|
Combat
Hi,
I am new to the game serie and I enjoy it. The command and logistical systems are great. Nonetheless there is a big flaw in my opinion, the combat system. It is very obscure and I can say that every new combat was stranger than the previous one... I am using the consolidated rules downloaded from the webgrognard. First the combat table is not linked with the amount of figthing troops. So 1 or 2 thousand men forces automatically annihilate each others at the first round of the battle. On the contrary the clash of tenths of thousand men forces don't generate more casualties et so battle is supposed to last longer. Which is not evident, in Bonaparte in Italy 90% Percent of the battles I fought lasted only one round whatever the size of the opposing forces and none of them reached the 3rd round. Artillery is useless compare to the lethality of regular combat. I use it primarily to sustain the losses. Here is an example of combat I fought in Bonaparte in Italy: Kilmaine is in 2916, Wurmser and Davidovitch move to 2915. Masséna makes an initiative roll and moves to 3015 in forced march. Wurmser in pitched battle attacks Masséna at 1-1 ratio and looses. So Masséna has to counterattack against both Wurmser and Davidovitch. At 1-2 he looses badly and retreat. Davidovitch attacks Kilmaine who sustains the same fate. Both sides had the same size in SP but the French had no chance to win because the counterattack is devastating for the defender most of the time. One could say that the Austrian cheated because he had to consolidate his forces and Davidovitch had to be subordinated to Wurmser. But in that case how can Wurmser attack 2 hexes with one force? Maybe Masséna should have moved to Kilmaine's hex but in that case combat is a mere clash of big piles of units. There is no need to form a line of battle which is suppose to be better to commit more troops at once. So does anyone uses the combat system as it is? How do you do that? I am sure I missed something... Anyway, I am working on a much simpler system. Basicaly each opponent commits more and more SP each round, a roll on a table gives the losses based on the total SP committed. Artillery is used as a regular SP and gives the possibility to shift column on the battle table by spending adm points. At the end of each turn the side who wants to withdrawn has to make an initiative roll, a failure will increase the losses. I keep the retreat and battle dynamic systems almost unchanged because they are interesting. |
I agree about that flaw.
I`ve just made my first battle and forces disappear in no time. I started to 'read' results from Combat Results Table in other way. Here it is. French 2c and 5i vs Russian 3c and 10i. 7:13=1:2 Roll 4 and you get 3-1, insted of 'reading' it like 'loosing x SP' read it like 'inflicted x % from your forces'. So French would loose 30% from Russian forces 13x0.3=3.9=4 SP and Russians would loose 10% from French forces 7x0.1=0.7=1 SP. So if you have bigger army you will inflict more casaulties. (This system was used in Empires in Arms). And now if forces would be 1 or 2SP they wont kill each other in one phase cause they dont have 'power' to do that. French 3SP vs Russian 2SP 1:1 roll 2 -> 1-3 so French would lost 2x0.1=0.2=0 and Russians would lost 3x0.3=0.9=1 SP. What do you think about it? |
Actually that's smart, I didn't think of that. I am going to try it in my next game. but the table is still too harsh. for example I attack 5 SP with 15 SP, I roll a 6 and I loose 70% of my troops (11SP) while the defender looses nothing... I'll test it anyway because it is a simple and elegant improvement of the system (I'll see if all the percentage calculations are not too annoying).
I'll try to post soon a comprehensive text about a new system. Here are some ideas. Each round attacker and defender roll 2 dice. One for inflicting losses: Die 1 2 3 4 5 6 FP 1 - 2 .4 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 3 - 5 .6 .4 .4 .2 .2 .2 6 - 9 .8 .6 .6 .4 .4 .2 9 -13 1 .8 .6 .6 .4 .4 14-17 2 1 .8 .6 .6 .4 18-23 3 2 1 .8 .6 .6 24-30 4 3 2 1 .8 .8 30-36 5 4 3 2 1 1 37-… 6 5 4 3 2 2 and one to determine the winner. The initiative rating of the leader is added to this roll, the greatest result win the round. I still have to work on the dice modifiers. Basically a battle begins with the commitment of a force. Each round the force may engage up to 5 new SP (by committing divisions) per Hexside it wants to attack. Defender reacts by commiting up to 5 SP per attacked hexside. New forces can commit divisions by making an initiative roll. If a force can't commit SP against an attacked hexside it is force to retreat. The retreat system is kept with minor changes. |
Yes 70% is a big number but
1) You had 1-3 ratio 2) If weaker side have taken 'pitched battle' then they ask for it, if they would have taken 'pursuit' they could retreat and hope to loose less and to survive. 3) There is this rule which I have founded in consolidated rulebook: Pitched Loss Greater than Total Force [358.] If the losing Force has insufficient SPs to absorb the losses called for on the CRT, resolve the round as a Pursuit battle, regardless of the Battle marker. Example: A Force of six SPs plays Pitched in spite of the fact that it is attacked by 36 SPs. It then receives a Combat Result greater than it has SPs. Instead of taking the losses, the losing Force retreats that number of hexes. The victor may then Pursue. In this case it would be realistic. Such small forces would retreat against such big one and lost many in retreat, rather to day like at Borodino many did :-). |
I know this rule. But in my example I have 15 SP against 5 SP so I am attacking by 3 to 1 and I chose pitched battle of course. So I have no mean to avoid the losses. Of course loosing 7 SP with the reguler rules or 70% with your rule while the defender looses nothing is the same nonsense. Whatever the rule you apply to it, the table will still produce weird results...
