HPS Austerlitz add-on: Historicity & Realism project 1.01
- Thread starter Kolyan
- Start date
Very interesting mod/add-on, is a way to solve some problems in nap titles with realism... maybe excesive number of officials but... well, is possible change the chip hehehe other thing is quality... D as base... i prefer C, with D and small BTL in great numbers you can see more runners than soldiers and with regimental scale. In house rules... are many neccessary to prevent exploits, for example disrupted units only can melee with an official (you know, launch a bad unit to disrupt defenders) or rules for night combat (in somebattles the only way to win is resist until the night falls, battle stops and you can break contact and or prepare an ambush or surprises hehehe).
New titles for nap (and in older titles in patches) need changes in rules and formations, i think that they can change column formation to the role that it have in EAW, a formation only for movement purpouse weak to fire/melee/charges and of course with no attack mission... and take the block formation from M&P to have a real assault formation, is a way to prevent the excesive blitzkrieg tactics (move units from road to battleline in assault formation... need a change like in REN with pike units) and maybe force units that want melee have X points after move to do this, like in PzC.
Good job, the OOB now is more clear because with regimental scale is possible see strenght regiment by regiment.
PD: the BTL scale is a problem with big BTL (like prussians in Waterloo) but is more problematic in Austerlitz with the big austrian regiments with more than 3 BTLs range is small and units are out or command and with this you only can form in deep formations with less options to prevent flank attacks.
New titles for nap (and in older titles in patches) need changes in rules and formations, i think that they can change column formation to the role that it have in EAW, a formation only for movement purpouse weak to fire/melee/charges and of course with no attack mission... and take the block formation from M&P to have a real assault formation, is a way to prevent the excesive blitzkrieg tactics (move units from road to battleline in assault formation... need a change like in REN with pike units) and maybe force units that want melee have X points after move to do this, like in PzC.
Good job, the OOB now is more clear because with regimental scale is possible see strenght regiment by regiment.
PD: the BTL scale is a problem with big BTL (like prussians in Waterloo) but is more problematic in Austerlitz with the big austrian regiments with more than 3 BTLs range is small and units are out or command and with this you only can form in deep formations with less options to prevent flank attacks.
trauth116
Webmaster: hist-sdc.com
Based upon this wording, it is clear that this project is premised upon the scenarios themselves. However, it ignores the core concept of this series, by ignoring how campaigns function.
It could be argued that by using a campaign tree with set battles, that maybe there might have been different plausible directions a tree design could go -however, the campaign trees can be edited.
That being said, based upon the campaign aspects of this (and other series), that line from the project mission statement, I find to be invalid. The series' campaign game mechanism certainly does function in the way that the document claims the series is lacking. Whether users find that it (the campaign mechanism) does a good enough job at it, exceeds my point.
Yes. The project ignores the campaigns function of the series.
Why? Because practically, looking at the NWC game records, it is obvious that the overwhelming majority of the PMEB scenarios played, are one-off scenarios with no sequel.
The most popular scenarios are historical or semi-historical battles. These scenarios “do not simulate strategic factors and there is no tomorrow”
Furthermore, even using the campaigns function of the series – losses are not carried over to the next battle –hence “players do not need to worry about preserving the army for the next day."
The “the core concept of this series” is the tactical level (rarely grand-tactical) of Napoleonic battles – and that’s exactly where H&R is aiming.
To make it perfect though – strategic perspective has to be added as strategic factors should drive the tactical decision making. How do you do this? That would be a completely different project and its beyond the scope of H&R.
Why? Because practically, looking at the NWC game records, it is obvious that the overwhelming majority of the PMEB scenarios played, are one-off scenarios with no sequel.
The most popular scenarios are historical or semi-historical battles. These scenarios “do not simulate strategic factors and there is no tomorrow”
Furthermore, even using the campaigns function of the series – losses are not carried over to the next battle –hence “players do not need to worry about preserving the army for the next day."
