"Age of Eagles-the end all, be all of rules?????" Topic
60 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 remember not to make new product announcements on the forum. Our advertisers pay for the privilege of making such announcements.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Napoleonic Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestNapoleonic
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Profile ArticleFor the time being, the last in our series of articles on the gates of Old Jerusalem.
|
Pages: 1 2
McLaddie | 05 May 2018 12:56 p.m. PST |
Although to be semantic, the question is less whether these forces have been Engaged (i.e. brought under fire) than whether they have been Committed or remain Uncommitted.But apart from what words are used, the question remains as to what processes are modeled. All the arguments upholding RM seem to reason in terms in of outcomes, rather than processes. All fair enough, if you think that way. laretenue and MarshalG: The question is what the mechanism attempts to model, whether as a process or an outcome. The game process deals with player decisions to influence the 'outcome.' Do the game processes have any relationship to actual CinC issues and options and do the outcomes have any relation to actual outcomes. There are no perfect mechanisms and there will always be things left out. It is all about the mechanisms and their specific relationship to history. Friction isn't spread equally inch deep over the entire battlefield. It tends to pool in very specific hinges of an organization and activities. Remember the old adage about "for the want of a nail the shoe was lost…"? That wasn't about just any horse on the battlefield, but a courier, one with critical messages. Obviously, the CinC hadn't been proactive in sending two riders or have gone himself. So, the first question is what is being represented, the historical events being modeled--what Friction? From there we can talk about specific mechanisms for mimicking the identified dynamics and/or outcomes, or whether rules can be simplified or not. When Bill is feeling better and has the time, he would be the one to identify the history he wanted modeled with the Reserve Movement rules. |
Colonel Bill | 05 May 2018 6:45 p.m. PST |
OK, here ya go, but first a couple of ground rules. This will likely be my only further post on the subject as I really don't have the interest or stamina right now for a long, detailed exchange. And I've rarely seen people's minds changed regardless. Second rule, if you wish additional wisdom and from yours truly, see first rule :). My research and formal military education have convinced me that the Napoleonic Wars was a conflict in which the differences and disparities of Grand tactical command and control (C2) were so great as to demand formal replication in AOE, with the French (and I have a copy of the staff manual Berthier used) having a significant advantage in the early years vice, say 1806 Prussia (US Army War College – "a military Sanhedrin, totally devoid of rapid decision making"). I wanted something to represent all aspects of this C2 environment whose end result – taking a cue from Yorck's Napoleon as a General – would be how quickly an army commander could commit "reserve" forces to sway the course of battle. In the game units within 16 inches of the enemy (max range for artillery IIRC) are considered to be following previously issued orders as well as reacting to the enemy in their vicinity. They are in the Tactical Zone (TZ) and use the traditional Fire & Fury movement table. Units outside 16 inches are considered to be in an area of the battlefield unimpeded by enemy activity and thus theoretically still under the management and supervision of the commander and his staff system. This is the Reserve Zone (RZ) and units within use a different movement table where the die roll modifiers (DRMs) are primarily based on the army commander's Initiative Rating (Napoleon 1806, +3 while Duke of Brunswick 1806, -3), a number which also reflects the army's staff efficiency. Thus when rolling for Reserve Movement, Napoleon can likely start the Guard on its way same or next turn, while the Duke of Brunswick will likely take a turn or two, unless the latter attaches himself or supersedes command. Units in Reserve Movement ignore terrain modifiers for moving through them. Combined with the Initiative Roll at the beginning of each turn, a general with a +3 rating can be tough to beat. Like the concept or not, I think its historical, but not appropriate for purely competitive play. Also, remember personal preference is everything. Nevertheless, we've sold over 6K of the book, so I'm satisfied. I will say that one of my peeps came up with a novel alternative (WAY after the 2d Edition had gone to press, of course). He said use the traditional Fire & Fury Movement Table and drop the RM Tables . . . BUT . . . add a new DRM for any unit that begins movement greater than 16 in away from the enemy. That DRM would be the army commander's Initiative Rating. Intriguing. Maybe someone could playtest? Whew? That pretty much wore me out, so in accordance with the first paragraph above, its time for pain meds and a long, overnight nap. Ciao, Colonel Bill ageofeagles.com PS: End all, be all? Uhh, no. |
Marc the plastics fan | 06 May 2018 2:19 a.m. PST |
Colonel Bill -all the very best from a fellow heart op vet. Great to hear from you but take it easy. Health before hobby every time Marc |
laretenue | 06 May 2018 3:25 a.m. PST |
I find the suggestion in the Colonel's penultimate para interesting enough to want to try it. I sounds as if could answer my reservations rather smoothly. Presumably only positive Mods would apply, since otherwise a clunky army would actually find manoeuvre harder in the RZ than the TacZ. Thanks for taking the trouble to contribute, Bill. |
Whirlwind | 06 May 2018 10:33 a.m. PST |
@McLaddie, What are your preferred mechanics for simulating these issues (in Napoleonic tactical games)? |
laretenue | 06 May 2018 11:51 a.m. PST |