|
hmm I have TETE 1807 CRT and 3:1, roll 6, gives me 3-3 not 7-0 ... there is 0-7 on modified roll 0 .. (?)
There is 7-0 on 1-3 ratio.. |
Counter Attackinig
Hi. I am not sure if this is correct but my reading of the rules (para 262 step 13) says the counterattacking force does not have to attack all the original attacking force but only the strongest force (hex). If I am reading it correctly that may help you out some. Also, artillery is useful for decreasing the size of the attacking force as loses are taken immediately before the odds are determined and the combat resolved, though I agree it is rare to inflict a loss using artillery. Enjoy.
|
Yes I mixed up some columns. So Nico your variant works well. I am supposed to have a game tomorrow so I'll try it soon.
Yes the defender only has to counterattack the strongest hex. But if the attacker is only in one hex it doesn't change anything. Anyway, the defender has to withhold part of his troops against the non attacked hexes, so the ratio doesn't change dramatically... most of the time the defender counterattacks knowing he will be crushed. |
So weaker side could takie 'pursuit' battle, hoping that winner wont do harsh pursuit (and some SP will be saved) cause it would put him in bad position etc.
|
Optional Heavy Cavalry Charge
I appreciated your discussion about Counterattacks, above. We added the "Refuse" Battle type to make it possible for a force to skip its counterattack. That was added to the system with Sun of Austerlitz. So that if it meets the requirements a force can avoide counterattacking now.
(By the way, the CRT gives the proper losses if you use it correctly. It may seem counterintuitive, but losses do not go up in tandem with the amount of forces involved. That is generally true whether you are talking about the Knights at Tannenburg or the Battle of Britain. The more troops in one place, the larger the percentage who will be just going through the motions. It is not like the movies, and 99% of wargames, they are a distortion. Most combattants watch to see whether their biggest and bravest compatriots will live.) The following rule is a rough draft and leaves lots of questions open... HEAVY CAVALRY IN COMBAT [OPTIONAL RULE] (Must be used with Reserve Option.) When using this rule heavy cavalry are not included in the force total when determining the odds on the CRT. Each Heavy Cavalry unit may make one Cavalry Charge per battle. At any point in any Round of Combat a player with HC may declare a Cavalry Charge. There is a special table for this (see below). The charging units are designated and one unit is selected to receive the charge. The charged unit must be infantry. This unit either breaks or it will "Reform Forward." If it breaks its strength is added to the Reserve. If it reforms forward the HC must charge again at 1/2 strength (after losses from the charge are deducted). CHARGE TABLE Die 1 2-3 4-5 6-7 8+ Die 0 1/1 1 2 etc. KEY: first# shows cavalry loss; second # shows defending infantry loss. RF = Reforms Forward; B = Breaks (committed to Reserve) |
How to find out which cavalry unit in TETE is heavy cause there is only light and medium&heavy are together?
