"Carnage & Glory" Topic

I'm going to show myself as being ignorant. A lot of people seem to use these rules. I just can't figure out what they actually are, or do. I've been to the website, of course, and read through the whole user manual. The fundamental that I don't understand is, where does the computer take over? Movement and a lot of other things appear to be done "traditionally". Is the only function then, of the computer, to provide a roster? And does each commander need to do a bunch of computer input each turn? Can it be simultaneous? If not, much of the game will be spent waiting around for another player to do computer input.

Note – I'm not being negative – or positive – I just don't understand. I hope somebody can explain.

People like the game. It's detailed and keeps the casualties and tells you when your troops break. The guy handling the computer punches in the unit firing at an enemy battalion and the range. bang: tells you 72 casualties, unit is wavering.

Instead of a computer, have someone in the corner of the table roll the dice and read a chart and tell you. My problem is that I want to roll my own dice.

They put on beautiful games at the convention.

Carnage & Glory is a computer moderated wargame that carries out the mechanical functions of a traditional rules set.

The program contains a database created by the scenario designer containing all the statistics of every unit and then tracks casualties, fatigue, ammunition, formations and cohesion.

Each turn progresses through phases,

Engineering

Movement: Players enter formation changes and charge declarations. Program does not track positional information of units on the table top. Only the units current formation.

Fire Combat: Players enter any fire combats by identifying firing units and targets, ranges and situational concerns the program resolves the effect modifies the database and informs the players of any actions required on the table top.

Close Combat: Players enter any close combats by identifying the units involved and situational concerns. The program resolves the combat, modifies the database and informs the players of any actions required on the table top.

Rally: Players decide which officers are in a position to rally their troops and then attempt to improve their morale the program calculates the effect and modifies the database.

This ends one turn.

The game continues until one player concedes or the program decides one side leaves the table.

As I recall, the players actually aren't told how many casualties a particular round of firing caused – just a general description. You don't know exactly how many casualties your troops took or their morale state until you send an officer over to the unit to check it out. So there's some "fog of war" going on.

Dave- That is a pretty cool way to do it. We just call out the casualties.

Usually a joke or two is cracked at some of the Rally responses.

They are always beautiful games with great painted armies,but I need to be part of my own fate,I live by BDL,(Blind Dumb Luck),and that's what the dice do for me.But everyone does not like dice ,my friend hates them,and once flushed my dice down a toilet….they were my old Yaquinto games dice..sniff…sniff..

Hi Rawdon, I have done a run through on the key aspects of using Carnage & Glory in Miniature Wargames 380 as part of the Oporto game featured in the article.

Probably the biggest difference between the rules and others is their ability to effortlessly monitor unit and army fatigue levels throughout the game which really forces players to adopt a more realistic approach to using their troops.

A classic example in many paper rulesets is seeng gamers line up as many guns as they can bring to bear and blaze away in the game without any thought about the fatigue caused to the gunners and the mental stress incurred continuously being engaged in combat. They will often take long range pot shots willy nilly because there are no consequences.

If you do that in C&G the effect on your gunners will soon cause you to rest crews during your grand battery and possibly even have reserve batteries ready to take over as tired ones are pulled back to recover. Their ability to inflict casualties drops as their fatigue rises. I tend to keep this info away from players unless they inspect their units, but seasoned players know not to abuse their forces.

The fatigue effects also mean having the last fresh reserve available has real consequences, rather like real Napoleonic battles, because generally fresh competent forces are going to knock over knackered forces at the end of a battle.

If you can get past the, "I like to roll dice" view point, which is entirely valid, as I like to roll dice as well, then C&G brings a lot of simulation into the game, which as I say is effortless. It also captures the British reverse slope tactics brilliantly.

I hope you feel inclined to check them out and get a game to see what you think. You can also read more stuff based on my own games on my blog.

jjwargames.blogspot.co.uk

Cheers
Jonathan

I have played C&G and I enjoyed it very much. All of the "traditional" steps are still intact, the player decides who is being attacked, where he wishes to move,and how he draws up his battle plan. The computer is basically there to determine the outcome due to firing, fatigue, weather conditions, and morale …give it a try, it is great fun.

It also captures the British reverse slope tactics brilliantly.

Can you elaborate on that?