The “the core concept of this series” is the tactical level (rarely grand-tactical) of Napoleonic battles – and that’s exactly where H&R is aiming.
To make it perfect though – strategic perspective has to be added as strategic factors should drive the tactical decision making. How do you do this? That would be a completely different project and its beyond the scope of H&R.
Last edited:
trauth116
Webmaster: hist-sdc.com
I'll have to get back with you on that one, but unless the NB series functions radically differently from MP, EAW, and CWB, then that statement is incorrect. There is a recovery amount that can be set (granted within a specified range) by the campaign designer. In other words, if you lose a unit, you will get that unit back (at whatever the scenario to scenario recovery rate amount is). If a unit is reduced, then you get that unit back at it's loss state + the set recovery % amount. I do know that in other like series that this factor can (and has been) set at different amounts by different scenario designers.
Anyways- it is all a moot point, as you did specify that your scope was limited to the individual stand alone scenarios.
The last Campaign tournament (HPS Jena) I was participating recently did not have the losses carried over to the next battle - but maybe we played it in a different format, as one-off scenarios but it was certainly through Campaign function., so can’t really say.
So the question is , if this functionality is there, is it practical to use and if not why.
So the question is , if this functionality is there, is it practical to use and if not why.
AlAmos
Member
Losses can carry over in a campaign. However, if the scenarios do not use the same OOB files or, they don't have an ORG file linking them together, then the losses won't carry over. Also, if the battles are three scenarios (I believe it is) apart then they don't carry over.
The recovery rate is hard coded as best I can recall, however a designer can effect subsequent troop strengths through the OOB files.
A good solid campaign is very tedious to build, and no offence to anyone, none exist currently. There are many enjoyable ones, but a detailed, nearly all-n-compasing campaign is not around, that I know of. Honestly every time I've tinkered with the idea, I've backed away, the amount of work and the variables involved are nearly overwhelming.
al
The recovery rate is hard coded as best I can recall, however a designer can effect subsequent troop strengths through the OOB files.
A good solid campaign is very tedious to build, and no offence to anyone, none exist currently. There are many enjoyable ones, but a detailed, nearly all-n-compasing campaign is not around, that I know of. Honestly every time I've tinkered with the idea, I've backed away, the amount of work and the variables involved are nearly overwhelming.
al
Yes, all works fine with the add-on, no problems when open the scen... well, only a little thing, 2 french BTL dont aim to the austrian battle line, not a problem in movement.
Well, talking about campaign... really i never play this in NB (and doubt i do it as this part is implement) because even "bad" options (infamous AGEOD Napoleonic title :OHNO
are better than a lineal campaign, the problem isnt have the casualties from previous battles represented in next battle, the problem is the lack of control in the campaign, i play REN low Countries campaign and i really dont find it interesting and in NB is the same. In games where you can play the campaign in a single scen isnt a problem because you play a scen in others no, for example if AGEOD dont represent very well the Peninsular campaign i dont see it in the tree system.
For me is more important the stand alone battles with lots of episodes from big battles (i like tactical maps at the scale of this Ulm battle for example) or hypotetical situations. If NB games need more work is in add and change things to prevent the excesive blitzkrieg in the game for example with a leader activation system but i dont see it, more real changes are add more formations with the idea of reduce the speed in the attacker because with no club rules play the game as defender with a little handicap is i do this in Waterloo an see how the game change a lot.
For me one easy way to reduce game speed is take from REN the column/block formations, column only for movement purpouse with no melee and fire values forcing infantry form in "block" (assault column) for melee/fire role with this you cant move a unit from road to battle line to fast you need expend 1 turn to do it.