Kevin, Can You give names which were heavy which not in TETE? Kevin You say that CRT table gives proper results. But for example: 2 Russian SP fight with 2 French SP. 1:1 NA roll 3 -> 2-2 So both units would disapear ?? It is little strange... |
Hi Nico,
You should have no trouble identifying the Heavy Cavalry. They are the Cuirassier Divisions under Nansouty and d'Hautpoul, etc. The 'medium cavalry are the five Dragoon Divisions. What about losses? When the table savs that 2,000 men are eliminated, what does that mean? All 2,000 are dead? Or does it mean that 100% of the force is dead and wounded? No. It means that critical parts of those forces are not functioning any more; in the example you cited, we have two average strength regiments on a side. The two colonels and the majors on both sides along with many of their best troops have been taken out of action, and those units cannot be called upon to perform any other mission until they are replaced. Normally in this operational level game most combats take place between much larger forces. |
Kevin,
Yes I have found - Nansounty, d'Hautpoul, Espagne, but what about Walther (Guard), Polenz (Saxony unit) and Kronprinz (Bavarian unit)? And what about Prussian and Russian units? |
Cuirassiers
Nico,
Walther and Polenz - Heavy Cavalry Bavarians - Frésia is Light Cavalry Russians - in June, the Left Wing Cavalry had a lot of Cuirassiers: LEFT WING CAVALRY Kiev Dragoon Regiment (Lvov) 5 escadrons 370 Tatar Horse Regiment (Knorring) 10 escadrons 740 Ekaterinoslav Cuirassier Regiment (Chretov) 5 escadrons 370 Leib/Emperor Cuirassier Regt. ( ) 5 escadrons 300 Malorossi Cuirassier Regt. (Duka) 5 escadrons 370 30 escadrons 2,150 |
Thank You Kevin,
I have found Left Wing in Study Folder - it is said to be Kollogribov (Kollogrib) division. Prussian were too poor&beaten to have cuirassier? ;) I have some other question. 1) Fortified towns and citadels. In TETE charts&tables there is info 10SPx3, but I couldnt find anything about effect of this terrain on battle (except that counterattack is not mandatory) in consolidated rules. |
As Winston Churchill said. "I hate democracy but I don't know a better system". I play Kevin system for a very long time. Nothing is perfect but I never played a better one.
The few critics concern battle system and particulary when small forces fight. I have tried and retried different houserules but always come back to original system. Concerning Bonaparte in italy game, it involves less manpower than other campaigns. A solution to keep some alive is perhaps to cut strength in half, with a SP = 500 men. Another question from Nico which arises my attention : when two small forces fight (2 vs 2 SP). result is 2-4. The loosing side retreats 4 hexes. The winning side looses 2 SP and retreating side is destroyed too. This result seems a bit surprising. We saw a skirmish between 2 small forces and both disappear. Kevin, in reality, perhaps these 2 forces would have fight without many losses, one of them being simply repulsed with 30 or 50 men killed. Is the following houserule orthodox for you? In the same battle (2 vs 2 with a result of 2-4), the loosing side retreats 4 hexes and the winner doesn't suffer his two losses if it decides not to pursue or if he decides not to take losses. Contact is broken and nothing happened. losses are very small. This would be applied too with bigger forces naturally. But the winner chooses if it takes losses or not after a round. daniel |
Kevin,
One more question :-) This rule was with 1807 Errata, but it wasnt put into Consolidated Rules. Is it only for TETE or can be used with all x1. Optional Rule: If more than one force is adjacent to a defending hex, roll the die for the Leader's Initiative at the start of each round of combat. When successful the Force may combine its strength in the battle resolution. |
Hi Daniel,
The House rule you suggested is fine, however, I am not sure about the reasons behind it. First, we already have a separate rule for Repulse, and Repulse is not connected to Combat at all. Second, if two forces of 2,000 men fight in earnest, the losses in actual manpower could be over 600 per side, before one breaks. Normally the leaders will try to stop the battle short of this point. If a force is broken in battle, the best troops and many officers will be lost, leaving the remainder quite unusable. Again, do not assume that casualties in the game (in this example, 2 SPs) is equivalent to actual historical casualties (600-700 out of 2,000 might be enough to temporarily 'destroy' the unit). |
Nico,
I do not like thge Optional Rule you cited, because it entails a significant exception to how forces are defined for combat. Optional Rules (especially those introduced in the Errata) are often being tried out and a lot of times we decide not to continue with those ideas. |
Kevin,
What is a historical explanation that Corps, that was near battlefied, cannot join it? I understand that in some situation (Auerstadt, Spain) some Marshals wouldn`t help others but sometimes they would cooperate. Maybe there should be table "friendship of marshals" :-) to add modifiers to roll for initiative when using this optional rule? I understand that Optional Rules in TETE Exclusive Rules are O.K. - Batteries Forward (doubling artillery strength for losses of art in battle) - Battalion Carre (better initiative with Napoleon) - The Confusion of Marshal Ney (altough I dont understand why only him? He lost gen l`Estocq during battle of Eylau, is that cause of this?) What about those rules, dont use them? : - Optional Rules: "du pain et la paix" (about choosing in fortnight to put troops in 'field' or in 'winter quarters'.) Plus Winter Quarter Table which adjust morale for RS and FR if they are in 'field' or in 'winter quarters' , semi-active moves during 'winter quarters' and 'alarm!'. - Optional rule about using two Morale Markers instead of one |