Rawdon – Jonathon and gfawcett did a pretty good job of explaining what the rule set does. See from your location that you are in the DC metro area. There are a couple of guys that run C&G on a recurring basis on the west side of the beltway. PM me if you may be interested in a weekday game/demonstration. I will be running a couple of games at Cold Wars, also.

Hey John how you doing? I haven't seen you in a long time. I always enjoyed the C&G games you put on. The last time I played was the French move south from Moscow and try to break thru the Russians. Where are you playing now? I have been going down to VA to play in PW. Would sure like to play some more if the games were in MD.

Bill R.

Hi Dale Hurtt
We ran a play test of C&G back in May of last year to try out the set up for British infantry defending a ridge line.
You can follow our little test game here. It showed us how to and how not to manage these set ups with different outcomes on either end of the line.

link

The play test replicated a typical situation with British lines behind a ridge line with skirmish companies forward supported by artillery.

We discovered that if you peppered the columns on the way in with skirmish fire and artillery, then met the columns at the ridge line with a volley at 75 to 100 paces the staggering effect of the casualties presents the British player with an opportunity charge (this is the only occasion when you can charge without having ordered it, as outlined in the sequence of play by gfawcett above) that causes the attacking column and often its neighbour to break before combat.

The effect of the skirmish fire is deceptive in that the casualties inflicted are minimal but they are modeling specific hits on the officers and nco's responsible for keeping the unit going forward. The ridge line preserves the integrity and prevents fatigue from the French artillery and their voltigeur screen.

The British light companies also hold the voltigeurs away from the line as the columns approach until the range between the two formed bodies causes both screens to fall back behind their respective formed troops.

The intimidating effect of mass columns on new players often causes them to open fire with the line too early and at greater range thus not inflicting enough casualties to stagger the column, as illustrated in one of our attacks.

The other important lesson is to keep a second line of supports within 75 to 100 paces to ensure they are close enough if needed for the front line to fall back behind them, but not too far back to have them end up stuck in front of them after dropping back, as our demo showed.

An experienced British player coolly waits for the column or columns to charge as they cross the ridge line. Most undamaged British lines will pass their "reacts to being charged" and then will shoot the column, at about 50 paces, to a standstill and break them with the countercharge.

We have tried out counters to this, using "order mixed", as in the Corunna game last year,

link

but British in line present a formidable foe, as they should, provided you adopt the tactics they did.

I am looking forward to running Talavera, next year where Wellesley is forced to place part of his line in open ground and have them lie down to avoid casualties. We can replicate this in C&G so it will present new challenges.

Hope that helps
Jonathan

I believe that C&G also keeps track of unit fatigue as units fire more and more or move turn after turn. This is something that no manual rules set does, as far as I know.

Thanks Jonathan, that really does help. I appreciate you taking the time to explain.

A significant advantage of the ruleset is that players are only responsible for learning the movement system. I think this is a big bonus if you dont always have the same players showing up.

The computer allows you to keep much of the "chrome" of complex rules like Empire, and at the same time not require everyone to study 4 page flow charts to resolve a melee.

From my blog writing AAR standpoint, It also adds a lot of random flavor and fun.

My rule set of choice.

Advantages: Fog of War. You're aware of fatigue, disorder, or the effect of casualties but you can't do the math in your head. Good units aren't tanks. Even good cavalry fatigue easily. You have to think things through. Which units are cannon fodder and which get protected. Do I use my crack units with skirmish ability in the front line so they can chip away at opposing units or do I protect them behind the landwehr?

Advantage: No bookwork. The computer keeps track of ammunition, fatigue, morale, and casualties. All you really need to know is how to move figures and you can play.

Advantage: Adaptable. Once you become familiar with the system, you can buy expansions for other historical periods.

Disadvantage: One input system. Big games bog down because one individual is doing data entry as opposed to many players rolling dice.

Interesting observations on reverse slope tactics – which seem to be quite realistic.

The classic French counter is to feed more men into the skirmish screen to wear down and overwhelm the British screen, and then to advance to the main line to prepare for the final attack. Took time and you might not have enough oomph left to finish the job (and no good if you bump into the Light division, as happened at Bussaco).

Few rule systems capture that dynamic – though C+G has that potential, I would think.

Hello Rawdon!

It is an interesting game to play and it does have a lot of good things going for it. Joe Rocket pretty much nails it.

