"Abstracted combat factors" Topic
17 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 avoid recent politics on the forums.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the ACW Discussion Message Board Back to the Napoleonic Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestNapoleonic American Civil War
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Profile ArticleFor the time being, the last in our series of articles on the gates of Old Jerusalem.
Featured Book Review
|
forwardmarchstudios | 17 Jan 2017 1:19 p.m. PST |
Looking at hex based games, one feature that jumps out is the broad use of abstracted combat factors that are counted up into a total number and then compared to the defender in order to arrive at a ratio. This ratio then determines the likelihood of a more or less favorable outcome of the attack. What interests me in these rules is that attackers are often given penalties on the attack, sometimes at a factor of 2:1 ("Reduce CF of attacking hexes by half). To my knowledge, this is not done in the great majority of miniature-based war-games. Personally, I think it captures the reality of combat in the period better, especially when we "zoom out" to the brigade level of things. In hex-based games, in order for an attack to have a good certainty of victory, units must be coordinated by senior officers that have the ability to allow units from more than one hex to combine their CFs against one defending hex. Without an officer to do so, units from different subcommands are unable to combine their CF, even if they're in adjacent hexes. If a hex can only be attacked once in a turn, this makes officer control and coordination paramount for conducting an assault. All of this makes sense to me from the historic record. It also allows for subtle differences in outcome and mechanics, and it makes officer casualties very important- if they build up then entire commands can be paralyzed. I was wondering what people think about the idea that an attacking unit (I'm talking primarily about infantry here) should be penalized on it's CF against a defending unit. And, furthermore, what if the ratio/results charts favors the defender at a 1:1 ratio? With the exception of VnB, I can't think of many model war-games that penalize the attacker (although in VnB its a rather small modifier IIRC). Is this a common flaw in model war-games? Or is it the hex-based war-games that are mistaken? I can't help but feel that miniature games and hex-games are rather at odds over the thing they are trying to portray, or that they have two very different ways of looking at the same thing. I'd be curious to hear peoples thought on this, as I'm working on a set of rules that are trying to bridge the gap here…in 3mm, of course ; ) |
Rubber Suit Theatre | 17 Jan 2017 2:25 p.m. PST |
A bonus to the defender (cover, fortifications, bonus for stationary firing, etc.) is equivalent to penalizing the attacker. |
forwardmarchstudios | 17 Jan 2017 3:24 p.m. PST |
No arguments there… But, say we're given a specific year… say 1809. What should we set the Austrian and French CFs at for the brigade level? They could be very different. If we're going to halve the attackers CF in any case, and given a specific amount of time per turn, say 30 minutes, how should we proceed to arrive at a "correct abstraction?" By working backwards from the historical results? But how would we do that exactly? |
TKindred | 17 Jan 2017 4:06 p.m. PST |
The problem with setting these levels, whether Austrian and french, or federal and confederate, is that they fluctuate based on a variety of factors. For example, in the ACW period, looking strategically, you really have 3 separate periods, each different enough to require their own rules modifiers. 1.) The 90 day wonders: The war from April through December of 1861, perhaps into January 1862. 2.) The volunteer's war: January 1862 through December 1863 3.) Conscripts and total war: January 1864 through May of 1865 That's the overall look at the war effort and generally represents each side. This, then, is further subdivided by theater, and potentially by either campaign or different battles. Overall, it comes down to what you want, what level of realism, replication, etc. Indeed, the first decision MUST be to decide which syllable of "wargame" do you wish to put the emphasis on. Start there,and the rest ought to follow. One last thought: A number of rules authors tend to want to emphasize or include "national characteristics" for their army performances. I disagree. I believe that, especially in the Napoleonic wars, each army ought to have it's own characteristics based upon the campaign and battle you are playing. |
forwardmarchstudios | 17 Jan 2017 6:14 p.m. PST |