Hi Nico,
Regarding the limits of Command, I think you really understand the historical reason for that, since you give several examples. Unless Napoleon was present, his Marshals almost always failed to coordinate their attacks. Uncoordinated attacks are generally unsuccessful, since they give the enemy time to adjust. We could* make an exception to the rule about attacking a given force only once per turn, and allow those other forces near the enemy to attack separately, one after the other. That sometimes happened. By no means did the Marshals always march to the sound of the guns to help their comrades. One favorite example is Napoleon at Ligny: he forgot about Mouton's VI Corps, sitting some miles back down the road toward Charleroi. So he already had his hands full, and couldn't manage to control I Corps. If it helps, try to imagine that the 'other' force sitting next to the enemy is making some kind of limited ineffective attacks, rather than just watching passively. *Exceptions to major important rules create havoc and are to be avoided, in order to make the game comprehendible and somewhat playable. If you want the real truth, there is no rule that cannot have numerous of exceptions for every historical event diverts somewhat. But nobody will play it! What we are trying to do with the rules is to come up with some universals based on observations of hundreds of events. Probably each battle was a unique occurrence, and had its own 'logic,' and more differences than similarities. So what we are doing goes against reality in giving you only one CRT, and only one set of rules. Maybe the rules of war changed from day to day, or month to month, as the participants on both sides figured out what worked and what didn't. Napoleon's methods worked well in 1806 and 1806, not as well in 1807 and 1809, failed in 1812 and thereafter. |
Quote:
Anyway the CRT is one thing the combat system is an other thing. I don't understand how a combat occurs if it involves several adjacent forces. I don't play everyday and it's frustrating to spend several hours playing a scenario just to test the combat system. It spoils any strategy I try to carry out and I don't see any link between battles in the game and real battles... |
Mossbauer
"Kilmaine is in 2916, Wurmser and Davidovitch move to 2915. Masséna makes an initiative roll and moves to 3015 in forced march.* Wurmser in pitched battle attacks Masséna at 1-1 ratio and looses. So Masséna has to counterattack against both Wurmser and Davidovitch. At 1-2 he looses badly and retreat. Davidovitch attacks Kilmaine who sustains the same fate. Both sides had the same size in SP but the French had no chance to win because the counterattack is devastating for the defender most of the time. One could say that the Austrian cheated because he had to consolidate his forces and Davidovitch had to be subordinated to Wurmser. But in that case how can Wurmser attack 2 hexes with one force? Maybe Masséna should have moved to Kilmaine's hex but in that case combat is ..."
* You have Wurmser and Davidovitch in the same hex. According to a "correct" use of the combat rules, the two leaders must attack as one combined force and can make only one attack. You cannot have Wurmser attacking in one direction (3015) while Davidovitch attacks another (to 2916). In effect, Davidovitch's forces participated in two different combats. That is not how the game was intended to be played. |
Hmm so Massena should (or must?) make with Kilmaine (I dont have BII so I dont know if he could) multi-hex force, so Austrians must attack both of them and then counterattacking would be with better odds.
Is that how it supposed to be? I would also use 'optional rule' Forced March Into Battle - who knows if Massen would be there at 1st round of combat. |
Actually, only the Phasing player (the one who is doing something) will create a force. The player who is being attacked never creates a force. His troops in two adjacent hexes may be attacked as one combined strength at the attacker's option if all the attackers are adjacent to all of the defenders. Or, he may treat the two hexes as two separate attacks. The defender has no control over how the attacker decides to set up his attacks.
During the counterattack, however, things are different, and the counterattacker can choose any ONE adjacent enemy hex to counterattack for each attack. |
Quote:
|
Nico,
That's right. In order for there to be two attacks there have to be two attacking hexes. |
Quote:
|
Mossbauer,
"How do you play the game?" is a little bit vague. If you have questions, we are here to answer them. On the other hand, I have no objection to creating house rules that please you more than the published rules. |
Some have questioned whether the odds-based combat results table in the Campaigns of Napoleon System is appropriate to the operational scale of Napoleonic warfare: that is, does it 'work,' producing historical outcomes, or would, say, a differential-based CRT work better?
