REN Xtreme Disordering

decaf

Recruit
Joined
Apr 2, 2009
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
Location
Earth
I’m writing this message because I like REN -- a lot. But, there are
some things that need to be fixed. HPS plans future versions of Musket
and Pike, so it’s worth looking at how well REN models "Pike and Shot"
instead of the Napoleonic battlefield.

Xtreme Disordering. I’ve seen it, you’ve seen it. Units disorder at
the drop of a hat. What’s worse, some behaviors are not documented.
I did a search on user.pdf for all "disorder", and read each entry.
Three behaviors are undocumented:
1) a unit moving onto another unit
2) a unit changing formation when stacked with another unit
Note: behavior 2) is *distinct* from the chance of disorder in a
formation change under a Threat Value (user.pdf, pg. 18).
3) stacked units moving together.

Since the behaviors are not documented, I fired up the Scenario Editor
to find out what the devil is going on.

The disorder behaviors are linked to formation. I tested 6 formations.
Column
Line
Block
Limbered (for artillery)
Mounted (for horse)
Unmounted (for horse)

What I found for behavior 1) - unit moving onto another unit.

Units of identical formation type will *not* cause disorder.
Units of different formation type always cause *both* units to become
Disordered.
Behavior 1 is reciprocal. Line onto Block disorders both just like
Block onto line.
Limbered is an exception. Limbered does not create disordering when it
is either the static or the moving unit.
Mounted/Unmounted together is an exception. Mounted onto Unmounted
does not create disorder (nor Unmounted onto Mounted). Mounted (or
Unmounted) onto Column, Line, or Block always cause disorder.
Behavior 1 is 100% certain. It does not vary with the 26 weapon types.
It does not vary with unit quality. It does not vary with unit size.

Behavior 2) - unit changing formation when stacked with another unit.

The same rules (and exceptions) as above, where the unit changing
formation is treated as a unit moving onto another unit.
Simultaneous formation change of two units of identical formation type
will *not* cause automatic disorder.
Simultaneous formation change of different formation type always cause
*both* units to become Disordered. (subject to exceptions above).
Behavior 2 does not vary with Threat Level.

Behavior 3) - stacked units moving together.

Units of identical formation type will *not* cause disorder.
Units of different formation type always cause *both* units to become
Disordered.
Behavior 1 is reciprocal. (This is expected - the units move together.)
Limbered is an exception. Limbered does not create disordering when it
is one of a stack of 2.
Mounted/Unmounted together is an exception. Mounted moved with
Unmounted does not create disorder. Mounted (or Unmounted) moved with
Column, Line, or Block always cause disorder.
Behavior 3 is 100% certain. It does not vary with the 26 weapon types.
It does not vary with unit quality. It does not vary with unit size.

Since these behaviors are not documented, I may have missed other cases
and situations. Even so, we are looking at 9 formation-related
instances (after dropping exceptions). Multiply by 3 behaviors to give
27 cases. And, if you double the count for Behaviors 1 and 2 (to count
reciprocity), then you get 45 cases. That is Xtreme Disordering.

Now, consider the consequences of these undocumented behaviors.

Create a unit with 1 man (pistol), Column. Create an adjacent unit
with 1050 pikemen in Block. Move the pistol onto the pike block, and
both become Disordered. This is not good! A pike Block is the most
impenetrable formation of the time, and the sight of one friendly
pistol throws it into a tizzy. And, yes, you can have a 1 man Column
and a 1 man Line in a 100 meter hex catapult each other into mutual
disorder.

<footnote>
(The game system allows units down to a single man. How can a single
man become disordered <or possess a formation>? I suggest automatic
elimination of single digit units <guns & leaders excepted>. Such
micro-units would head for the hills or stop and plunder, not fight.)


The behaviors force a unit to halt 100 meters behind the line, change
its formation to match the unit in line (if it can), and then proceed
to move into the line. IS THIS REAL?

Horse and foot in the same 100 meter hex is not viable - yet mounted
and unmounted in the same hex is just fine. HUH?