There is additional prep work for the scenario designer as every unit has to be labelled and entered into the computer. During the game every shot and combat has to be entered in as well. This is extremely time consuming and the game grinds to a halt as every detail must be entered. It's extremely difficult if not impossible to do a big game in a reasonable amount of time. It's also pretty boring as there is really nothing else to do while all the details are being entered and the results read back.

The computer also removes the dice which takes away the feeling of player control for his own actions. That's a big one as most players enjoy the interaction that takes place when using dice.

"If not, much of the game will be spent waiting around for another player to do computer input."

Exactly, this can also be further complicated if the inputter is also playing in the game. Or you require an individual who will just do input which for many is not what they want to do in a wargame.

Best regards,

Glenn

Glenn
Thank you for your comments, let me see if I can respond

There is additional prep work for the scenario designer as every unit has to be labelled and entered into the computer.

Many rulesets require labeling – all my units are permanently numbered and I simply pull from existing army lists when I want to create new scenarios. I only have to renumber when fighting a specific historical scenario.

During the game every shot and combat has to be entered in as well.
Isn't this the case with any ruleset.
This is extremely time consuming and the game grinds to a halt as every detail must be entered.

Not at all, the computer stores much of the relevant information, and does the entire chart checking that would be normally required – this absolutely streamlines the information the players need to provide. Ultimately this might be reduced to "Unit 515 to fire at unit 123, at 150 paces, on the flank". After that the system is aware that it's raining, that the firing unit is low on ammunition, that it's in two, not three-ranks, that it's disordered and tiring from fatigue, and that the fire effectiveness will be reduced because it changed formation from column of companies to line, earlier in the turn, no input, or analysis required for any of that detail. The result is immediate and is not related to number of figures, stands or whatever to be removed from the table, or logged on a roster, but to the actual number of men, which is then stored by the system. So it can be 1 man lost, or 123 men, depending on the circumstances.

It's extremely difficult if not impossible to do a big game in a reasonable amount of time.

The size of game the system is designed to handle is a common misconception – the system is tactical, not grand-tactical. It shouldn't be compared to something it's not. The individual units represented are battalions, batteries and squadrons. Using the system, a good rule of thumb is that a game will take one hour for every ten units on the table. So if you have forty units, you have a four-hour game, sixty unit you have a six hour game. The game is not designed to run Borodino, with each individual battalion, battery and squadron represented, on one tabletop – that's best suited to a grand-tactical ruleset, where units represent brigades. If you want to fight Borodino, it's best broken down into smaller tactical separate actions, such as Utiza, the Fleches, and the Great Redoubt. The results of those individual actions can always be combined to produce a final result for the overall battle.

It's also pretty boring as there is really nothing else to do while all the details are being entered and the results read back.

As above, my sense is that you've been involved in a game that the system wasn't designed to cater to, and a good gamemaster soon realizes what information is important, and what is not.

The computer also removes the dice which takes away the feeling of player control for his own actions. That's a big one as most players enjoy the interaction that takes place when using dice.

In my opinion dice don't bring you control they merely represent the element of chance. Any game will have it's far share of luck, but when using C&GII the player's focus is far more on the tactics. Personally I prefer to lose because of bad tactical choices, or because I was outclassed in play, rather than because I couldn't throw a six to save my life. Same can be said of the way you win a battle. Can you image playing chess with dice – wouldn't be the same.

…. this can also be further complicated if the inputter is also playing in the game. Or you require an individual who will just do input which for many is not what they want to do in a wargame.

The system can be played solo, or with multiple players, four per side being the maximum I'd ever recommend. If you regularly play one on one, then it makes most sense that the input to the computer is shared. If there were more than two players, or an odd number, then I would certainly recommend that one of the team take responsibility for the computer input. Some actually prefer that role – being gamemaster has its benefits – in all the games I've been a part in, I've personally never lost.

Hello Ligniere!

Your welcome, may I respond.

I realize that many systems require labeling, but many don't. Anyone looking at these rules should realize it's mandatory to label your units and probably make adjustments for different scenarios.

I know the computer stores all the data, but every player must inform the inputter about every change that was made every turn if a shot or new combat is started. That's an added complication that delays the game considerably. It's like being in the express line up in the supermarket that moves slower then the regular line ups.