Gamers are used to looking at the CRT to provide the key to victory; like a gambler looking for the unbeatable combination, they will, say, strive to make nothing but 3-1 attacks. With games that lack maneuver, where front lines are basically static, attaining the right combat odds is about the only area where there is any skill involved. On the other hand, our Napoleonic games have lots of room for maneuver; they generally have only the sketchiest of front lines. The focus, then, is on maneuver. If the player can predict where the major battles will take place (and there will always be very few battles), and if you can arrange a preponderance of force at the critical battlefield, then you will increase your chances to win. The Campaigns of Napoleon CRT was devised by collecting statistics on the strength engaged and manpower losses resulting from all the battles of the 1814 campaign.We analysed every battle from the 1814 campaign, comparing the forces engaged by both sides and the losses suffered by both, and we plugged in the historical result somewhere on the appropriate odds column. The table is designed to provide historical outputs. That way we were assured of achieving historical results. In 1814, however, there were no big battles, such as Borodino, Wagram, and Waterloo. These massive battles took place over several hexes and lasted all day (unlike the little battles of 1814 that lasted 4-6 hours or less). So in space and time these big battles extended beyond the dimensions of the battles of 1814- encompassing more than one hex, and more than one round of combat (a round of battle could represent 2-3 hours of actual fighting). Instead of rolling one die, you have the battle of Ligny, for example, extending over 8 hexes- four separate combats- each with multiple rounds, for a total of 12 rolls on the CRT. Even though the strength of the two sides, overall, at the battle of Ligny was about equal, 68,000 French vs 84,000 Prussians, the individual combats range from 1:2 to 3:1. And just as the Prussians did well on their flanks but saw their center smashed in (after many rounds of seesaw struggle), the same kind of variable outcomes are possible in the four battles that go to make up the game's version of the battle. |
The Historical Battle of Ligny in terms of the Campaigns of Napoleon CRT.
The following analysis by Guillaume Daudin, was published in issue no. 6 of Wargame Design Magazine.
The question arose, whether the results provided by the NAB-Series CRT would match the results from a really large Pitched Battle. Because of the way the CRT evolved, we knew it could represent accurately the smaller, one-round battles. But we never did a study like the following. It took us a while to develop exactly how to represent the battle, and which forces should be engaged on each side. Guillaume began by making a summary of Ligny in game terms From: Guillaume Daudin <gdaudin@mac.com> French Set-up : III corps + Girard : hex 4516 22 I 1 C Garde : hex 4616 13 I 4 C + Napoleon IVC corps : hex 4616 2 C Artillery : with the Guard at 4616 (5A) IV corps : hex 4615 14 I 4C IC/IIC corps : hex 4615 (if they were in 4715, they would not enter in contact) 5 C VI corps : arrived late at 4615. Did not take part in the battle (9 I) Apparently, hex 4416 was not occupied (waiting for d’Erlon) Prussian Set-up I Corps : hex 4515 28 I 2 C II Corps : hex 4514 26 I 4 C + Bluecher (has to be there to command III corps) III Corps : hex 4614 23 I 2 C (arriving end of 1st round) Artillery : hex 4514 ? 3 A According to Hofschröer, the battle started at 3 pm. It finished around 9 30pm. Hence six hours, or 3 rounds. If we believe that Ziethen’s initiative kicked in, we can extend that to 4 rounds. Formation of forces : — One headed by Napoleon : III corps, Girard, Garde, IVC Corps and artillery attacks hex 4515 — One headed by Grouchy : IV , IC and IIC corps attacks hex 4514 As the Prussian third corps is not here yet, there cannot be a third attack at the beginning of the battle. St Amand Battle (Napoleon against Ziethen) 1st – 3rd round Artillery : the French have 3 :1 in cavalry. They have 5 A and the Prussian have 3 A 42 French against 30 Prussian : 1-1 in affecting with a bonus point. Counter-Attack : 30 Prussian – losses against III corps + Girard : 1-1 in affecting (except for losses) On the Third Round, Ziethen chooses pursuit while Napoleon keeps on pitched. Ligny Battle (Grouchy against Bluecher) 1st round (No artillery) 23 French against 30 Prussian : 2-3 in affecting Counter-Attack : 30 Prussian – losses against 23 French : 1-1 affecting with a bonus point 2nd round The Third Prussian corps arrives. Now it is 23 French – losses against 55 Prussian : 1-3 in affecting (minus losses, but the result should be the same) Counter-Attack : 2-1 in affecting with a bonus point. One could argue that the Third Prussian corps arrived only on the third round : that would make Grouchy life's easier. Do you think this