Stacked units of the same formation, trying to simultaneously change
formation, are no picnic. The User Manual implies that each unit in
the stack is tested independently against the Threat Value (since unit
Morale Value is a factor). Say you have 4 identical units in Line,
Change=75%. The undocumented formation disordering rules convert this
into an "all or nothing" proposition. If one unit fails the change, it
will disorder, and the Line vs. Column behavior (2) will cause the rest
of the stack to disorder, too. Chance of success 31.6%.

The game model treats a pike block as a unitary object. However,
references describe halberds in proportions of one-half to one-third of
a pike block. Arquebuses were also in pike blocks. And, the
formations became more exotic, such as the Tercio. (See wikipedia.org
under "Pike and shot".) If you try to create your own pike/arquebus by
stacking Block and Column/Line, forget it. Making the formation
subjects you to disorder. If you try to move units together, they
disorder. If you try to move separately, they disorder on
recombination. An attempt by the gamer to simulate the Musket and Pike
block formations of the day leads to a perpetual state of disorder.
The undocumented formation behaviors don’t just bite you, they chew you
up and spit you out.

What can we do?

Foremost, all the undocumented formation behaviors must be documented
in the User Manual as soon as possible. It is difficult to rationally
discuss valid behavior if we have to guess at the behavior.

I strongly recommend making all 3 undocumented formation behaviors
optional. I feel they are worse than whatever it is they are supposed
to be doing. No more Xtreme Disordering!

I understand my recommendation may be "outrageous". Then add another,
different, option to dial it back (way, way back). I suspect the
concern is Line vs. Column in a hex. If this is the concern, then only
provide the formation behavior for:
Line vs. Column
Line vs. Block
Line vs. Mounted (does this really need to be modeled?)
Line vs. Unmounted (does this really need to be modeled?)
These need not be reciprocal. Block should not disorder no matter what
kind of friendly formation enters the hex.

Even so, I would argue that if there is room to hold the stacked units
in the hex in the first place, then there should not be any formation
disordering behavior 1, 2 or 3. If there is a formation impact on
stacking, it should be handled with formation-based stacking points,
and stacking violation messages should be issued under unit movement or
attempted formation changes, instead of creating "Disordered" after the
fact.

Also, I would argue that formation disorder Behavior 3) - "stacked
units moving together" should not be in the game engine at all. If 2,
3, or 4 units of different formations are not disordered in a hex, then
can’t they retain their relative alignment as they move? Yes, they
will move at the slowest movement rate. Yes, they will retain their
relative ordering within the hex.

Finally, if it still seems alluring to retain formation disordering of
Line vs. Column/Block/Mounted/Unmounted, then don’t make it a 100%
guaranteed outcome. Work in the size of the units involved. Work in
the quality of the units (as for the Optional Line Movement Restriction
in the User Manual, pg. 19).

There are other ways to approach a model for the era. Ben Hull's Musket
and Pike series at GMT Games model an exceeding difficulty in units
changing from Column to "battle line". Formation disruption is applied
only to the unit making the change. Other units in the hex don't
enter into the situation. This I like.

I have 2 subsidiary recommendations based on the discussion above.

I recommend automatic elimination of single digit units <guns & leaders
excepted>. By "single digit", I mean units of 1 to 9 men. If you want
to ratchet the number to 7 or 17, that’s good, too. It could even be a
PDT parameter.

I recommend extending the number of weapon types in "weapon.dat" to
beyond 26. In particular, I recommend modeling "Pike & Arquebus" as a
composite weapon type. This gives a cleaner way of modeling the Tercio
as a single unit within the game scale. (This is less critical if the
formation disorder behaviors are eliminated.) If this recommendation
is adopted, then there may be a subsequent desire to revisit the .oob
files and add the new weapon types to appropriate units.

Bottom line: the current undocumented formation disordering inhibits
the simulation of Musket & Pike block formations common to the era.

. . . . .

Well, since I've gone this far, I might as well comment on the rest
of REN. Many of the items below have been noted by others.

Other Things To Fix
===================
See comments above on Xtreme Disordering. This is MAJOR!

Please add "Pike & Arquebus" as a new weapon type. In scenarios please
model pike blocks as "Pike & Arquebus" as appropriate. (noted above)

The 2-D NATO-style units need symbols for "infantry fire" and "cavalry
fire" units. It's the age of pike & shot, instead of Napoleonics.