While we're here, I'll just mention the approach Bruce Weigle takes to differentiating between the varying efficiencies of Formation HQs in different armies in his 1870/59/66/71 series. Orders for Brigades are Activated on a d10 Roll of 1-7 for average staffs, but more efficient armies may move on a 1-9, while fumbling and incompetent staffs see this drop down to 6. There are similar systems in operation for Div and Corps HQs. I'm not claiming this idea to be superior, but it may worth mentioning since Weigle's rules lie at broadly the same Grand Tac level. This mechanism, however, is not confined to troops still uncommitted to battle, nor is it intended to reflect practice in the Napoleonic Age. But it could be applied – flexibly – to any period and any military establishment by keying in the values you consider reflect its efficiency. And if you want to maintain a difference for troops beyond the maximum range of enemy artillery, Bill's new suggestion could also be invoked. |
seneffe | 07 May 2018 2:32 p.m. PST |
I've played AoE for years and really enjoyed it, and get the reserve moves bit! However, we're now at the stage we do have pretty much every Brigade for Borodino, and the rules do slow up a bit at that size- not so much in movement and combat mechanics which are excellent, but in the difficulty in creating (or indeed re-creating) the collapse of large scale formations. A beaten corps always seems to have battered brigade or two which can hang on rather than fall victim to infectious panic. Admittedly- Borodino is a bad example, as there were no suchwholesale collapses in the historical battle, but there were in plenty of other big battles and I think the general point is valid. Overall though, AoE is a great asset to the hobby. Speedy recovery Col Bill. |
McLaddie | 08 May 2018 1:09 p.m. PST |
Col. Bill, thank you for taking the time to explain your target with the RM rules--and the effort. Get well soon. And yes, AoE is a great asset [as is Bill] to the hobby. His explanations for historical grounding of different aspects of his rules have been far and away the best among the many other game designers. What are your preferred mechanics for simulating these issues (in tactical Napoleonic games)? Whirlwind: Well, first of all, I enjoy all sorts of wargames [a number of them hardly simulating anything particular]. I have favorite games such as AoE rather than preferred CinC mechanics separate for a variety of reasons. For the most part I play a set of rules because the system is a whole experience rather than particular mechanics. I think that a single set of command mechanics like Weigle's or Dave Brown's new rules work the best. One sysem for all commands on the table rather than treating them differently depending on whether the commands are ordered to be reserves or not. Any command problems a commander might have communicating and getting troops to act outside artillery range can't be harder or much different than ordering troops within artillery range…except the enemy makes it more difficult. We have played a lot of AoE with the RZ mechanisms. They didn't seem to make sense to use historically and were added complications. And then as folks pointed out F&F and AoV don't have the RM rules, so…. |
laretenue | 08 May 2018 1:30 p.m. PST |
McLaddie: "I think that a single set of command mechanics like Weigle's or Dave Brown's new rules." I've been hanging on your comments this far … Do please interpret … |
McLaddie | 08 May 2018 1:51 p.m. PST |
Most all Napoleonic wargames have command friction portrayed as a lack of movement…either halved or not at all. That can cover a lot of different things, from lack of initiative on the leader's part, terrain, deplays, miscommunication, movement in the wrong direction, etc. etc. And of course, it is often defended as a 'result' focus of many events rather than process and much easier than many command rules. The lack of movement-type friction can be applied through mechanics like command pips, card draws, die rolls etc. etc., but it still results in a lack of movement by elements of a command in a random way often based on command or troop quality modifiers. The question is does this lack of response happen on the battlefield represented by a tabletop game? Say 2 to 4 miles deep and 3 to 7 miles wide for most scales. Let's take Jena and Auerstadt as an example. I read the War College study of the Jena Campaign. I get a kick out of the description "a military Sanhedrin, totally devoid of rapid decision making". It was decisions by a self-absorbed committee. It had disasterous results strategically and command indecision should create delays for the Prussians strategically. However, there were no committees with Hohenlohe on the battlefield at Jena. The only hesitation shown by any of the commands was Hohenlohe's lack of decisiveness. No troops failed to act on orders, failed receive orders. Tauentzien failed to retreat when ordered because he was too heavily engaged at the time, and did once the French were beaten back. Ruchel may not have moved as fast as he could have, but that is a strategic issue outside the game table proper. Auerstadt is similar in that all troops responded to orders. The problem was the wounding of Brunswick early in the battle. The only possible example of a lack of action on the part of a subordinate commander is von Wartensleben's unwillingness to engage, much to Blucher's disgust. But as there was no commander--the King did not take over when Brunswick was WIA, it is difficult to say any troops hesitated when there was no one commanding. The point being is that apart from delays/lack of movement caused by the enemy--when evident, any lack of action was caused directly by the CinC or lack of one rather than units here and there failing to do as ordered. I think I could make an argument that the real failures to follow orders on both the Prussian and French sides during the two battles was an aggressiveness outside of the commander's intent rather than a lack of movement. So, in two battles with what is admittedly an inept army command and hesitant commanders, there is only one example of a Prussian command failing to act when ordered…and even then it was not a matter of not responding to orders, but hesitating without them. One real test of any game system is whether it is possible within the rule dynamics to re-enact the battle and the sundry events or whether you can't. |
Pages: 1 2
|