Not being able to play big games is an important fact to know. Most of the games I have played in were not really what I would call big games and still they were extremely slow. The few that did go fast were with only a couple of players and a handful of units. Very low level tactical games.

The use of the dice in a game is not about winning or losing the game. It's the element of chance that you control when coming face to face with your advisary and that feeling of excitement when you roll high as well as the disappointment when losing. Someone reading out the results from a computer although at times entertaining does not give players those same kind of highs and lows obtained from dice rolling.

Bad tactical choices will still sink you in most dice games that I have ever played in. It's also fairly easy to see when someone has been outclassed.

Most of our games exceed four players and are medium to big battles, so C&G would not appear to be for us.

Best regards,

Glenn

Glenn
I didn't say you couldn't do big games – more that you can do games that feature a brigade against a brigade, or multi corps engagements. It's very flexible.
Not sure where you get the idea you have to constantly input information to update a unit status – that's the whole point, it's updated internally to the system automatically.
How many games have you played where the best tactics were punished by a bad die roll, or poor tactics were rewarded by good die rolls. Not rolling dice does avoid those situations.
I suggested that eight players was a recommended number of maximum players – not four – you misread there. I've run many games with many more players of course and most of my games have at least six players table side.
We all have different expectations and experiences from our wargames – C&GII simply offers another choice.
Merry Christmas

I've played these a number of time. A friend kindly acted as umpire. For small battles I think the system works well. For larger scale ones it is too cumbersome.

The small scenarios our umpire ran, were good fun. But I have tried larger games at conventions that took far too long for everyone to have a go for my taste.

Folks, thanks much for all these well-done and – for me, anyway – insightful comments. It gives me a much better understanding of the "feel and flow" of the system than the website does (hint to the C&G owner). I have some further comments and questions. Note: nothing I say is meant to be critical. I'm trying to figure out whether I should invest in trying these rules out.

First – John Snead – Will contact you regarding attending a demo – or real – game. I am also on the west side of the Beltway – specifically the Great Falls area. If by weekday you mean evening, no problem – if you mean daytime, unfortunately I have this thing called a job. But I will get in touch.

Second – general question – is there no random element at all? Computers can generate so-called random numbers (yes I know, not truly random, but still I would say usable). Is this feature used, or does the same set of factors have the same result every time? As Glenn comments, the main purpose of dice is to provide an element of uncertainty. Our son, an avid wargamer, is a professional soldier serving in the 82nd Airborne and often comments that no plan can ever cover all the minutiae OR all the situations that will arise, and that no map or aerial photo replicates the actual small-unit-level tactical features of the ground, where a 9-inch elevation can be the difference between wining and losing a close-range firefight. Dice as used in a "traditional" miniatures game are meant to account for the zillion little real-life details that not even a sophisticated multi-variable computer program can accurately account for.

Having said that, I do also enjoy throwing my own dice and this is something about C&G that is a wee bit concerning to me. As Jurgenation put it, I love Blind Dumb Luck and my regular opponents say they have to include in their plans the fact that I will manage to out-dice them. But no pain, no gain as they say, this isn't a deal-breaker for me.

Here is my current state of understanding:

* The system uses what seem to be a moderate number of variables to calculate all results. It is unknown to me at this time whether any element of chance is injected by the algorithms. Comments?

* Some of these variables must be called out by the players and manually input into the program. Others – notably, I think, casualties and fatigue – are calculated and tracked by the program.

* The degree of Fog Of War is largely up to the Gamemaster and players, represented by the amount of information that is called out by the Gamemaster.

* There appears to be a built-in assumption that units will always precisely follow their orders, e.g. if a player calls out that unit X will fire a volley at an advancing unit at 100 paces, that is exactly what will happen. Is this true? If so, see my detailed observation below.

* The system really does all but require a non-playing fellow who does the data entry and calls out the results, and the actual players will spend a variable but fairly considerable time sitting around while data entry takes place.

* The rules are optimized for Napoleonics. That's fine with me, that is one of the two periods for which I have armies (although I will happily play other wars with other folks' armies).

Now I have some more questions, and some qualitative remarks.

* I know that there are modules available for other eras (my "other" era is AWI which from a battle-size perspective would appear to be highly suited). My impression – I'm sure you are chuckling about the fellow having impressions about a rules set he has never played, but again, the investment in time and money is causing me to perform "due diligence" – is that I probably should assume the rules work well only for Napoleonics. It appears to me that there are fundamentally Napoleonic aspects of the design and algorithms. Comments?