narrative is fair ? There are some problems : —There can only be 2 battles, as the Prussian occupy only 2 hexes at the beginning. —Hence there can only be 2 pursuits. None of them is throught zocs. —Grouchy is going to have a very hard time against Bluecher. From: Kevin Zucker <kzucker@charm.net> Ligny could be two or three battles, I am not sure. One would have to watch the set-up very carefully. The second question is: what time of day do you use as the beginning of the battle? The first round of the battle actually began at 2 PM, which was rather late for a Napoleonic battle. During this time the III Corps had time to Force March up from Gembloux. The reason for the delay was that Napoleon wanted Wellington to engage at Quatre-Bras; he did not want to scare him off with an early success, and Ney was late in getting his troops up. I would suggest you set-up the battle as per 2 P.M. positions; they are shown in Esposito and Elting's Atlas and in most sources on the battle. I have done a rough set-up : FRENCH 4516: Vandamme, 22i, 1c 4615: Gerard, 14i, 3c Girard - 5 Vichery - 4 Berthezene - 6 Hulot - 5 Lefol - 5 Pecheux - 5 Hubert - 6 Exelmans - 3c Domon - 1c Fleurus, 4616: Napoleon, 13i, 6c, 4a 4715 Guard Pajol - 2c Milhaud - 2c PRUSSIANS 4514 Brye: 25i, 3a, 2c 4614: 18i Krafft - 6 Borcke - 7 Tippelskirch - 7 Stulpnagel - 7 Brause - 6 Luck - 4 Bose - 6 art - 3 Roeder - 2c 4515 Zeiten: 28i 4714 Steinmetz - 8 Kempfen - 4 Henkel - 5 Jagow - 7 Pirch - 8 4415 4713 Jurgass - 2c Hobe - 2c In the following I will summarize the differences between our two set-ups. Except for a strength point of difference here and there, there are just two cavalry corps that I have defending the flanks, and the III Corps takes three hexes instead of one. Two slight discrepancies regarding the placement of the cavalry Try setting-up Pajol in 4715 Try setting-up the I Corps cavalry in 4415 Also, I have the Prussian III Corps (including its cav. facing Pajol) taking three hexes. Some sources say the battle began at 2:30. We can say 4 rounds. It seems that only the cavalry of the Guard was engaged. I think that is fair, particularly in light of Bluecher's rear-guard action with the cavalry at Brye. Grouchy will have to keep choosing Pitched. The battle will be decided in the combat between Napoleon against Ziethen. If Ziethen retreats, Bluecher will have to go too. From: Guillaume Daudin <gdaudin@mac.com> OK. Well received. Among other things, I have changed the strength of the Prussian III Korps down to 18i and 2c. I do not know why I had another number. So we have : French Set-up : Option 1 : 4516 : Vandamme + Girard 22I and 1c 4616 : Napoleon, Guard, Milhaud : 13I and 4c and 4a 4615 : Grouchy, Gerard and Excelmans : 14I 3c 4715 : Pajol : 2c Option 2 : 4516 : Vandamme + Girard 22I and 1c 4616 : Napoleon, Guard, Milhaud : 13I and 4c and 4a 4615 : Grouchy, Gerard, Excelmans et Pajol : 14I 5c Prussian Set-up Option 1 : 4415 : Jurgass 2c 4515 : Ziethen 28I 4514 : Pirch and Bluecher : 25I, 3a, 2c 4614 : Thielemann 18I 4713 : Hobe 2c Option 2 : 4515 : Ziethen + Jurgass 28I 2c 4514 : Pirch and Bluecher : 25I, 3a, 2c 4614 : Thielemann 18I 4713 : Hobe 2c I do not think the options change anything, except that it is easier for the French if Pajol is in 4615. As it seems to me that the French have a difficult time, I put him in 4615. At the same time, according to this, Hobe is not taking part in the battle. But that is not very important either. As I understand it, the French have two options: Either two or three battles. Formation of forces : — One headed by Napoleon : III corps, Girard, Garde, IVC Corps and artillery (25I, 5c, 4a) attacks hex 4515-4415 : — Either one headed by Grouchy : IV , IC and IIC corps (14I 5c) attacking hex 4514-4617-4713 — Or Gérard less Hulot (9I) attack 4515 and Grouchy with Hulot, Exelmans and Pajol (5I 5c) attacks 4614-4713 (My maps shows Hulot facing Sombreffe and not Ligny) The first battle is always the same : St Amand Battle (Napoleon against Ziethen) Artillery : the French have 3 :1 in cavalry. They have 4 A and the Prussian have none 40 French against 30 Prussian : 1-1 in affecting with a bonus point. Counter-Attack : 30 Prussian – losses against III corps + Girard : 1-1 in affecting (except for losses) Ziethen chooses pursuit as long as possible (actually, his initiative is 2 and not 3 as I thought) Then we can have either : Brye-Sombreffe Battle (Grouchy against Bluecher) The French have no artillery, the Prussian have 3a. The Prussian however are at 1/2 in cav (4 against 5) 19 French against 47 Prussian : 1-3 in affecting Counter-Attack : 47 Prussian against 19 French : 2-1 affecting with a bonus point Or Brye Battle (Gérard against Bluecher) The French have no artillery, the Prussian have 3a. The Prussian are at 3/1 in cavalry 9 French against 27 Prussian : 1-3 in affecting 27 Prussian against 9 French : 3-1 in affecting with a bonus point. Gérard initiative is 3 + Sombreffe Battle (Grouchy against Thielman) Neither the French nor the Prussian have any artillery 10 French against 20 Prussian : 1-2 in affecting 20 Prussian against 10 French : 2-1 in affecting ; Thielman’s initiative is 2. I have the feeling that the two-battle option is better for the French than three. |
