problem I forsee would be using them again to block zoc's for other charging cavalry that may be be available for follow on turns. Perhaps the 1/3 movement point loss is the answer.



Brigadier General Ed Blackburn
Commanding 6th Div, II Corps, AAA
3rd Bn / 1st Regiment of Foot Guards

I fully admit that I made a mistake by pursuing too far. Of course that leads to another issue in that I thought I was following the information from the beginning of the scenario. I was following what I thought were "stragglers" when I ran into the entire Austian Army. That is beside the point. I was able to finally extract my horsemen after I think 3 turns, by sacrificing maybe 10 squadrons (I had at least 3 divisions invloved) I realize now that I should have just abandoned all the disrupted units and fled with the ordered ones. I still would have lost about the same number of units but my overall losses would have been fewer. That is always a problem I have in that I cannot stand to simply leave a unit behind.

Still, regardless of how stupid I was I do think disrupted cavalry should be able to out pace infantry in line. I do understand that every change that gets made opens up new issues. The bottom line for me is that I play these games searching for as much realism as I can get. Anyway, thanks for the replies.



Marechal Jonathan Thayer
Moyenne Garde
Duc de Saalfeld et Prince de Friedland
10/III
Armee du Nord




jonathanthayer@bellsouth.net

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jon Thayer</i>
<br />I fully admit that I made a mistake by pursuing too far. Of course that leads to another issue in that I thought I was following the information from the beginning of the scenario. I was following what I thought were "stragglers" when I ran into the entire Austian Army. That is beside the point. I was able to finally extract my horsemen after I think 3 turns, by sacrificing maybe 10 squadrons (I had at least 3 divisions invloved) I realize now that I should have just abandoned all the disrupted units and fled with the ordered ones. I still would have lost about the same number of units but my overall losses would have been fewer. That is always a problem I have in that I cannot stand to simply leave a unit behind.

Still, regardless of how stupid I was I do think disrupted cavalry should be able to out pace infantry in line. I do understand that every change that gets made opens up new issues. The bottom line for me is that I play these games searching for as much realism as I can get. Anyway, thanks for the replies.

Marechal Jonathan Thayer
Moyenne Garde
Duc de Saalfeld et Prince de Friedland
10/III
Armee du Nord

jonathanthayer@bellsouth.net
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Ken Jones where are you? This is right down your alley.

Ken has been advocating the ability for the defender that is disordered to be able to move full speed.

Its a never ending discussion in our group that we hash out once in awhile.

Jon - I honestly understand your dilemna having been cut to shreads by Paco, Bill, Tomasz and the rest in many a battle. I also know dudes (no names) that make a living off disordering your forces on purpose so that they can then run them down.

I wish I had an answer for you. John feels that there should be SOME MP penalty for being disordered.

We are not ignoring or making light of this issue you raise. This year we will continue to look it over and if by any means we can find an answer that works we will promote it to John Tiller.

Thanks for not getting offended by my comments. Hoping to find the answer on this one. After all - I like to win a battle once every year too! [:D]

Bill Peters
HPS Napoleonic Scenario Designer (Eckmuhl, Wagram and ... more to come)

[url="http://www.fireandmelee.net"]Fire and Melee Wargame site[/url]

perhaps the determination of what happens after a cav unit becomes disordered depends on what we mean when we say disordered

<center>
[img]</center>
<center>Monsieur le Marechal Baron John Corbin
Duc de Paive
Commanding the Division de Cavalerie de la Jeune Garde
NWC President</center>

Disrupted units already suffer significant combat penalties, so retaining the old BG 50% movement rate for disrupted units basically makes it impossible for defending infantry in line to retire fast enough to avoid getting surrounded and captured. Even disrupted infantry in column or cavalry have very little chance of getting away, especially if the attacker has plenty of undisrupted cavalry.

Basically, the 50% movement penalty is one of those game features that pretty much make the HPS single phase system unworkable, unenjoyable (at least for a defender or player who likes to employ linear fire tactics rather than column melee ZOC elimination tactics) and totally unrealistic.

Even increasing the movement allowance of disrupted units to 75% would be unsatisfactory and would still leave a linear defensive player at a severe disadvantage, even if this were combined with various other pdt and/or engine modifications to discourage players from relying on ZOC melees.

In addition, the lack of a counter-charge option in the HPS engine (either in single or multiphase mode) is yet another issue that ought to be addressed, since once again this shifts the advantage from the defender to the attacker in the HPS games. It's a real pity that this BG feature is no longer even retained in HPS multiphase mode, along with the ability to form square in the defensive phase.


Maj. Rich White
4th Cavalry Brigade
Cavalry Corps
Anglo-Allied Army

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Richard</i>
<br />Disrupted units already suffer significant combat penalties, so retaining the old BG 50% movement rate for disrupted units basically makes it impossible for defending infantry in line to retire fast enough to avoid getting surrounded and captured. Even disrupted infantry in column or cavalry have very little chance of getting away, especially if the attacker has plenty of undisrupted cavalry.

Basically, the 50% movement penalty is one of those game features that pretty much make the HPS single phase system unworkable, unenjoyable (at least for a defender or player who likes to employ linear fire tactics rather than column melee ZOC elimination tactics) and totally unrealistic.

Even increasing the movement allowance of disrupted units to 75% would be unsatisfactory and would still leave a linear defensive player at a severe disadvantage, even if this were combined with various other pdt and/or engine modifications to discourage players from relying on ZOC melees.

In addition, the lack of a counter-charge option in the HPS engine (either in single or multiphase mode) is yet another issue that ought to be addressed, since once again this shifts the advantage from the defender to the attacker in the HPS games. It's a real pity that this BG feature is no longer even retained in HPS multiphase mode, along with the ability to form square in the defensive phase.


Maj. Rich White
4th Cavalry Brigade
Cavalry Corps
Anglo-Allied Army
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Basically this is Ken Jones' line of reasoning as well as my own as well. I loved defending in the BG series much more than our games once the single phase came into being.

Thus I am a big supporter of giving a boost to the the defensive capabilities to the game engine.

Never fear, Rich H. and I and the guys are working on this as I type. Its something we are not happy with.

Bill Peters
HPS Napoleonic Scenario Designer (Eckmuhl, Wagram and ... more to come)

[url="http://www.fireandmelee.net"]Fire and Melee Wargame site[/url]

Perhaps disrupted units could have normal movement, but with a penalty if moving <i>towards</i> the enemy?

In fact, maybe <i><b>all</b></i> units should have a movement penalty if moving within say 3 hexes of the frontal hexsides of infantry (except skirmishers) and 5 hexes of cavalry?

Something like the effect skirmishers have on enemy movement in the ACW engine. So fairly straightforward to incorporate.

This would slow down the advance of the attacker when in close proximity to the enemy, unless they can attack the flank/rear.

Consequently, this should make it significantly more difficult for an attacker to rush forward, break through the enemy line and then send additional troops into the gap to secure ZOC eliminations.

Also, perhaps add in the possibility of the defender setting his cavalry to counter-charge mode against nearby enemy cavalry or cavalry attempting to outflank. This too would help break up the momentum of an attack and make it harder for the attacker to conduct a series of chess-like ZOC eliminations.


Maj. Rich White
4th Cavalry Brigade
Cavalry Corps
Anglo-Allied Army