* Based on reading the manual, I have some concerns about the OBs. I have a complete, organized list of all my units in an Excel file, and see little problem in adding a field for each unit containing the apparently specific (and somewhat arcane) C&G labeling conventions. Also, no problem in opening a new tab and pulling in the necessary units to create a unique OB – I do this anyway. However, I am NOT going to re-label my trays. Is this a major obstacle, or will it work OK for players to cross-reference the existing tray label with the C&G label as shown on their printed OB?

* Speaking of which, I hope and assume that appropriately structured Excel files (easy for me to write a macro, or conditional-logic formulas to do the structuring) can be up-loaded to C&G, and that new battle OBs do not need to be tediously data-entered manually?

* I'm reading mixed messaging on the size of the battles. I'm happy to invest six to eight playing hours in a game. Seems that this would accommodate battles with a total of 60 to 80 units. I would call that a pretty darn big battle. Heck for any given nation, fielding 20 to 25 foot battalions would empty my barracks and for some, would not even be achievable. (Note that my battalions ARE on the large side in terms of figure count). Is it perhaps fair to say, instead of the size of the battle (within limits), that the key is that C&G is specifically designed for scenarios in which the tactical units are battalions, squadrons and batteries.

* Having said that, one of my two biggest concerns is the amount of time spent performing data entry versus "playing". How long does it take, once experienced, to do the data entry for 60 units each turn?

* My second-biggest concern is the apparent concept that units always follow orders precisely. Historically they did not. Historically, the discipline and steadiness of the British infantry was much more important than their battle tactics per se.

* On the positive side, I like the ability to track fatigue. Fatigue is indeed an important factor that is missing from many rule sets. I've tried a number of ways to do this in "conventional" games over the years, and none have been satisfactory. The ones that have been realistic have always been too tedious to keep track of. My group has settled on a system in which a unit is either fresh, tired, or not-fresh-but-not-tired, which is overly simplistic but easy to keep track of and a big improvement over ignoring as a factor.

* Also on the positive side, if the final results can be downloaded, then this would be a great system for a campaign, with the losses for each unit automatically generated. What sort of reports can be generated?

Hello Carojon,

LOVED your AAR on Oporto AND your blogs on creating the tabletop. I did note at the time your references to C&G.

Regards,
Rawdon

Hello all,

Another stupid question.

Although I have been "lurking" here for several years, and have used some of the resources (e.g. manufacturers' index) for longer than that, I only actually signed up a couple months ago.

How do I contact another member, e.g. John SNead?

Regards,
Rawdon

Rawdon
Virtually every interaction made between the player and system will result in some form of imponderable (read die roll) – way more, in fact, than you'd ever care to make using a traditional rule set. There are probably at least fifty variables that are automatically referenced by the system in determining and resolving any number of the interactions between the player and the system.
Each module is designed to suit the specific qualities of the period, whether in formations, armament or unit types etc. The interface is, however, consistent, so switching from one period to the next presents little to no learning curve.
The army lists you'd create would be based upon your figure collections. The unique ID number, which the system uses to track the information about the unit or officer, need not change from game to game. Which commands you elect to use on the table top will then always be represented by those same ID numbers.
The amount of interaction between the players and computer is wholly dependent on how much activity the players which to indulge in. You may elect to charge, or change formation. You may elect to fire on an opposing unit. You may end up in close combat. You may need to rally a unit. Beyond that there is no requirement for interaction. Moving from point A to B requires no input.
The predictability or lack of it, regarding what you can and cannot do with a unit or command depends on very many factors. Expect the unexpected and you won't be disappointed.
Fatigue is not tracked on both the physical and mental levels. The stress of combat being as fatiguing as dragging a two ton artillery piece back into position after recoil. The only way to recover fatigue is to avoid interaction with the computer.
Hope this helps

Re: Slow Resolution

I disagree with the over generalization of Glenn. In contests of a division or two with some cavalry (or even up to a small corps) vs similar number of opponents (on the level of the intended level of say Gen de Brigade) you can get the result faster and with all the chrome of an "older" more complex ruleset like Empire III/V. 85+% of movement requires no input with the computer, leaving only close combat and fire combat. I have only watched a Black Powder game, but you might be able to match the speed of C&G by tossing handfuls of d6 and never having to refer to charts. The entry of a combat should take you approximately 30sec, (e.g. I want to shoot unit 530 at 125, distance is… 250 paces, 100% fire, no cover--umpire hits enter, combat is resolved, casualties announced).

