"Quality and Movement" Topic

Writing in Slingshot magazine, Richard Taylor observed:

It would seem reasonable for example that veteran units should manoeuvre and march faster than levies, not because the individual men move faster of course, but because they are more responsive to orders, better drilled, and their commanders more in tune with the wishes of their general. Yet movement rules tend to be resolutely based on unit type not quality, and where quality is taken into account it is often as a special case or modifier, rather than integral to the movement system.

What do you think?

I think the assertion that veteran troops maneuver faster is valid. But at the scale and duration that I wargame on the table, the difference is too granular to matter in terms of linear move distance. The delta can be made up (as many rules do) by initiative sequencing and (as most rules do) by better combat effectiveness, which rolls up better accuracy with other things like better C2, better position in maneuver, knowing just when to shoot (stab, hit the button, etc.).

Another very broad generalization. It depends very much on game scale. At 1"=100 yards and turns = 20 minutes the differences are likely to be pretty small. At 1"=20 yards and one turn = 5 minutes, sure veterans would move quicker.

The problem becomes in writing rules for this that aren't too troublesome. For example, once started moving, I'd say all troops probably move at about the same speed. So veterans change formation faster, and maybe start moving faster.

A lot more to it than just veterans move 12" while levies move 8"

He has a good point, but I would counter that many rules adjust the ease of "unit activation" according to unit experience. The net effect is often exactly what is suggested above: more experienced units activate more more easily, especially when shot up, and therefore move more often and (in whole-battle terms) faster/farther than greener units.

The above suggestion that movement rates be adjusted by experience leads inexorably to longer and more complicated charts of movement rates, or even unique movement rates for each unit that must be printed on a roster or the unit itself. It also requires careful game design to avoid annoying anomalies like veteran infantry outpacing green cavalry/mechanized units, elite artillerists zipping around the table, etc. Not impossible, just not done much.

Boardgames have been doing exactly what he suggests since the sixties, with each unit having its unique movement and combat stats printed directly on the counter.

- Ix

I would much prefer to see the behavior noted (if it's actually true, which bears discussion) emulated via activation rather than changing movement rates. Otherwise, all the other caveats already noted.

Unless of course the veterans have been at it too long and now aren't in any hurry to die. Although they will move faster if they think that will increase their odds of surviving in the moment.

Depends on the level of play. Slingshot is mainly for ancients-medieval. So the concept of marching is defferent than later on.
In modern terms they are almost always in route step especially for all troops except those that fought in drilled close order. And even those did route step right until the time of the attack.

So the concept of Veteran troops would not affect the march rate to any degree unless they are changing to close order drilled.

I can see that they might get a slight bonus for discipline, or endurance, due to rigorous training, for some genres.

Not every trooper in a "veteran" unit is necessarily a veteran.

I suspect you move at the rate of the slowest person/sub-unit, not the average.

Quality should really affect activation, rather than movement rates, as Yellow Admiral has alread said.

Even movement rates can be affected by quality, particularly in more modern units where issues such as route recce, traffic control, engineer preparation etc are big issues.

I was just reading about Operation Saturn, where in the northern flank, half the supporting artillery arrived two days after the offensive started….

Mansteins advance to the Dvina and Pattons 24 hour turn in the Bulge are cited as outstanding operatonal achievements – if that isn't movement rates being determined by 'quality', I don't what is.

How you model this sort of thing in games, depends. Back to the discussion about Warmaster?

Patton's 24 turn around during the Bulge also had to do with 'command anticipation'. Patton had his staff plan and prep the change of direction 24 hours before he got the order to do so. There is no question about the quality of the third army. The question is how fast Patton's forces could have completed the advance to the flank compared to other armies if he hadn't anticipated the need.

I don't think it is back to Warmaster. It is back to asking what history tells us. If the question was asked in Slingshot, Rudy N. is right. It depends on the scale and era we are talking about.

For instance, movement in the Napoleonic war would be different on the march strategically compared to movement on the battlefield and under fire.

And it may be something else besides quality. The British always recognized that the French could outmarch them, but I don't think that it means the quality of British troops was less than French.

So, what era are we talking about and what part of a campaign and battle are we focusing on?