The Battle of Ligny, continued
From: Kevin Zucker <kzucker@charm.net>
A map in Chandler's book on Waterloo shows the situation in the battle of Ligny at 8:30 P.M. The Imperial Guard is moving in a column from a point on the Fleurus-Gembloux road, turning off that road and marching straight north to a point just west of Sombreffe and thus cutting the Prussian III Corps from I and II Corps. And Jacquinot's Cavalry Division is near Marbais, facing Marwitz's cav. The distance between Jacquinot and the Guard is 3 miles. This might indicate that the I and II Corps might have to retreat through enemy ZOCs. It also shows that the Guard was engaged late in the day. From: Guillaume Daudin <gdaudin@mac.com> Apparently, the Young Guard (was used in the St Amand vincinity (4i) and the Old Guard and cavalry (9i + 4c) around Ligny. That changes the odds. We have the problem that the OG and GC certainly started at Fleurus (4616) and hence could not attack toward Brye (in the game). I suppose we can set it up at the beginning at Ligny and sees what happen. I get your point about the late Old Guard assault and Jacquinot's cavalry. On the map, if the French take Brye the First Korps will have to retreat in ZOC. So that is a reasonable hypothesis. I'll work it out. From: Guillaume Daudin <gdaudin@mac.com> Actually, a last change : I have put the Old Guard + Guard Cav + Milhaud in a position in which they can attack Ligny - as they did. Leaving only the YG in front of St Amand. So that is yet another narrative, but that time I believe we have it right : French Set-up (with the Guard and Milhaud at their right place for their assault on Ligny) I does seem slightly easier for the French. 4516 : Vandamme + Girard 22I and 1c 4616 : Napoleon, Young Guard 4a and 4i 4615 : Grouchy, Gerard, Old Guard, Milhaud Excelmans et Pajol : 23I, 9c Prussian Set-up 4515 : Ziethen + Jurgass 28I 2c 4514 : Pirch and Bluecher : 25I, 3a, 2c 4614 : Thielemann 18I + Hobe 2c I think Hobe was used in the battle : I am putting him in the battle. As I understand it, the French have two options. Either two or three battles. Formation of forces : —One headed by Napoleon : III corps, Girard, YGuard, IVC Corps and artillery (16I, 1c, 4a) attacks hex 4515-4415 : —Either one headed by Grouchy : IV , IC and IIC corps, IVC and OG (23I 9c) attacking hex 4514-4617-4713 —Or Gérard less Hulot with OG and IVC (18I, 4c) attack 4515 and Grouchy with Hulot, Exelmans and Pajol (5I 5c) attacks 4614-4713 (according to my sources) The first battle is always the same : St Amand Battle (Napoleon against Ziethen) 1st – 4th round Artillery : the French have 1 :2 in cavalry. They have 4 A and the Prussian have none 27 French against 30 Prussian : 2-3 in affecting with a bonus point. Counter-Attack : 30 Prussian – losses against : 1-1 in affecting (except for losses) Ziethen chooses pursuit as long as possible (actually, his initiative is 2 and not 3 as I thought) We have either : Brye-Sombreffe Battle (Grouchy against Bluecher) The French have no artillery, the Prussian have 3a. The Prussian however are at 1/3 in cav (4 against 9) 32 French against 47 Prussian : 2-3 in affecting Counter-Attack : 47 Prussian 32 French : 1-1 affecting with a bonus point The Guard is sent in at the last round. Or Brye battle : Gérard against Bluecher The French have no artilley, the Prussian have 3a. The Prussian are at 1/2 in cav. 22 French against 27 Prussian : 2-3 in affecting Counter-Attack : 27 Prussian against 22 French : 1-1 in affecting with a bonus point. And Sombreffe battle : Grouchy against Thielman No one has artillery 10 French against 20 Prussian : 1-2 in affecting Counter-Attack : 20 Prussian against 10 French : 2-1 in affecting. From: Kevin Zucker <kzucker@charm.net> Hobe is shown as backing-up Kampfen on the Prussian left. It appears that Luck and Kampfen, on the left of the Prussian III Corps, did not engage the two French cavalry corps facing them. From: Guillaume Daudin <gdaudin@mac.com> Indeed the extreme right of the French line was very quiet during the battle. But that is not possible in the game, as all the combat are simultaneous. But let us try first with two battles : If I understand the rules correctly, a winner in one of those battle can only take part in the other one if he wins by the first round (rule 148). Hence, we can do each battle in turn. I am not using the reserve rules (a bit difficult to crack the system there), only the Standard Rules. Let us start with the Grouchy-Blucher battle Battle Grouchy-Blucher : 23i + 9c against 43 i, 4c and 3a If we suppose that both choose pitch as long as possible (Grouchy because he wants to isolate Ziethen and Blucher to protect