When gaming in the "grand manner" is where C&G starts to run into difficulties, because the choke point of the one computer becomes acute as you're trying to enter in combats for 20 feet of table across multiple corps worth of contact points. If you have 10 players of which 5 of them know a similarly complex ruleset (say Empire V) sufficiently to umpire independently 20% of the board, you will move faster than C&G, but you need to have developed that knowledge base with the umpires/players over a significant period of time. If your group only has 2 or 3 of the guys that really know the rules or you're spending lots of time with charts, C&G will go faster.

As a convention game, I think C&G will run into further difficulties, because getting the input information in a timely and orderly manner can greatly speed up (or conversely slow down the game--players starting to measure distances to fire before telling the umpire what units firing, etc.) Note: I have never run C&G at a convention, only taught new players in our group.

See my quick reference chart in the QB setup for idea of what requires inputting and how it should be input.

link

I would not really compare C&G to a "fast play" ruleset, through at the divisional+ level of some of the popular rulesets today it can give them a run for their money.

Re: Randomness

Its all random as near as I can tell, from everything to fatigue recovery to casualties. However, the range of results will not be as different as you are used to in dice based games. E.g. If you get lucky, and the other guy just missing inflicting those casualties twice in a a row etc, you're unit is practically fresh coming through that combat. There is no granular result, you either lost a figure or hit point or you didnt. Either C&G, if you roll poorly, you hit 25 guys instead of 60. The C&G battalion in the example above will be suffering fatigue both physical and mental from being under fire, and will have lost 50 men. The dice based game will be fresh with no casualties.

Re: Command loss of control/Fog of war

Your unit commanders will do odd things. Refuse to charge or change formation or miss the opportunity to charge. One example below in the below link, a unit of Chasseurs refused to charge when they had a chance to likely massacre some infantry in open order. Later in the Quatre Bras game an allied battery was ordered to sauve qui peut, but the commander refused to limber for "the honor of the battery".

link

Concerning modeling fog of war, the players do not know the exact status of their units and cannot metagame the math to decide in advance, their chances of success or victory. The umpire can give as much or as little intel as your group likes.

Re: Setup.

Definitely something to consider. It does take an extra hour or so if you dont have your units numbered and and ready to go. Most game sessions aren't on a random lark though so this can be prepared.

Hope this helps explain some of the points brought up Rawdon.

It's difficult to determine the randomness of events without seeing the underlying calculation, so it's impossible to determine if C&G is more random than some other rule system. But in statistics there is is something called regression to the mean. Simply put, regression to the mean means that the more dice your roll, the more likely the result will be average. If you somehow had the ability to roll to hit for every musket fired for two 500 man battalions, the results would be nearly the same for each of the battalions. The more you roll, the more likely you eliminate a cumulative outlying result. I think C&G does a pretty good job of grouping the results of musketry around the mean. A 500 man battalion isn't going to whiff and they aren't likely to crush an opposing unit either.

Randomness comes into the system every time a morale test is forced by the system. A unit must try and fire and this prompts the system to test for morale, fatigue, and ammunition. The unit being fired at also tests. You get times when troops refuse to fire and retire to the rear. You also get results where attackers fail to close. Again, regression to the mean kicks in and attackers in good condition will likely close and defenders in good condition will likely stand and fire, but that shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Units in bad morale, fatigue, etc. will refuse to advance until the morale or fatigue levels recover and even then they will be of limited combat value.

Army morale is the killer. Once your army loses a morale level, the game is more or less over. Your units fall apart faster than you can rally them.

I have played in many C&G games and here are my ups and downs.
Ups- easy to learn great convention game
one chart for everyone
no dice (good for me)
no book keeping
realistic outcomes when tactics are used correctly
some fog of war
nice detail offered by the computer on rallies and spectacular deaths etc.
important to use reserves.
Downs- one man choke point for data input
not very much fun for the umpire who inputs all the data
some fidgiting with ob and game setup, labeling units
large games can become bogged down unless GM stays focused.