TKindred- All great points- I especially agree with your last sentence, and that might be where hex-based games diverge importantly from model war-games. Hex-based games, pretty much by default, revolve around a particular battle, which means a particular set of facts and a known historical outcome. They need to do so because they're limited by the map they get shipped with. I'm not aware of any free-form hex games, other than CnC, which, from the time I played it, isn't exactly what I'm getting at (the board is too small). What I do think that more Napoleonic games should do is include a list of armies by period, year and campaign. Piquet was really good about this- Les Grognards had a very long list of armies broken down by year and theatre. I think the DBx campaign books are good examples of what a Napoleonic army list should look like. I also like the idea of having a set of rules that would allow you to take armies from across the period and pit them against each other. This would allow you to answer questions like, (random example) "could Napoleon have won Waterloo with the army at Borodino?" Or for the matter, could the British have beat the Russians at Borodino? You would need a few firm conceptual rules before launching into it, but I think it would be possible. What would be cool, sticking with the DBx comparison, would be an army book that lists the specific armies that were at certain battles, as they performed, on those days (this gives us the specificity you're asking for) and then assigns them a general handicap number or rank. Players can then pick and choose armies from different battles, theaters and years without having to deal with the idea of strictly balanced armies- by giving a handicap, the outcome becomes the thing balanced, and not the troops. But you are right, if you make it too complicated then players are fighting against the rules and not the other player. That's the other big problem with hex-based games… |
Martin Rapier | 18 Jan 2017 4:34 a.m. PST |
This sort of thing is already dealt with in higher level rules anyway like Volley & Bayonet, Grande Armee and F&F. It isn't hard to calculate relative strengths for briagde and divisional sized units, especially in the nineteenth century. |
donlowry | 18 Jan 2017 11:54 a.m. PST |
Just to cherry-pick from your initial post: A rule that would prohibit attacking one defender with more than one attacker (at one time) without a senior officer to coordinate them would seem fair -- and with the chances of such coordination actually happening even then depending on that officer's perceived ability to do something like that (i.e., each higher officer having a rating of some kind). But a lot depends on your definition of "attack." Advance upon? fire at? close with? melee? |
forwardmarchstudios | 18 Jan 2017 12:49 p.m. PST |
To me, at the brigade level and above "attack" only means one thing- an effort to take defended terrain. Given a known troop number, an abstracted CF, and terrain modifiers, and a known time window, we can assume that the give-and-take of volleys fired, tactical retreats and such are already factored in and represented by the outcome. I've read some hex rules where there is some tactical mix-and-match, but I'm not sure how much I agree with this. I feel like its just an extra level of detail that can be dealt with by rolling on a ratio-chart. The real trick is figuring a way out to recreate a full chain of command for use in generic wargame battles. Its easy to do in games based on real battles, but harder if you're trying to create something people just want to plop down and play. |
Whirlwind | 18 Jan 2017 2:10 p.m. PST |
Were most multi-battalion infantry combats in the Napoleonic Wars decided by 3:1 gang-ups? But, say we're given a specific year… say 1809. What should we set the Austrian and French CFs at for the brigade level? They could be very different. If we're going to halve the attackers CF in any case, and given a specific amount of time per turn, say 30 minutes, how should we proceed to arrive at a "correct abstraction?" By working backwards from the historical results? But how would we do that exactly? 1. I'd take my favourite account of the 1809 campaign. 2. I'd make a list of all the brigade or brigade-type encounters, whether individual or as part of a bigger battle. 3. I'd record the number of troops on each side as best I could, including things like artillery and cavalry support. 4. I'd add a note about the terrain the defender was in. 5. I'd add notes about anything else particularly noteworthy: did the presence of a senior commander seem to make a difference? did an outrageous piece of bad luck effect the result? did contemporaries think that the result of this combat was anomalous. 6. I'd record who withdrew from the encounter, the casualties suffered and the time taken, where known. 7. I'd work out the factors based on the median results, and have the random element allow at extremities the worst case and best case for both sides. If the extremities contained the noted anomalous results, I might consider removing them and use some kind of "random event" mechanism or "resource allocation" mechanism to represent this kind of thing. 8. If I had less than 30 examples, then I'd use divisional results too and see if I achieved the same results. If not, I would then try using half, a third, the square and cube roots to see how those results looked. 9. I'd compare the data with my 2nd favourite account. You should then have a workable brigade CF. |
McLaddie | 18 Jan 2017 3:05 p.m. PST |
One last thought: A number of rules authors tend to want to emphasize or include "national characteristics" for their army performances. I disagree. I believe that, especially in the Napoleonic wars, each army ought to have it's own characteristics based upon the campaign and battle you are playing. TKindred: Yeah. Considering the changes in the ACW armies over just four years, wars stretching over 20 years should see some specific characteristics for the different campaigns. National Characteristics are an interesting issue, particularly when the various Napoleonic military men wrote about them at length and often stated that their tactics and strategies were based on them. |
evilgong | 18 Jan 2017 3:22 p.m. PST |