Ziethen), the chances of Grouchy winning are 3 % (according to my statistical grinder). In 97 % of the cases, he'll have to retreat. Grouchy will lose between 12 and 17 SP losses in 50 % of the cases (25% less, 25 % more). Mean loss : 15 SP Bluecher will lose between 10-15 SP in 50 % of the cases. Mean loss : 13 SP If we decrease the number of cavalry of the Prussians (down to 2c), the results are not really changed. Before we go on, it is clear that either I am doing something wrong, or we are not going to re-create Ligny. Hum. What do you think ? From: Kevin Zucker <kzucker@charm.net> First, go ahead and resolve the other battle (the one with Napoleon). I think it is likely that the other battle will be just as one-sided in favor of the French as the Grouchy battle is against them. Remember that the first round of both battles is resolved before either battle goes to the second round. This means that Grouchy doesn't have to win, just to hold on until the other battle is won by Napoleon. Second, I think it is possible that many of the troops that started in the hex facing Grouchy actually shifted to fight against Napoleon. (I guess such a shift is not possible in the game since it would involve movement from one enemy ZOC to another.) The map in Chandler for the 8:30 situation shows mainly the Prussian II Corps involved against French IV Corps. The situation looks like this: Borcke and Stulpnagel in and near Sombreffe, Lutzow, Henkel and Jagow fighting around Ligny. Steinmetz, Langen and Brause (part) in reserve behind Henkel to the north. In Zeiten's battle: Tippelskirchen, Krafft, Brause (part), Sohr and Treskow with Marwitz guarding the extreme Prussian right wing toward Marbais. It does seem that the entire Prussian army has shifted toward their right from the 2:30 situation. From: Guillaume Daudin <gdaudin@mac.com> It is one-sided as well, but not as much (the initiative difference is there, but the numbers are more equal) Napoleon has 92 % chances of winning. His losses : 50 % chances of being between 9-16 Ziethen losses : 50 % chances of being between 15-21 Mean pursuit losses : 80% of being 0 ; 15 % of being 1. 2% of being 2. The Loss difference has 50 % chances of being 5 or less. Even if the ratio of losses is rather 2/3 than 1/2 as it was (apparently) and the amount of losses seems to be too high (they have as much losses as the complete historical battle) If Napoleon wins before Grouchy, the Ist Corps goes away without retreating in ZOCs. For Bluecher to retreat in ZOC, Bluecher has to lose—which is not likely to happen. So the probable result is Ziethen and Grouchy both retreat at the end, both battle losses equalizing each other. Setting up two different battles, making Grouchy's life easier and Napoleon life more difficult would not fundementaly change the results, I think. If you want, we can try. Or you could treat the whole thing as a single battle, but that is not possible in the game as all the attacking hexes will not be adjacent to all the defending hexes (then, I might be mis-understanding rule 151 : does it simply mean that the attacker has to be (with one of its hexes) adjacent to the defender ?) From: Kevin Zucker <kzucker@charm.net> I have thought of a rule to cover the Prussian shift of forces to their right. This rule would only apply if using the reserve rule (option). Basically the rule allows troops in reserve to be moved one hex each round just like troops marching to the sound of the guns. But that will not help the analysis of the battle. For now, try running the results of the battle with Zieten's force a little stronger and Bluecher's a little weaker. I would also propose what might be termed a "stay" in the Pitched Combat procedure. This would allow forces committed to an attack to interrupt the combat procedure prior to rolling the die. The player could do this on any round of combat, including the first. The opposing player would have the option to choose to counterattack during any round in this situation. From: Guillaume Daudin <gdaudin@mac.com> Anyway, I'll work on a battle with Ziethen slightly stronger and Bluecher not as strong (the problem being that Ziethen's command capacity are limited to one more unit, I think). From: Guillaume Daudin <gdaudin@mac.com> I have had Tippelskirch to Ziethen's forces. You cannot ask more, because Ziethen can only command 5 units (and has already 4 in his Korps). Hence the battles are the following : Napoleon against Ziethen + Tippelskirch (7i) : 26i, 1c, 4a against 35i, 2c Napoleon wins in 78 % of cases His losses : 10-18 Ziethen losses : 15-21 Grouchy against Bluecher — Tippelskirch (7i) : 23i, 9c against 36i, 4c, 3a Grouchy now wins in 8 % of cases (compared to 3 %) His loss : 13-19 (50 %). Mean : 17 (because the combats are longer) Bluecher's loss : 11-18. Mean losses : 15 (compared to 13 SP) |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:53 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.