On the whole a great system,but being a machine it can lack some of the flair other rule sets have. What I like most about C&G is tha tit is easy to learn and you don't have people taking advantage of chicken rules inherent in most sets and focuses on tactics not gaming the system.
I bought a copy for AWI, they also have suplememnts for other periods not just Napoleonics.

A merry Christmas to all!

Thanks for the additional responses / inputs. Once again, very helpful.

To start with – one specific question still not answered: can I upload OB data from Excel?

Sounds like there must be some use of the random number generator, apparently mostly in command and morale.

Joe Rocket, I not only studied statistics in college, but I use statistics regularly in my job. I hear you about the regression to the mean, but it also is true that all previous die throws have no bearing on the result of the next one (vide Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead by Tom Stoppard).

On the whole, the system appears to emphasize the same things that my regular group's "conventional" paper rules do – command & control, and morale at two levels – whether or not a unit performs a desired action, and at a different level, whether or not the unit sticks around. It seems to have a similar decision flow but no doubt has a much larger number of variables. I believe that I would want to add some command-control restrictions but this could I believe be easily done outside of the computer-assisted part of the system

In terms of the amount of data entry per turn, I "get it" now that units that only move, or do nothing, require no input. But what about recovering from fatigue? Does this mean that units can move, and still recover from fatigue?

In summary, the system sounds interesting. Players don't have to keep consulting tables. My regular rules don't require any book-keeping so lack of book-keeping is not a particular advantage. While the group with whom I regularly game are harmonious folks who don't "game the rules" and don't argue, I can see that a computer-assisted system can greatly reduce the opportunity for such problems. It will also reduce the frequency of honest mistakes.

The main – and significant – disadvantage that I see is that one person must act as the data entry person and it honestly doesn't sound like much fun. That's the main thing I need to ponder before investing in the system.

Grossman, what do you think of the AWI system?

G'Day

Is it possible to change the parameters in the game design?

Such as when one disagrees with "realistic outcomes when tactics are used"…or must the player be forced to accept what the designer feels are the best results in the program?

How does the program work with two ranks firing when a body of troops are in three ranks…

Does the program use late and early fire, and can it be modified to match with other countries?

Does the game understand the difference between colonne par peloton, colonne par division, colonne d'attaque, double colonnes, colonne par compagnies…lignes doubled on six ranks?

Best Regards,
Art

Rawdon,

can I upload OB data from Excel?

No. The system has it's own database, which carries all the variables for the officers and units.

Sounds like there must be some use of the random number generator

Correct. During the course of a single turn, depending on the type of activity, there is the potential use of over two hundred random number generator events.

….and morale at two levels

Both combat units and officers will be subject to morale responses. Higher echelons of command are also subject to morale. A brigade commands integrity and cohesion may degrade or improve, dependent upon the averages of strength, fatigue and morale, and commanding officer leadership and tactical prowess. Ultimately, the entire force may loose [or improve] integrity and cohesion, based upon the same factors. As these degrade, it becomes more difficult to control your forces, as they begin to act independently, subject to compulsory reactions. The army morale also influences the army initiative, which is used to determine which army tactically moves first or second. An army with the initiative can always elect to have their opponents move first, if they so wish.

But what about recovering from fatigue? Does this mean that units can move, and still recover from fatigue?

Effectively each time a player or gamemaster calls out a unit ID number, during the course of a turn, there is a potential of some fatigue loss, either physical or mental. On the other hand, if the unique ID number is not mentioned, and normal movement, from point A to B, does not require to be called out, then there is always a potential for fatigue to be recovered during the end of day phase. The rate of recovery will vary, depending on a number of circumstances, and will also be directly affected by the heat of the day, or other weather conditions that may result in heat exhaustion.

Hope this helps

Art

Is it possible to change the parameters in the game design?

Such as when one disagrees with "realistic outcomes when tactics are used"…or must the player be forced to accept what the designer feels are the best results in the program?

A player, or gamemaster, cannot alter the outcome of an event, simply because the result is disagreeable. The system is working with many more factors and variables, than would probably be considered. For example, the system will always 'remember' that the ground is softer than the previous turn, due to the inclement rainfall, that has been falling for the last hour, which might affect the potential for grazing shots or bouncethrough. Something a player might 'overlook'. The system will be aware that the time required to deploy the third section of cannon, was insufficient, resulting in a reduced overall effectiveness of the battery fire during the same turn phase. Something a player might also 'overlook'.