Pike blocks move too slow. Turnbull's "The Art of Renaissance Warfare"
describes the mobile, offensive character of pike blocks (unlike the
static, defensive, Napoleonic Square). Ben Hull's Musket and Pike
series at GMT Games allows a move of 4 for "Heavy Infantry" and
a move of 6 for "Heavy Infantry in Column". Please add block
movement by nationality to the PDT. This will let the user decide
just how mobile various blocks were.

In FOW, captured guns should show stats and status (e.g. "Fired") to
the new owner. Right now it is secret.

In the upper left unit box, the yellow backgrounds (e.g. Spain), when
highlighted, make the writing in yellow invisible. Please fix.
This is irritating.

The REN Users Manual (user.pdf) is missing sections "Design Notes",
"Tactics", and "Troubleshooting" -- which are present in the
Campaign Waterloo Users Manual. The REN notes.pdf file does *not*
contain the content of these missing sections. The REN Battles
Manual, pages 26-27, make reference to the missing Design Notes.
This content should be restored. Also, it would be a wonderful
place to answer why disordering is bound to formations.

Things nice to have
===================
The 2-D graphics are too small. Please add another layer of zoom.
Yes, I can play in 1024x768, but this is 2009 and screen res is
much higher.

Sorry for the length. I hope this helps....
 

jimcrowley

Member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
37
Reaction score
0
Location
Chichester
Country
ll
Excellent post Decaf!

Oddly enough I was compiling a list of 'disorder' events because I, too, was finding the amount of disorder extremely high. But I had not delved as deeply as you; you have done a very thorough job (which is also a useful guide, until such time as ammendments are made - if they are made)

Totally agree on the graphics. If 3D is too much work/too expensive, then at least provide more detailed and zoomable 2D.

There is also a graphics glitch with side A's terrain box, in that the strength/threat value is white on white, thus invisible.

As well as the missing chunks in the manual, there is a lot of material which more directly relates to Napolenics, especially the command section which talks about Corps, divisions and brigades; no mention of Vawards, Battles etc.

I feel that there is a great game waiting to break out from all of this but it needs a bit more work to get it there. Hopefully HPS feel that the effort required is worthwhile.
 

Lord_Valentai

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2006
Messages
514
Reaction score
0
Location
Sydney
Country
llAustralia
I second the idea for a combined pike/shot unit. Having this you could halve the armour and firepower, but would overcome the inherent problems with having line and block in the one hex.

And about the disruption, I completely agree. It is one of the main reasons I rarely play the Nappy games. Everything gets disrupted by everything else. I understand it's necessary to show the balance of the time, but it's ridiculous. I also never liked the fact that only one line unit could fire from a hex. You can do it in ACW, so why not in the Nappy games - especially since the units are always broken up into small sub units of 3-400!
 

trauth116

Webmaster: hist-sdc.com
Joined
Jul 8, 2004
Messages
1,411
Reaction score
6
Location
................
Country
llAustralia
Interesting discussion. :)

One thing about disrupt in this engine, is that unlike Civil War, you are allowed to melee combat.
 
Last edited:

Lord_Valentai

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2006
Messages
514
Reaction score
0
Location
Sydney
Country
llAustralia
Yes, but you may as well not because you do it at 1/3 of your strength! And it's necessary because everyone gets so easily disrupted.

When my REN copy arrives I will work on a combined pike/shot unit. Should be pretty simple, actually.
 

Xaver

Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2007
Messages
169
Reaction score
0
Location
GZ
Country
llSpain
Well, the problem with tercios is that they have a 1:1 proportion of pike and aracabuz and only in late XVI we can see these, light units are to powerfull if you dont have cavalry (a charge is a good way to prevent agresive skirmis).

I use with a block at least 1 skirmis unit armed with arcabuz, it add fore power to the block and you dont need add it to a melee (melee with block and advance skirmis after).
 

Lord_Valentai

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2006
Messages
514
Reaction score
0
Location
Sydney
Country
llAustralia
Well, each to their own, I guess, but this is a way to address the legitimate concerns some people have.
 
Top