"Combat mechanics: does unit size matter?" Topic
13 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please be courteous toward your fellow TMP members.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Game Design Message Board Back to the Napoleonic Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestGeneral Napoleonic
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Recent Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase ArticleThe fascinating history of one of the hobby's major manufacturers.
Featured Workbench ArticleDervel returns from Mexico with a new vision for making palm trees from scratch.
Featured Profile Article
Featured Book Review
|
Extra Crispy | 28 Jan 2014 11:21 a.m. PST |
On another thread the question was asked: If the combat mechanics "work"no matter what the unit represents, then do the mechanics really represent anything? In my mind they do. For me "combat" is simply the step during which we count loss of combat effectiveness due to losses, morale, fatigue what have you (a casualty is not necessarily a kill – troops might simply be tired and firing slower, for example). Now again, I think the losses over time for various size units could be argued to be relatively similar. A company taking fire loses effectiveness at about a similar rate as a brigade taking fire. That increases if the company is outnumbered 3:2 as well as for the brigade. SO if your combat system is "hit on a 4+ at short range" I submit that can work for a company or a brigade. Not to say ANY combat system works for ANY unit size. But that a good system could be somewhat independent of unit size (the described system won't work for individuals and maybe not for corps
) What do you think? |
gweirda | 28 Jan 2014 11:45 a.m. PST |
Off the cuff
If the requirements (what you need to do it), modifiers (what/how situational specifics apply), and effects (what it does) are tailored to the mechanic then I'm inclined to agree. I suppose it all comes down to what is being modeled (if anything)
nice brain-jogger. ; )
|
Eclectic Wave | 28 Jan 2014 12:12 p.m. PST |
Well, SHE said my Unit size certainly mattered! Somebody had to say it. |
Dye4minis | 28 Jan 2014 12:34 p.m. PST |
May I give you something else to ponder upon? What really is "Unit Effectiveness"? One thing it is NOT tied to numbers of people firing! Statistics shows that each volley creates it's own "hits" with a huge range of variance. Most games have predicated almost everything on numbers of people. More firing, the higher chance for casualties- higher casualties the greater loss of effectiveness. This is sooooo wrong! I suggest that this is the root cause for most of the beyond disbelief results suffered in many games. In reality, unit effectiveness is based upon the unit's ability to remain as a cohesive unit. You can find in any period of history units running with little or no casualties while others fought to the last man. This should be easy to understand that numbers does NOT make for a value set that is congruent with the historical record. The historical record shows that for the amount of ammunition expended ina battle, the casualties produced was quite small! Also, one must also realize that of those casualties reported, most were inflicted by artillery. Designers use "ratings" (green, veteran, etc.) to artificially stack the deck to get the games to replay in a certain way. I suggest it's time to get creative and change that value set! What if we took the value set of unit cohesion? I define that term for this purpose as "The unit's leadership's ability to maintain control over the men". In reality, when we resolve fire combat, we are interested in finding out if the unit has been damaged and to what extent. What has been missing from our games is the accounting for the efforts of the unit's leadership to regain control over the men and how successful they were in getting them to refocus upon the task(s) at hand, for whatever time frame a turn represents. Units can (and have) remained upon the field, presented a viable threat to the enemy, with great difficulty. Left with pressure off from the enemy, leaders job of refocusing the men becomes easier. (Rate and intensity of fire increases distractions (noise, smoke, sights, smells, etc.) and makes their job harder. With pressure eased off, cohesion can be somewhat regained and still hold their ground. It is really easy to create a mechanic to reflect this and because fatigue is part of that result, getting a unit to maneuver, can be determined based upon the unit's current value. Remember that no unit will ever be as fresh as when it first gets engaged and conversely, a unit can only take so much before the cohesion is lost as a unit for the day. So if we build a CRT that is based upon cohesion value (represents training and experience of the men, training and experience of the leaders and how long have these men been under these leaders) cross indexed to a die roll, the intersection shows the effect their combat had on the enemy unit (in terms of "hits"). regardless of how they are valued, a "hit" is a loss of 1/4 of the target unit's cohesion. Cohesion can be lost and regained. At the end of the turn, we already know the worst condition the unit is in. What we DON'T know is to what effect the unit's leadership's efforts taken during this time had on keepin control of things. So at the end of the turn, each unit rolls it's current cohesion value or less. If succeeds, one hit is removed. If unsuccessful, all hits remain- the situation will take more time to overcome (ie- try again next turn.0 This works! The game flows faster and results seem believable. I hope this gets you thinking along non-traditional lines! You may even come up with an even better method. Best Tom |
War Artisan | 28 Jan 2014 1:13 p.m. PST |
For the gamer whose interest in the mechanics of warfare only goes as far as balanced forces on the table and rolling good dice, and who thinks that counting casualties is a completely adequate means of measuring unit effectiveness, it probably doesn't matter. For the purposes of my gaming, it makes a huge difference. Bathtubbing greatly amplifies and distorts the abstractions that are inherent in any system that models combat. A very short and partial list of issues that are raised: - the way the units are articulated and deployed. - the relationship of the unit frontage to weapons ranges and movement rates. - the length of time for communications both within and between units. - the types of decisions made by the unit commander. Not to mention the damage it does to the aesthetic aspect of the game table. A battalion does not look like a brigade. Now, I know that there are plenty of gamers that can get quite fussy about the location of a button or a bit of lace on their figures, but not give a flying fart if a division of their troops on the table looks like a company in line; this is a cognitive disconnect that I simply cannot wrap my head around. I have a hard time enjoying a game whose mechanics are not tailored to the level of command being represented on the table, and the kind of gamer who is OK with bathtubbing would probably not enjoy one of my games. Regards, Jeff |