Plenty of table-top rules give penalties to the attacker by allowing the defender closing fire and/or requiring the attacker to pass morale checks to charge home – which if failed may leave the attacker in danger of close-range defender musketry. Something of a cliche in this area, for both board and table-top games is that the odds are slightly (or otherwise) stacked to the defender, but if the attacker wins the consequence for the defender is worse (rout, destroyed etc) than a fail for the attacker (repulsed, etc). David F Brown |
evilgong | 18 Jan 2017 4:11 p.m. PST |
Hi there Mr Forwardmarch said >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What would be cool, sticking with the DBx comparison, would be an army book that lists the specific armies that were at certain battles, as they performed, on those days (this gives us the specificity you're asking for) and then assigns them a general handicap number or rank. Players can then pick and choose armies from different battles, theaters and years without having to deal with the idea of strictly balanced armies- by giving a handicap, the outcome becomes the thing balanced, and not the troops. >>>>>>>>> Yes, for this period with its better documented (compared with ancients) forces could be in army lists based on actual battles. I think the idea of handicapping is not necessary if you have a well-tested points system – I guess you might need to put some flexibility maybe up to 20% to shoe-horn armies into the same size. For example your army list for the battle of X would have a core force and an add-on option(s) of other troops that on the day of the prototype battle were in a reserve or quiet section of the battle, or were perhaps marching to the sound of the guns but didn't quite make it. This gives players a mechanism to balance points. The problem with this approach is how do you actually represent an army; DBx has the advantage that you can field 60-70 independent things in a comfortable 3-4 hour game. If those things are battalions you scale up to an army of say 25-40k men – not a bad size engagement but still a long way from some of the famous battles people might want to play. However single elements often don't look and feel like battalions (or larger) for figs above 6mm and you can't show formations like square or column by arrangement of figs. If that's your cup of tea. I'd love to see Phil Barker's draft 2-elements per unit rules (Shako and Bayonette ?) to see how he's grappled with some of these issues. Back to the army list by battle idea, I once tried to survey battles in the Napoleonic wars to see if there was a trend for army size, the data was hazy but you could kinda sorta lump things at; (IIRC) smaller actions of say 10-15K armies, 20-30k and then about 45K before you get to the famous titanic battles. So you might want to set army lists at forces of 3-4 possible size lumps (which could also be a discreet section or phase of a titanic battle) and give an indicative points total for the game time length envisioned. Regards David F Brown |
Lion in the Stars | 18 Jan 2017 4:59 p.m. PST |
Something of a cliche in this area, for both board and table-top games is that the odds are slightly (or otherwise) stacked to the defender, but if the attacker wins the consequence for the defender is worse (rout, destroyed etc) than a fail for the attacker (repulsed, etc). Considering that modern military officers usually consider dug in infantry to be worth at least twice the number of bodies physically present, I'm not sure that "cliche" is the correct adjective. |
Sparta | 19 Jan 2017 4:39 a.m. PST |
The interesting thing about the Napoleonic wars is that the defense was not necessarily much better than the assault – which is why it lends itself so much better to gaiming than many other periods. Morale/disorder was most important and if it was equal there was a firefight. Units did not gang up, weight of numbers were brought to bear by repeated units charging or outflanking. |
donlowry | 19 Jan 2017 6:20 p.m. PST |
One thing that would definitely work in the defender's favor is that units of the black-powder era could normally either fire or advance, but doing both at once (or almost at once) was very difficult. At best it would slow the advance, giving the defender more shots at the attacker before they reached melee range (if ever). Moreover, if an attacking unit once stopped to fire, it might be pretty difficult to get the men moving again. |
Hellcat F6F | 19 Jan 2017 8:39 p.m. PST |
donlowry wrote: "At best it would slow the advance, giving the defender more shots at the attacker before they reached melee range (if ever). Moreover, if an attacking unit once stopped to fire, it might be pretty difficult to get the men moving again." And if the defender had excellent fire control and out-ranged you in accuracy say by even 50 yards with flintlock muskets, they were going to get more shots before the attacker entered melee range. As an attacker, against that kind of differential, you might want to dispense with controlled volley fire, open up at 120 yards, and fire and advance at will, especially when you know your controlled, close order formations are going to be disordered and/or broken before they reach effective range.
|
forwardmarchstudios | 20 Jan 2017 2:10 p.m. PST |
Bear in mind scope here- if you're talking about 2000+ men in four battalions staging an assault over 350 meters of frontage for 30 minutes I think that you can dispense with the timing of individual volleys. At this scale the only real question is whether or not the attacking unit has taken their objective, and what posture the effort has left them in. |
|