Well, talking about campaign... really i never play this in NB (and doubt i do it as this part is implement) because even "bad" options (infamous AGEOD Napoleonic title :OHNO
are better than a lineal campaign, the problem isnt have the casualties from previous battles represented in next battle, the problem is the lack of control in the campaign, i play REN low Countries campaign and i really dont find it interesting and in NB is the same. In games where you can play the campaign in a single scen isnt a problem because you play a scen in others no, for example if AGEOD dont represent very well the Peninsular campaign i dont see it in the tree system.For me is more important the stand alone battles with lots of episodes from big battles (i like tactical maps at the scale of this Ulm battle for example) or hypotetical situations. If NB games need more work is in add and change things to prevent the excesive blitzkrieg in the game for example with a leader activation system but i dont see it, more real changes are add more formations with the idea of reduce the speed in the attacker because with no club rules play the game as defender with a little handicap is
i do this in Waterloo an see how the game change a lot.For me one easy way to reduce game speed is take from REN the column/block formations, column only for movement purpouse with no melee and fire values forcing infantry form in "block" (assault column) for melee/fire role with this you cant move a unit from road to battle line to fast you need expend 1 turn to do it.
trauth116
Webmaster: hist-sdc.com
The key thing to keep in mind, is that this is not some set amount; and it can vary from title to title, and even with campaigns within a given title. I believe there is a maximum recovery amount, and it also has something to do with the length of time between battles. I don't know what the maximum amount is offhand, but I suppose the key point is if it was not working in a campaign, it was by design or a bug that got missed. Usually if it is by design the designer will add that to the notes at the start of a campaign (or leastwise that is how they did it in Mexican-American War).
I think the only real answer to your concern is to have a look at the campaign editor guide, and give it a try. I've never done it; am not sure that the loss carryover aspect is listed in the editor (I skimmed that user guide earlier and did not find it). From memory, most of it had to do with the cause/effect of a scenario tree. As Al noted, it is fairly tough to do and I, personally, haven't seen any custom campaigns for any of Tiller's Grand Tactical level games. For all I know the user guide might cause you to ask more questions than it would answer of anyone's
.Lord_Valentai
Member
The two best campaigns in HPS products aren't even Nappy titles. Campaign Peninsula in the Civil War works because literally each campaign battle is the next day, so you get 10% loss recovery between battles. The other one is Gettysburg, which has a fantastic system of choices and decisions, and losses do carry over (the length of time between battles determines what % returns).
For the Nappy battles the Jena campaign is the most detailed, but because there is often a time delay between the battles the losses don't carry over.
For the Nappy battles the Jena campaign is the most detailed, but because there is often a time delay between the battles the losses don't carry over.
Sgt_Rock
Member
Eckmuhl has a campaign where the next battle is the next day. Except for the initial battle (Landshut - 16 April to 19 April battles) the rest of them are all separated by one day.
1.02 Update has been released:
http://www.nwc.albom55.ru/hrp/#
PDT File
• Minor FP reduction for Howitzers and unicorns
• Howitzers FP at 300m range is increased from 3 to 4.
• Artillery combat value is reduced from 40 to 30.
Scenario Files
• Allied artillery default fatigue is increased to 300. This would give -10% to allied artillery FP reflecting the superior training and skills of French gunners.
• Minor adjustment to Ulm scenario victory points and objectives.
OOB Files
• Some French Grenadier battalions from Oudinot division (1st Division, V Corps) are given “D” morale. These regiments were composed of soldiers from 58th, 81st Line and 31st, 15th Légère. The first two regiments saw only limited counter-insurgency action in 1793-1795 as they were operating against Chouans and Royalists and were not involved in any serious actions since 1795. 31st Légère was formed from ethnic Piedmontese who as of 1805 were not too eager to fight for Napoleon. 15th Légère saw some minor actions in Italy in 1796-1800 but was disgraced after they were deployed in the fortresses of Monte Cenis where soldiers got drunk at the very first night on 08.04.1800 and immediately after that the whole regiment was taken prisoner. Above all, only about one third part or half of each “Grenadier” battalion were made of Carabineer or Grenadier companies, with the rest being from Fusilier or Chasseur companies. Accordingly, Oudinot’s division was only nominally “elite” by its name but was not composed of elite soldiers.