Archeopteryx | 28 Jan 2014 1:39 p.m. PST |
Very interesting. No reason why it can't be aggregated upwards, but as you aggregate upwards you lose the granularity and 'narrative' interest of one unit performing well and another having a shocker – surely part of the fun? Napoleonic line infantry do two things, shooting and melee. They can be good at one and bad at the other, so its necessary to treat them separately, at least in determining some sort of overall factor like 'cohesion'. Also they can be radically affected by things like effective supporting artillery, like having regimental guns and grand batteries (which can do the shooting for them). I haven't dealt with movement and formations, only combat. Shooting ability is determined by: 1.) Training 2.) Equipment 3) Fatigue/Supply 4.) Formation 5.) Supporting artillery (regimental guns) 6.) Weather Melee ability is determined by 1.) Training 2.) Physical fitness 3.) Fatigue/Supply 4.) Formation 5.) Weather 6.) Terrain I'm sure these factors are not exhaustive, but both forms of combat are influenced by what we call morale. Whether our units are willing to fight depends upon motivation, which (beyond those factors above) is affected by: 1.) Leadership (both quality and quantity) 2.) Zeal ( patriotic, political, religious or just ordinary pride in their unit) 3.) Personal circumstances (are they being paid on time and are they volunteers or have they been pressed or conscripted into service). 4.) etc. Some sort of cohesion factor (at whatever level we are talking about – regiment, brigade, division, corps, army) would then need two elements, at least – to account for the ability to shoot and the ability to melee (which may be different – e.g. French Marine Artillery regiments in 1813), and both of these factors would need to be adjusted for motivation
Which is pretty much what most rules attempt to do. Napoleon knew his army in 1813 would by and large not be able to shoot, was very short of tactical leadership (quality and quantity), and was in poor physical shape. They were also not paid or fed properly
He added regimental guns to improve shooting where he could (to the detriment of movement/maneuver ability) and tried to leaven poor units with better ones and relied increasingly upon the guard as a fire brigade. But it was understanding these lower-level factors that determined the measures he took, and the consequences.g.:massive levels of 'strategic consumption" (a polite way of saying losses to exhaustion, disease, hunger, ill discipline and desertion)and an inability to maneuver rapidly strategically, tactically and operationally. |
Bandit | 28 Jan 2014 1:40 p.m. PST |
I was the one who posted the question on the other thread – Mark, thanks for highlighting it, hope there is some useful discussion – so with that I'll toss in my 2¢. *IF* you are trying to represent / model something then I believe as Jeff said that the mechanics need to be linked to whatever that something is. Therefore, since I believe that a brigade responds differently to losses and combat stress than does a battalion, using a system built for one *should* provide inaccurate results for the other. If you are not trying to model something then this is of no concern and it is just a game mechanic, if you are happy with it you're good and that is the only test that matters. Cheers, The Bandit |
dragon6 | 28 Jan 2014 2:02 p.m. PST |
There was that time when this was all the rage in games. We got Stargrunt during this period and Comitatus. Cohesion and morale were the things measured |
DS6151 | 28 Jan 2014 2:37 p.m. PST |
If the mechanics work no matter what it's applied to, then it doesn't matter what it's applied to. The rules then work on their own, and you're pretty much playing with heavy, painted, chits. Which isn't bad in and of itself. |
langobard | 29 Jan 2014 3:32 a.m. PST |
When Black Powder (a game where the battalion is the main unit) first came out, we tried it out using my Age of Eagles armies (where the brigade is the main unit). We found no difficulty in retaining the idea of 'tiny/small/standard/large' units, but had to adjust command radius as some corps commands were greater than BP's 6 units to a brigade, (for instance, 3 infantry divisions + a cavalry division and artillery gave about 12 units which is double BP's basic command size), but basically, yes it still worked. It was terrifying to see an entire corps turn around and march off the table as a result of a blunder, but thats pretty much what d'Erlon did at Quatre Bras, or see an entire brigade removed from the table because of combat results, but it also gave valuable insights into my normal Age of Eagles games. It is not something I would regularly do, but it certainly offers us the chance to have a crack at something new and to give us a chance to reflect on some of the game systems we normally use. |
Martin Rapier | 29 Jan 2014 4:59 a.m. PST |
As above, it depends on what you are trying to model and whether you are happy with a 'mechanism' to reflect the outcome of that model (base removal, levels of disruption or whatever). The same model may well work for various levels of combat, but the outcomes will be different. "Now again, I think the losses over time for various size units could be argued to be relatively similar. " Not really, most scale related combat variables are non linear, in particular loss rates decline with relative formation size for a particular combat outcome (e.g. a defeated infantry assault in WW2 might result in battalion level looses of 30+% but division level losses of 2-3% – the typical daily formation level loss rate for WW2 divisions engaged in offensive operations). Larger formations are usually deployed in greater depth (possibly very great depth) and respond to combat attrition differently. Similarly loss rates are disproportionately affected by target density, so in the case of comparing company loss levels with brigade ones the company can potentially inflict massive losses against their tightly packed opponents. A rule of thumb for modern warfare is that tripling attacker numbers will double losses inflicted by the defender, although it is a logarithmic relationship so the relative increase declines as the odds increase. So, I guess I am saying that both absolute and relative unit size has a bearing on combat outcomes, in modern warfare anyway. |
McLaddie | 29 Jan 2014 7:45 a.m. PST |
I suppose it all comes down to what is being modeled (if anything)
I have to agree. The only way you could come to a general conclusion about all rules regarding unit size and combat mechanics is if all rules portrayed the same things in the same ways. Obviously they don't, in either unit size or combat. |
|