Dummy units

[FM WarB]

In some old paper wargames where both players could see everything on the board there were dummy units. (AH's 1776 comes to mind.) These units had no combat value, but looked like real units from the top. Commanders could use them to create feints and obfuscate their real intent to a small extent. Are there any computer wargames that use them, and might such be a good idea for Napoleonic battles' large multiday scenarios and campaigns?

[Uffz_Feuerhake]

In some old paper wargames where both players could see everything on the board there were dummy units. (AH's 1776 comes to mind.) These units had no combat value, but looked like real units from the top. Commanders could use them to create feints and obfuscate their real intent to a small extent. Are there any computer wargames that use them, and might such be a good idea for Napoleonic battles' large multiday scenarios and campaigns?

Hi,

first of all: I don't know a computer game with this possibity.
I have heard about Rommel and his wind machines in the desert to imitate a movement of a tank brigade in WW II.

In the "good old Napoleonic times" they strewed rumors to obfuscate their real intent.
Napoleon was famous for its network of spies and informants.
Do you think it would be possible to create a little spy-tool in the game with a rumor-factor?

Example: Every time X (f.e. 4 game hours) the player is able to ask with this tool the position of a hostile unit. The player gets f.e. 5 answers: 1 correct position and 4 random fakes (the rumor-factor).
So the player has to send out his guides or light cavalry to verify the informations...or not.

[Gary McClellan]

But, the use of "dummy agents" and the like was something that was done operationally, not tactically. It wouldn't be done during a battle, but potentially a few days before hand. So, if we were playing an operational game with one day turns, it might be appropriate. In a game with 15 minute turns, not so much so.

[FM WarB]

But, the use of "dummy agents" and the like was something that was done operationally, not tactically. It wouldn't be done during a battle, but potentially a few days before hand. So, if we were playing an operational game with one day turns, it might be appropriate. In a game with 15 minute turns, not so much so.

Valid point, Gary. I'm just thinking out loud about ways to address the spotting issue.

[Gary McClellan]

Short of redoing the engine from the top, where you have a Point of View Counter (You are Napoleon, or Charles, or Wellington...), and then the computer generates sighting reports, sends them to you, and tracks the amount of time they should take, I don't see it being fixed.

What's more, that system, while it would be highly realistic, would likely be unpopular in the long run. Wargamers are, by and large, control freaks. I mean, lets be honest, how many people think that Napoleon would actually tell a battalion commander on the far left flank to advance his skirmishers 100m

On occasion, perhaps, but that's the very heart and soul of this sytem, that players are making decisions that are appropriate to 4-5 levels of command. You make decisions that the Army Commander makes, that the Corps Commander makes, that the Division Commander makes, the Brigade Commander, and arguably, the Battalion Commander

[rahamy]

You're exactly right Gary...and that's why I like these games...I get to control a lot. I'm not a real big fan of the game engines that a lot is abstracted on.

[AlAmos]

Well, there are historical examples of small numbers of troops being tasked with creating a diversion by giving the illusion they are more numerous than they actually were. I believe Napoleon did this in his 1796 campaign by sending troops downriver to trick the Austrians into thinking they were being outflanked.

Within the game engines, (EAW, Nap a & ACW), it is possible to simulate such a trick. Simply put very weak strength units in the oob, and keep them away from the enemy so their exact nature would still be a mystery.

al

[medck]

There's a Quatre Bras AAR report on the Napoeonic AAR board, where the Allied player (Pirimeister) used a single unit to simulate a lot more units by moving it into sight on the crest of a hill and then reversing it and repeating the manuever so that in the replay it looked like a series of troops were a marching into and then out of sight. Didn't help him, he still lost, but his opponent said that he had thought there were more troops there.

Here's the link to the account:

http://www.gamesquad.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41624

[Uffz_Feuerhake]

Well, there are historical examples of small numbers of troops being tasked with creating a diversion by giving the illusion they are more numerous than they actually were. I believe Napoleon did this in his 1796 campaign by sending troops downriver to trick the Austrians into thinking they were being outflanked.

Within the game engines, (EAW, Nap a & ACW), it is possible to simulate such a trick. Simply put very weak strength units in the oob, and keep them away from the enemy so their exact nature would still be a mystery.

al

I think on our game-battlefield with some miles in all directions it was always usual to imitate an outflank or retreat maneuver with some troops to provoke an action.
Seeing massed troops with strength of 1xx or 1x in column formation would be a reference on a feint in our game.

I believe Napoleon did this in his 1796 campaign by sending troops downriver to trick the Austrians into thinking they were being outflanked.

Regarding the historic realism in our play:
What do you think how it worked to trick the Austrians with maybe 100 - or 300 or 500 men? 500 men were actually only 500 not "war-crucially" men for the Austrian eye-witnesses, but they strewed rumors too f.e. of some following Corps on a side road in a distance of a day to obfuscate their real intent.
With this falsified information the Austrian spies or informants reached the Austrian HQ and they provoked a (false...?) decision.
I think this is not playable in our games to embodie a rumor with some fake troops.

Andreas

[FM WarB]

Gary hit the nail on the head. I admit to being a control freak who likes turn based games where I control as much as possible. (Thus I usually come down in favor of detail over simplistic game play.) I've never gotten into WEGO games, where you must depend on the AI to follow your orders.

[rahamy]

There's a Quatre Bras AAR report on the Napoeonic AAR board, where the Allied player (Pirimeister) used a single unit to simulate a lot more units by moving it into sight on the crest of a hill and then reversing it and repeating the manuever so that in the replay it looked like a series of troops were a marching into and then out of sight. Didn't help him, he still lost, but his opponent said that he had thought there were more troops there.

Here's the link to the account:

http://www.gamesquad.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41624


Glad to see someone reads what I post! :D

[medck]

Glad to see someone reads what I post! :D

I just wish there were more AARs posted, I learn a lot from them (that tactic is one I hope to repeat at an opportune time, for instance!).

I realise it is hard for people in PBEM games to do without giving away operational details and then the time has passed and it is hard to remember. And against the AI it is meaningless. I wonder if people couldn't just keep track of a personal AAR in a Word file (with screenies!) and then post portions of it as it becomes operationally ok to do so.

[rahamy]

I wonder if people couldn't just keep track of a personal AAR in a Word file (with screenies!) and then post portions of it as it becomes operationally ok to do so.

That's what I did with the above mentioned AAR...but that takes time too, so it isn't always easy to generate them...lots of other things going on. Glad you find them useful though!

[FM WarB]

I've been saving moves of playtest of my new four days in June scenario. We are going all the way to the 18th and have the Mother of All Waterloo Battles shaping up.