Sources:
-Digby Smith. The Greenhill Napoleonic Wars Data Book, p.179
-Scott Bowden. The Glory Years. Napoleon and Austerlitz, p.22-23
• 10th Hussar Reg, 13th Chasseur Reg and 21st Chasseur Reg. are given “good regiment” status (20-33% of the strengths received morale “C”).
• French Horse artillery are given “B” morale.
• All Dragoon units are given ability to dismount
• For Ulm Scenario both French and Austrian artillery are given Howitzer sections within artillery batteries.
Optional Rules
• Flank Morale Modifier can be used to boost the morale.
_________________________________
Amstetten scenario has been added. It is H&R version of original scenario #09H HTH-Amstetten.scn with no changes to force ratio, or deployment. The only minor changes was around victory conditions which should make it easier for the French player to achieve a victory.
Austerlitz Historical scenario is being worked on now and the release is planned this month (February).
http://www.nwc.albom55.ru/hrp/#
PDT File
• Minor FP reduction for Howitzers and unicorns
• Howitzers FP at 300m range is increased from 3 to 4.
• Artillery combat value is reduced from 40 to 30.
Scenario Files
• Allied artillery default fatigue is increased to 300. This would give -10% to allied artillery FP reflecting the superior training and skills of French gunners.
• Minor adjustment to Ulm scenario victory points and objectives.
OOB Files
• Some French Grenadier battalions from Oudinot division (1st Division, V Corps) are given “D” morale. These regiments were composed of soldiers from 58th, 81st Line and 31st, 15th Légère. The first two regiments saw only limited counter-insurgency action in 1793-1795 as they were operating against Chouans and Royalists and were not involved in any serious actions since 1795. 31st Légère was formed from ethnic Piedmontese who as of 1805 were not too eager to fight for Napoleon. 15th Légère saw some minor actions in Italy in 1796-1800 but was disgraced after they were deployed in the fortresses of Monte Cenis where soldiers got drunk at the very first night on 08.04.1800 and immediately after that the whole regiment was taken prisoner. Above all, only about one third part or half of each “Grenadier” battalion were made of Carabineer or Grenadier companies, with the rest being from Fusilier or Chasseur companies. Accordingly, Oudinot’s division was only nominally “elite” by its name but was not composed of elite soldiers.
Sources:
-Digby Smith. The Greenhill Napoleonic Wars Data Book, p.179
-Scott Bowden. The Glory Years. Napoleon and Austerlitz, p.22-23
• 10th Hussar Reg, 13th Chasseur Reg and 21st Chasseur Reg. are given “good regiment” status (20-33% of the strengths received morale “C”).
• French Horse artillery are given “B” morale.
• All Dragoon units are given ability to dismount
• For Ulm Scenario both French and Austrian artillery are given Howitzer sections within artillery batteries.
Optional Rules
• Flank Morale Modifier can be used to boost the morale.
_________________________________
Amstetten scenario has been added. It is H&R version of original scenario #09H HTH-Amstetten.scn with no changes to force ratio, or deployment. The only minor changes was around victory conditions which should make it easier for the French player to achieve a victory.
Austerlitz Historical scenario is being worked on now and the release is planned this month (February).
I've just come across this thread, not having played NB for some time, and after a quick read of the documentation, I think you guys have done a great job of extracting the max out of the engine without actually being able to touch it.
I got about halfway through a game of Amstetten last night, and it does have a better feel to it, although I'll have to play some more to see how it works out. I like the idea of reduced unit sizes per hex in particular, and the way you've set about discouraging melees and encouraging musketry. All good stuff.
I'm not mad about all the extra leaders cluttering the place up (3D), but I can see the point of it. Incidentally, where are the best graphic mods to be found these days? It looks like your work is going to get me playing regularly again. I might even have a stab at converting my Matrix BG games to use those of your changes that might work with it.
Can I ask what your plans are from here? More conversions, or do you consider your work done, for people to run with now if they wish?
In any event, many thanks for your excellent work, and well done!