How does the program work with two ranks firing when a body of troops are in three ranks…

The system understands that the third rank are largely excluded from fire action, therefore, you may input 100% of the unit to fire, when deployed, but the system is aware that the unit, by nationality, or choice, is in three ranks, and will adjust the total rank and file available to fire to about 70%. If the unit is in two-ranks, that adjustment is avoided.

Does the program use late and early fire, and can it be modified to match with other countries?

The effectiveness of fire is dependent upon a whole host of variables and modifiers. The timing, and results, of a units fire will be based fundamentally on these factors. Consequently, you will observe these differences of fire results during the course of any game, and effectively what is being seen is the lack or proficiency of a units fire discipline.

Does the game understand the difference between colonne par peloton, colonne par division, colonne d'attaque, double colonnes, colonne par compagnies…lignes doubled on six ranks?

The periods differ, but the Napoleonic system offers three basic column formations. Route, company and double company. The latter equate to colonne par peleton and colonne par division. The choice will effect the frontage and pace of movement of a unit. The intervals are dealt with internal to the system, generally when maneuvering the column will be in open formation [quarter, half or full distances], if the unit charges in an attempt to close to contact, those distances are lost, as the formation becomes a 'mass'.
There is a double line option.

Hope this helps

Hello Ligniere!

Thanks for your feedback. There seems to be some confusion so please let me try and clarify.

Under our current rules we can play a big battle in 3 to 7 hours and it contains all the features. Having to break Borodino down into sections and then somehow add them up doesn't equal playing a big battle. At least not to me.

I understand that the system tracks everything. You have to input all the changes that the system is unaware of.

The dice rolls in most conventional games represent all the variables that are generally not represented. Good and bad tactics are generally represented by modifiers. To say the dice roll rewarded or punished you for your tactics I think is a false conclusion.

My number four was just from my experience. I've noticed that once you exceed four players the computer choke point starts to be noticeable.

Trust your Christmas was good and hopefully New Years as well.

Glenn

Hello Malefric!

I certainly agree, there are a lot of slow rule sets out there that can't compete with the speed of C&G. However, there are also sets that are just as fast and some that are a lot faster as the size of the game grows.

I also agree that 30 seconds is a time possible for data entry. However, my experience is the overall time expended for the total transaction, calling out your input, having it entered and the results called out generally take longer. Obviously the time varies per transaction. The critical time is that expended per turn. From my experience I would say roughly 10 minutes is lost per turn interacting with the computer. This will of course vary on the size of the game and number of players, experience, etc. Still, if reasonably correct that's an hour for every six turns. That's a major time loss. I remember eating my lunch in one game while the entire computer interaction took place for one turn.

Until the game evolves into individual hand held devices the computer choke point problem will be very difficult to overcome.

Best regards,

Glenn

Hello Ligniere,

Thank you for your comments. I have a couple of follow-up questions.

(1) You say I cannot upload from Excel. Can I cut-and-paste from Excel if I have properly designed the cells?

(2) You say the system has its own database. Does this mean I can create a master unit roster and pull the appropriate units into any given scenario? Or do I have to go through the tedium of complete roster recreation and data entry for every scenario?

As you have probably figured out, I have a "thing" about having to re-do my detailed OBs for every scenario. As it is, I create a (OK, my own opinion here) beautiful OB in about 10 minutes by just creating a new tab and then linking to each relevant unit in the master tabs (one for each nation and era).

Rawdon,
When creating an army list you only need to type in the name and, in the case of a combat unit, it's physical strength. All other variables are selected from drop down menus.
So you can paste and copy the name and strength, but it's probably easier to type it – you only have to do this once, and this database will effectively replace your excel file.
You can print out the army lists for reference purposes.

Once you have a base army list then you can repeatedly draw from that list to create new orders of battle. As you add officers and units to your collections you simply append these to your original army list. As you create orders of battle from the army lists, you can paste and copy the orders of battle to both Word and Excel, and/or print direct from the system.

Hope that helps

Rawdon – If you want to contact me via email, use johnbsnead (at) netzero (dot) net. Should be able to get you into a Wednesday evening (I work too) game, sometime in January.

John

Ligniere, thank you for the clarifications.

John, thanks for the contact data. I have just e-mailed you.

Rawdon