Holdit
I got about halfway through a game of Amstetten last night, and it does have a better feel to it, although I'll have to play some more to see how it works out. I like the idea of reduced unit sizes per hex in particular, and the way you've set about discouraging melees and encouraging musketry. All good stuff.
I'm not mad about all the extra leaders cluttering the place up (3D), but I can see the point of it. Incidentally, where are the best graphic mods to be found these days? It looks like your work is going to get me playing regularly again. I might even have a stab at converting my Matrix BG games to use those of your changes that might work with it.
Can I ask what your plans are from here? More conversions, or do you consider your work done, for people to run with now if they wish?
In any event, many thanks for your excellent work, and well done!
Holdit
Sgt_Rock
Member
In an email with Scott Bowden recently he refutes any idea that the units named above were low quality. As a matter of fact his text does NOT low grade them at all. I am not sure in the text where you read this as I have the same book, same page number. Here is what it has to say on pages 22-23:
Page 22 - he says NOTHING about these units at all (thus of course nothing about them having a lower quality and after having played Empire III by Bowden I know that he likes to list his ratings on regiments).
Page 23 - only the composition of the Elite units are listed. Not their ratings or anything about their performance in 1805.
Thus to associate Scott Bowden with such a statement is not correct. I also looked in Digby-Smith's book at the pages listed. This is about an incident that took place several years prior to this campaign. I would like to point out that the composition of these regiments by the time of 1805 was different and that the unit had been weeded out for bad officers and NCOs by the time of Ulm.
Now find us one record from 1805 that these units did NOT fight up to the standard that just about all sources I have indicate.
Ok - I know of Russian units that fought during this period and were not great - does this mean that in 1812 they were under the same officers and performed the same way?
I have never seen anyone before your team rate the French elite units in this manner. I hardly think that they were called Elite but had "D" morale. From all of the combat records and sources I have read they performed admirably. A great disservice is being done here ...
Rating the morales lower is your call but in the playtest games I played with the new settings all I saw was a field strewn with routed units. It reminded me more of the end of First Bull Run in 1861 rather than a normal Napoleonic battle. One wonders how you will rate the British under such a system. I suppose the entire Anglo-Allied army will be routing to Brussels by turn 20 in the large Waterloo game.
I also want to note that the French army had not fought since 1800. Some units in Egypt in 1801. Most of Bonapartes fine soldiers from Italy were left to die in Egypt. The others were from the Army of the Rhine, etc. They had not fought in years. The camps of Bologne, etc all differed in how the training was performed. I suggest you look at these and then come up with some sort of morale rating but frankly what the game really needs is a Training grade. Morale of untrained units can be A+++ but if the Training grade is terrible then the unit will not march in line very far. Good example would be Prussian Landwehr or 1813-15. Not much training but great morale at times.
Lowering the morale grade in the past only lead to more routs and with the setting Rout Limiting off you have an incredible mess.
What is missing from the game is that sudden surprise that could and did cause mass routs. Like the French conscripts at Wagram when they saw a mass of troops to their right thinking it was the Archduke John. Or other occasions where a unit would thunder down the road and a unit would bolt for the woods. The games cannot model this unfortunately but it happened. Also if a unit is No Ammo it should surrender en masse except in the most extreme cases.
But lower the morale to try and achieve an effect only resulted in my testing to a bunch of "1861 Yanks" on a Napoleonic battlefield.
Here is my note from Scott Bowden on the 15th Legere:
Hi Bill,
Thanks for your note.
You are correct in that the break up of the two battalions was due to admin purposes (cost, number of available officers, etc.), not quality of soldiers. (BP comment to this - note that the breakup of these elite battalions formed by the 28th and 30th Ligne occurred in March 1805 - nowhere near the date of the campaign - October)
Now, I am going from memory here without looking at a copy of Napoleon's Finest, but I seem to recall that the 15th Legere, in 1804-05, had a large number of conscripts in the ranks (please see after-action reports in Napoleon's Finest to confirm this aspect), and I also seem to recall that they fought very well during the Austerlitz campaign (they had some excellent officers). Was the 15th Legere as good a unit in 1805 as, say, the 13th Legere? No way. You would not get the comments as were made by the senior officers praising the young soldiers of the 15th for their conduct if they had been on par with the other regiments of the 3rd Corps that had many more veterans in the ranks. Since the performance of the 15th was laudatory, I would not use a label as "substandard" to the 15th Legere in 1805. For if folks were to use the negative term "substandard" to describe the 15th, they would have to qualify the negative term by whose, or what, standards; and if it was in a pre- or post-combat sense, or compared to others in 3rd Corps that incidentally were the best in the army. I believe you can see how quickly such an unfair connotation can color perception. Does this rambling make sense?
Ok - so if the 13 Legere is rated as a B unit in my OB then if you want reduce the 15th Legere to a C. But not a D.
If you are using C as your standard then D is still not much of a testimony to these guys who were part of the best corps in the army and I have never read anything to say that they were anything but fine (but not finest) troops.
Page 22 - he says NOTHING about these units at all (thus of course nothing about them having a lower quality and after having played Empire III by Bowden I know that he likes to list his ratings on regiments).
Page 23 - only the composition of the Elite units are listed. Not their ratings or anything about their performance in 1805.
Thus to associate Scott Bowden with such a statement is not correct. I also looked in Digby-Smith's book at the pages listed. This is about an incident that took place several years prior to this campaign. I would like to point out that the composition of these regiments by the time of 1805 was different and that the unit had been weeded out for bad officers and NCOs by the time of Ulm.
Now find us one record from 1805 that these units did NOT fight up to the standard that just about all sources I have indicate.
Ok - I know of Russian units that fought during this period and were not great - does this mean that in 1812 they were under the same officers and performed the same way?
I have never seen anyone before your team rate the French elite units in this manner. I hardly think that they were called Elite but had "D" morale. From all of the combat records and sources I have read they performed admirably. A great disservice is being done here ...
Rating the morales lower is your call but in the playtest games I played with the new settings all I saw was a field strewn with routed units. It reminded me more of the end of First Bull Run in 1861 rather than a normal Napoleonic battle. One wonders how you will rate the British under such a system. I suppose the entire Anglo-Allied army will be routing to Brussels by turn 20 in the large Waterloo game.
I also want to note that the French army had not fought since 1800. Some units in Egypt in 1801. Most of Bonapartes fine soldiers from Italy were left to die in Egypt. The others were from the Army of the Rhine, etc. They had not fought in years. The camps of Bologne, etc all differed in how the training was performed. I suggest you look at these and then come up with some sort of morale rating but frankly what the game really needs is a Training grade. Morale of untrained units can be A+++ but if the Training grade is terrible then the unit will not march in line very far. Good example would be Prussian Landwehr or 1813-15. Not much training but great morale at times.
Lowering the morale grade in the past only lead to more routs and with the setting Rout Limiting off you have an incredible mess.
What is missing from the game is that sudden surprise that could and did cause mass routs. Like the French conscripts at Wagram when they saw a mass of troops to their right thinking it was the Archduke John. Or other occasions where a unit would thunder down the road and a unit would bolt for the woods. The games cannot model this unfortunately but it happened. Also if a unit is No Ammo it should surrender en masse except in the most extreme cases.
But lower the morale to try and achieve an effect only resulted in my testing to a bunch of "1861 Yanks" on a Napoleonic battlefield.
Here is my note from Scott Bowden on the 15th Legere:
Hi Bill,
Thanks for your note.
You are correct in that the break up of the two battalions was due to admin purposes (cost, number of available officers, etc.), not quality of soldiers. (BP comment to this - note that the breakup of these elite battalions formed by the 28th and 30th Ligne occurred in March 1805 - nowhere near the date of the campaign - October)
Now, I am going from memory here without looking at a copy of Napoleon's Finest, but I seem to recall that the 15th Legere, in 1804-05, had a large number of conscripts in the ranks (please see after-action reports in Napoleon's Finest to confirm this aspect), and I also seem to recall that they fought very well during the Austerlitz campaign (they had some excellent officers). Was the 15th Legere as good a unit in 1805 as, say, the 13th Legere? No way. You would not get the comments as were made by the senior officers praising the young soldiers of the 15th for their conduct if they had been on par with the other regiments of the 3rd Corps that had many more veterans in the ranks. Since the performance of the 15th was laudatory, I would not use a label as "substandard" to the 15th Legere in 1805. For if folks were to use the negative term "substandard" to describe the 15th, they would have to qualify the negative term by whose, or what, standards; and if it was in a pre- or post-combat sense, or compared to others in 3rd Corps that incidentally were the best in the army. I believe you can see how quickly such an unfair connotation can color perception. Does this rambling make sense?
Ok - so if the 13 Legere is rated as a B unit in my OB then if you want reduce the 15th Legere to a C. But not a D.
If you are using C as your standard then D is still not much of a testimony to these guys who were part of the best corps in the army and I have never read anything to say that they were anything but fine (but not finest) troops.
Last edited:
Hi Holdit,
Thank you for your feedback.
I believe that most of the main H&R settings can be implemented in BG series as well. What needs to be redone differently is how melee casualties are calculated, along with casualties from firepower. If you want to start converting BG into H&R, I suggest downloading “New Settings Project” [http://medlem.spray.se/matchmaker1789/NewSettings/links.htm] and using it as a starting point.
Our plan was to convert more scenarios and eventually taking on 1809, 1812 & 1815 campaigns. Real life got under way as I had a bereavement situation in the family while another guy from our team got a job in state accounts chamber. Back in February we started converting Austerlitz and it is still about half way through as a lot of work needs to be done to OOB.
Austerlitz in H&R environment should be fun though. We will get it done sooner or later.
Last edited:
Hi Sgt_Rock,
I think this is part of the discussion which went on somewhere at NWC.
The topic of Oudinout grenadiers quality and H&R treatment of themwas also passionately discussed here: http://wargame.ch/board/nwc/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=11267&start=15
Sgt_Rock
Member
Yes it was but folks here read the text from the H&R team as "historical" and it is not. Call it "Alternate Settings" project if you want or something different. Historical means that H&R has the facts right. In this case they do not. In other areas I definitely agree with them. If the H&R team is going to be honest and candid then setting these units to a lower morale should be reconsidered. I am not here to argue the point only show that if given material that counters the source then it should be considered and given its due. Honest historical folks would then readjust their values accordingly. Those clinging to myth will not.
In selecting units that are lower grade I was VERY careful in doing so in the game when it released. A Russian national pointed out to me that the Elizabethgrad Hussars were a crack unit so I am considering raising their morale as a result. For the Austrians I always consider the recruitment area for morale as well as their record. Galician regiments tended to not be as good as some of the units from Inner Austria for example.
What H&R is after is more EFFECT and less on historical. I can understand that as some do not like how the game operates.
As it regards separating the battalions into two parts I considered this for Eckmuhl and Wagram at one point to give the Allies a better chance against the swarms of skirmishers. But the game series is a Battalion level simulation and not a half-battalion scale. Company level only satisfies us so much. Adding in all of the extra units clutters up the map and causes unhistorical choke points.
When the Austrian grenadiers attacked the Granary at Essling they did not do it with half of a battalion. If one part routs then the other should go right along with it. Thus a game ambiguity, similar to Extended Line is introduced and causes LESS historical usage (battalions in two parts - one running for the hills, the other calmly reloading their muskets).
Cavalry in squadrons makes sense. Trying to adjust the units to match the frontage does not.
Note: does not the game include zones of control? So what is that? Does that mean that the unit is STUCK to its hex? No, it means that it extends over a tad and can determine whether a unit can continue moving. Certainly fire cannot do that. Thus the designers meant for a ZOC to mean that unit's frontage probably would NOT fit in a hex. ZOC in a grand tactical game for me is meaningless unless viewed in that light. Squares for instance should NOT exert a ZOC but they do. Thus the designers meant for the ZOC to mean that the unit occupies more than the hex it is in. As much as I have thought over this for many years there is no other conclusion I can come to. No miniature rules set I ever played had ZOCs: only reaction rules. And a ZOC is not a reactionary thing. It is a term used in boardgames to indicate PRESENCE, not INFLUENCE (which is firing and that sort of thing).
Once the H&R guys reach that same conclusion they will understand that to try and split up the battalions is a waste of time. The OBs are not locked and there are other ways around this.
One way may be to leave it as is and restrict stacking to 1000 men. This has already been done in the ACW series. Tweak the counters per hex if you like as well to suit your needs. This may be the solution.
But anyway, the 15th Legere and the Elite Bns. fought very well in 1805. As a matter of fact there are only a few instances in 1805 where I can find any unit fighting in a "conscript" manner and mainly that is from battlefield deployment and not so much a regular way that they operated in any action they were in. Units caught by surprise, put in the wrong situation to where they took an inordinate amount of fire, etc. This all is NOT a reflection on unit morale but on the leaders of the brigade/regiment.
In selecting units that are lower grade I was VERY careful in doing so in the game when it released. A Russian national pointed out to me that the Elizabethgrad Hussars were a crack unit so I am considering raising their morale as a result. For the Austrians I always consider the recruitment area for morale as well as their record. Galician regiments tended to not be as good as some of the units from Inner Austria for example.
What H&R is after is more EFFECT and less on historical. I can understand that as some do not like how the game operates.
As it regards separating the battalions into two parts I considered this for Eckmuhl and Wagram at one point to give the Allies a better chance against the swarms of skirmishers. But the game series is a Battalion level simulation and not a half-battalion scale. Company level only satisfies us so much. Adding in all of the extra units clutters up the map and causes unhistorical choke points.
When the Austrian grenadiers attacked the Granary at Essling they did not do it with half of a battalion. If one part routs then the other should go right along with it. Thus a game ambiguity, similar to Extended Line is introduced and causes LESS historical usage (battalions in two parts - one running for the hills, the other calmly reloading their muskets).
Cavalry in squadrons makes sense. Trying to adjust the units to match the frontage does not.
Note: does not the game include zones of control? So what is that? Does that mean that the unit is STUCK to its hex? No, it means that it extends over a tad and can determine whether a unit can continue moving. Certainly fire cannot do that. Thus the designers meant for a ZOC to mean that unit's frontage probably would NOT fit in a hex. ZOC in a grand tactical game for me is meaningless unless viewed in that light. Squares for instance should NOT exert a ZOC but they do. Thus the designers meant for the ZOC to mean that the unit occupies more than the hex it is in. As much as I have thought over this for many years there is no other conclusion I can come to. No miniature rules set I ever played had ZOCs: only reaction rules. And a ZOC is not a reactionary thing. It is a term used in boardgames to indicate PRESENCE, not INFLUENCE (which is firing and that sort of thing).
Once the H&R guys reach that same conclusion they will understand that to try and split up the battalions is a waste of time. The OBs are not locked and there are other ways around this.
One way may be to leave it as is and restrict stacking to 1000 men. This has already been done in the ACW series. Tweak the counters per hex if you like as well to suit your needs. This may be the solution.
But anyway, the 15th Legere and the Elite Bns. fought very well in 1805. As a matter of fact there are only a few instances in 1805 where I can find any unit fighting in a "conscript" manner and mainly that is from battlefield deployment and not so much a regular way that they operated in any action they were in. Units caught by surprise, put in the wrong situation to where they took an inordinate amount of fire, etc. This all is NOT a reflection on unit morale but on the leaders of the brigade/regiment.
Last edited: