"Coming of the 'Historical anti-Christ' to PA in July" Topic

Happy 207th Anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo 1815!

Over the last year (i.e., Napoleon's 252th Birthday to Today) I've made quite a nuisance of myself, posting about my wargame design and progress towards producing the 1st Historically accurate Napoleonic Miniatures Wargame.

Now it's finally time for me to "Put up or Shut up! by providing you with the opportunity to see, hear, touch and actually play this wargame for Yourself and then decide if I've mange to attain that Goal!

Because, I will be conducting two (2) War College seminars on the topic of "The Reality of Creating Historically Valid Wargames" and will also be sponsoring three (3) wargames on the 'Battle of Maida 1806' and two more on (2) 'The Battle of Quatre Bras 1815' which will serve to debut the third and final system integration version of my Napoleonic Combat model; "Coup d'Oeil",..The Napoleonic Command Experience!

I'm confident that you will find the seminars and the actual wargame experience as rewarding as those Players did at Havoc XXXIV Wargame Convention in Boston (April 2022), who unanimously voted and awarded "Coup d'Oeil" the 'Dan Donovan Award for Design Innovation and Contribution to the Wargame Hobby.'

Regardless of any of that, if You are planning on attending Historicon this year and have any interest in Historical Wargaming at all, and can spare a couple of minutes, come by and say Hello to me and I'll be more than happy to make the effort well worth your while. ;^)

See You ALL at Historicon!

Regards,..James R. Machin (aka: Analsim)

Watching Waterloo now ( in middle) maybe see you at there

14Bore,

I think I may join you watching it too, tonight.

However, I'll probably have to use one of my Father's Day privilege 'Free-bee in advance' to overrule any objections from my wife. ;^)

Regards,…James

Analsim, I'm glad you're pleased with your final product, and I hope it's an improvement on the previous fifteen or twenty first historically accurate Napoleonic wargames. But I think you'll find you get a better reaction by waiting for someone else to say that.

Please remember that all the other creators--some of them very clever and well-read--also thought they were the end point of rules evolution.

For those of us not at Historicon, please consider having your presentations filmed for a possible Youtube release.
Thanks, John

Not sure who else but signed up to see what you have on Saturday.
See you there

Mr. Manchin,
Any chance I can sit down with you and have a chat for Military Minature magazine? We'll be at Historicon for the entire con, so come by our booth and we can talk?

Jason Weiser
Editor in Chief

I don't quite understand why you used the term Anti-Christ, that certainly carries a negative connotation.

What scale miniatures for this game? What rules are you using? Brigades or battalions? Anti-Christ???

I see two 10mm Waterloo games listed in the PEL.

Robert Piepenbrink,

Thanks, for the feedback.

Here's my response to Your comment:
"I think you'll find you get a better reaction by waiting for someone else to say that."

FYI, the theory of combat, conceptual design & combat modeling framework that I am using in my 'Coup d'Oeil' Napoleonic design is the very same Live-Constructive, modeling framework that I used for the PGMM war fighting experiment (i.e. wargame) in 1997, the very one that OVERTURNED the findings of Rand Corps's Early Entry Force study/report and put PGMM back into development.

Thus my Answer to You is: The US Army has already told me it's great and even made a Documentary video about this Live-Constructive combat modeling technique and experimental effort, that "I will be showing to You all at Historicon 2022".

However, for the record, here's the 'short list' of people who have said so 'in black & white':

1. COL Hobbs, Director of Combat Developments, Combined Arms Maneuver Center, Ft Benning, GA.
2. COL Burgoyne, Director of US Army Battle-Lab, Ft Benning, GA.
3. COL Davis, Project Manager, Mortar Systems
4. COL Finley, Project Manager, Javelin
5. BG Ogg, Project Manager, Brigade Combat Team
6. BG Boddie, CDR, US Army Armaments Research, Development & Engineering Center (ARDEC)
7. BG Ertwine, CDR, US Army Fire Support Armaments Center (FSAC)
8. MG Armbruster, Program Executive Officer, Soldier Systems
9. Mr. Walt Hollis, Deputy Under-Secretary of the Army, Operational Research (DUSA-OR).
10. Mr. Mark, Director of Defense Research and Engineering (DDRE) for Science & Technology

REF: Verification & Validation of Combat Models
To place this V&V work in proper perspective, it is convenient to conceptually factor the overall combat process into the following four (4) major Battlefield Operating Systems (BOS):
(1) Shoot (Combat),
(2) Move (Maneuver),
(3) C3I (Command , Control , Communications, and Situational Awareness),
(4) Logistics (battlefield support).
It's then SOP to Validate and Verify each BOS individually and then again at the overall system level.

Overall I'm 90% complete in that respect. All that remains is satisfying some SA requirements at the Corps & Army Levels. These requirements deal with the implementing the Rumors and Worries of these battlefield Commanders themselves. Nothing that impacts the Combat Model itself.

So, votes are already in, and it's mainly just a matter of getting the rest of you guys onboard at Historicon 2022 and afterwards! ;^) ;^) ;^)

Regards,..James

M1Fanboy,

I'll be happy to meet with you at the 1500hr Friday Wargame seminar, you can participate in that and we can then discuss the details over at the "Battle of Maida 1806" game table so that Jerome (my MG partner) and I can talk to you while we are setting up that battle.

If you can't make either of those events, Jerome and I will be running the 'Battle of Quatre Bras 1815' wargame twice on Saturday. So, we'll be at that location ALL Day.

Regards,

James Machin

I will come by and make your acquaintance, sir. I'll try to come to one of the tables so I can get some nice glamor shots!

TMP Members,

I'm bringing my 15mm Napoleonic figures for all three wargames we are running at Historicon this year.

Cd'O uses a Ground scale of 30m per 1" AND
Figure scale of 24 AND/OR 36 depending on the type of combat arm and its nationality. We call it the 'Visual Constant." It will take you 30-seconds to grasp the concept, once you have seen it. It's part of my embedded desire to portray the "Napoleonic Battlefield Panorama" the best we can.

Combat Units are depicted in Cd'O at the: Battalion, 'CAV SQUADRON' and Battery Level, just like Napoleonic Commanders did in the past. A Battalion of 600 Soldiers is ~16 figures, A four (4) Squadron Regiment of Cavalry of 600 Troopers is ~24 (i.e., roughly 6 figures per Squadron). Artillery is replicated at 2 Cannons per gun model.

TIME is "Asymmetrical" in Cd'O and is tracked by my 9" diameter (antique) Commander's Pocket Watch.

I'm thinking about providing a Reward to the 1st Wargamer who is able to "DUMP! All of YOUR 'Old Napoleonic Wargame Paradigms' and assimilate into the Cd'O 'Synthetic Battlefield Environment'."

Sounds rather pompous on the surface, however, the usual conversion time has been about 15-20 minutes per Player, in the past. It's really got NOTHING to do with any rules, it's just a matter of How quickly You grasp the Shoot-Move & Communicate Concept.

Which many of You US Army & USMC Vets will recognize as the traditional doctrinal basis for factorization of the overall combat process. Or in the U.S. Army 's own words; "The fundamental role of ground-combat Commanders is to maneuver and engage the enemy via "Shoot, Move, and Communicate."

Once that "Light Comes On", you'll feel yourself becoming part of the Battle itself" and that's where the FUN BEGINS!

Regards,..James

So, not a single military historian or hobby gamer, Analsim?

I've been on Army wargames, thanks.

I am so impressed, just about as much as the Afgans….

Sorry, but this thread seems like an effort to play us for chumps. It starts with the name: "Analsim." Really? I'm supposed to give credence and assume seriousness from someone who chose to use that name with which to introduce and promote a new set of rules? Then the claim of greatest game design ever, etc. , etc. Yet, no one who has been exposed to the ultimate gaming experience has chimed in with their own positive report. Next, the appeal to authority – don't, take my word for it, this design has been affirmed and applauded by military experts. The same experts that orchestrated the embarrassing decades-long Afghanistan fiasco? It appears we are being played – and not particularly well.

"..the theory of combat, conceptual design & combat modeling framework that I am using in my 'Coup d'Oeil' Napoleonic design is the very same Live-Constructive, modeling framework that I used for the PGMM war fighting experiment (i.e. wargame) in 1997" suggests to me that it might be the PGMM wargame and related modelling that the various US officers listed were praising, rather than this new, Napoleonic version.

I have no idea whether these officers have sufficient knowledge of the Napoleonic Wars to judge the historical realism of this new game. The absence of any respected military historian supporting this concept may – or may not – be significant.

Now wondering if I would be wasting my Saturday

Someone take a picture of the "Historical anti-Christ" and post it here." How is it different from the regular anti-Christ?

Oh I plan to be there and have instant capability to post online

Is anyone running a Column Line And Square game?

I Googled "The Reality of Creating Historically Valid Wargames" and "Dan Donovan Award" but all I found was this posting on TMP.

But I did find this: link

and this: link

Having been a lowly enlisted grunt this stuff is interesting but way over my head.

I'm thinking about providing a Reward to the 1st Wargamer who is able to "DUMP! All of YOUR 'Old Napoleonic Wargame Paradigms' and assimilate into the Cd'O 'Synthetic Battlefield Environment'."

"Resistance is futile"
The Borg Queen

But seriously, let's see what the guy has, you may find something in it you like. I'll be a spectator and am reserving judgment.

Wolfhag

'Synthetic Battlefield Environment'

Word Salad is up for dinner.

The Matrix, merged with the Infowars, what is reality?

"Ignore the women in the Red Dress"!

Looks good, gets your attention but don't be tricked.

The model is proven against third world, yet Ukraine shows the system might breakdown vs. 'First World'.

So I am thinking it failed the test, not impressed with the list of names given.

"Ignore the women in the Red Dress"!

More like, "Ignore the man behind the curtain."

So much self aggrandizing promotion sets off all the red flags for me and the klaxon, like on a destroyer, starts going off "AVOID, AVOID, AVOID."

For a hobby threat and someone who is trying to promote the hobby you guys sure bash Analsim, how about let him show his product then give him some valuable criticism.

I think I have to agree with ARMY Strong. I'm going to be at the lecture and play in one of the games. It may be the best thing since sliced bread or just another rules set. Probably something in between. I know I'd never tried to publish a set of rules and I commend anyone who gives it a shot.

Lifelong Napoleonic player only, still play Empire III, this might be all over my head but do want to see so willing to try and help out. Hope to see a few of you there.

Well, the initial anti-Christ title puts me off – for obvious reasons – as well as the I have made something better than everything else approach. Now, if someone comes and ays "Hey, I put a lot of effort and research into this and I think it models Napoleonic battlefield warfare to a Tee. Come and try it out." then I would be much more inclined to do so, even though I am not a Napoleonic fan.

Agree with Rev Zoom on both points.

Don't shoot the messenger just to ignore the message.

It's clear he's from the military/DoD culture which is fine and a somewhat different perspective than most of us.

It would be nice if he had some graphics or videos to help explain the process too.

I would not get too wrapped up in his presentation style. I think it's an attempt at humor but it has made for a lively discussion.

Wolfhag

2 weeks to go, hope it's not a washout

I was at the Friday afternoon war college session. Very good and I found it interesting. I was signed up for the game but was unable to attendee because of a work issue so I can't comment on how the actual game plays. I do hope to play in one at a future con.

Dale

Went very well, enjoyed it. Lots of good ideas brought up in rules.

I was not able to attend so I missed it.

Wolfhag

James if you back in Fall or next year I'll be in again

All,

Here's a few pictures from the 3x 'Battle of Quatre Bras 1815' wargames that Jerome (Co-GM) & I GM'd at Historicon 2022 this weekend.

All three (3) historical wargames themselves, went Great, in spite of the fact that the Historicon Staff threw these three (3) 'Major Hurdles' in my way from the get go:

HURDLE ISSUES:
Hurdle #1 (The MAIN ISSUE). "The Historicon Staff assigned my 'Battle of Quatre Bras 1815 Wargames' a location Code of "HR55" which, 'DOES NOT EXIST ANYWHERE' within the PEL Catalog Location Maps." (go check it out yourself, if you don't believe me)

Hurdle #2. The Historicon Staff unilaterally decided to DELETE "My 2nd Saturday Afternoon Historical Wargaming Seminar" <AND> Never told me they 'Deleted it' and Decided on their own, to re-inserted it 4-hours after I had done the 1st one on Friday morning.

Hurdle #3. I couldn't present my original Historical Wargaming Seminar, off my Own Laptop computer, as was agreed to in advance, because the Lancaster convention center 'projection system' still uses an old RS232 Analog Connector (i.e., the one that was originally introduced in the late 1960's for serial port data transmission!). I had to transfer my files and use their old laptop as a result.

RESULTING EFFECT:
Because of Hurdle #1, about half of the people who signed up for these wargames "Couldn't find it! <OR> Simply gave up and played something else." The word did start getting out on this 'Screw-Up' by late Saturday afternoon, but the damage was already done.

Because of Hurdle #2, I couldn't provide the CdO System or Historical Context for the Finale, Quatre Bras Historical Wargame, that Jerome & I were running on Saturday night.

Because of Hurdle #3, My 1st Seminar started late, the three (3) supporting videos couldn't be presented as planned (because of 'old media player SW' on their own laptop) and the time allowed, which was originally stated as "60-minutes", was cut by them, down to 50-minutes,..And 'THAT TIME HAD EXPIRED', before the seminar was halfway completed. So, I Cancelled the 'Video Taping' of this Wargame Seminar that I had pledged to You, because it wasn't worth saving at all..My sincere apologies for having to do that! However, the Historicon Staff says that they will be able to make the Stand Alone presentation file (itself), available to You afterwards. I will let you know how to access it, when they tell me where they will post it.

Enough Whining, :^( :^( :^( ..about All of that!

So, let's focus and talk about Historical Napoleonic Wargaming from here on out!

OK, In spite of all the challenges above, Jerome (my CdO wargame system integrator) and I were thrilled with the results of all three (3) Battle of Quatre Bras wargames we sponsored.

As always, it took about 10-20 minutes for players to complete their own 'paradigm shift' (and the light to go on) that is necessary to start playing and really enjoying CdO! The two (2) wargame seminars that I'd planned for Friday & Saturday were intended to reduce that time.

This 'paradigm shift' relates to grasping and understanding the underlying wargame concepts, that they can then use and rely upon (with complete confidence) to enable them to use their own intuition and common sense, to play this wargame.

That paradigm shift involves these seven (7) main factors, four (4) of which are Basic Laws of Physics and the remaining three (3) are the "Move-->Shoot-->Communicate" Battlefield Operating Systems (BOS).

Laws of Physics: Space, Motion, Observation and TIME!
There are NO RULES required to use and/or implement these factors into Cd'O wargame play, because it is built into the very foundation of the wargame system itself.

1. Space Factor: Covered by CdO's 1" = 30 meters ground scale.

2. Motion Factor: Covered by George Nafziger's (and other authors) in his fine work on Napoleonic Combat Unit movement, in his book, "Imperial Bayonets".

3. Observation Factor: "I" planned, organized and ran a $35 USDM dollar Operational Experiment for the US Army, that defined and quantified the ability and associated probabilities of a battlefield Soldier, 'Observing', 'Orienting', 'Deciding' and 'Engaging (acting)' in order to engage random targets, at ranges of 0-2500m, during day and night, under battlefield conditions of rain, snow, fog, smoke, and dust. This is reduced to a simple three table chart that provides the CdO Player with the "discrete minimum probability %" of SEEING, Understanding and acting upon objects, targets and units within his 'field of view' at ALL RANGES between 0 and 2,500 meters (reduced to inches on the tabletop).

4. TIME: Time is independent & asymmetrical within CdO. Meaning that it flows and is acted upon by each individual Player Individually, in different values, at different points simultaneously with every other Player in the same game. The simplest way I can explain it to you (without showing an example) is to have You try to visualize playing a Wargame where everyone Player in this wargame is planning, operating and executing his 'own moves & combats' independent and concurrently with all the other Players who are "Doing the very same thing as he is,..AND simultaneously." Grasping and Using this concept, 'IS' the very heart of the 'Paradigm Shift' that I mentioned to you above. It takes a Player about 10-20 minutes to GET IT <AND> START USING IT!

The three (3) Battlefield Operating Systems,..M-S-C.
1. Move: Movement & Formation Change Tables referencing the 'number of minutes to Move a Unit and/or have a given Unit change to a particular Formation. Deduced from Nafziger's "Imperial Bayonets" book and other books on this topic.

2. Shoot: Combat is conducted as a 'Black Box' operation for mainly Situational Awareness (SA) simplicity reasons. Both the Combat Outcomes and the Tactical Results (i.e., Fallbacks, Retreats & Routs and etc.) are ALL based on the "Actual Historical Combat Outcomes & Results" for each nationality, France, Britain, Austria and the rest. These are derived from over 800+ Napoleonic engagements that been documented, reviewed, analyzed and historically validated. Think of it like using the Life time "Batting Averages & Results" of a Baseball Player. Thus, like a Baseball Player, if 'French Infantry' had a Combat Batting Average of 0.367 (~37%) against British Infantry, then YOU the French CdO Player can assume that your Infantry has a "BASE to WIN %" of 37% going into a tactical combat with the Brits! YES, it is modified for Terrain, Cohesion, Training and Experience. The 'Combat Results' are handled in the same manner. That is, results are depicted as the actual probability of each type Historical Result (i.e., Fallback, Retreat, etc.) that occurred when the "French Infantry, attacked British Infantry." YES, I'm am telling you that each Nation's Army has it's own Historical Outcome & Results profile. AND!, the French Army has a combat & results profile for each of its major antagonists; Austria, Prussia, Russia, Britain and Spain!

3. Communicate (C3): This BOS covers how the Player CDR and how he Moves, Observes, Understands, Reacts and can become a casualty on the Historical Napoleonic Battlefield.

The Last, but most Important Factor to deal with now. The term 'Coup d'Oeil'. Which serves to describe as well as, act as the quality of HIS OWN innate ability as the Player CDR, to establish the quality of his own "Human Interface" into the realm of "Battlefield Reality". Which places HIM at the center of his own world and is NOT a CdO Wargame Mechanic or Process. Because his appreciation and understanding of this reality rest solely within "HIS OWN MIND", at any moment in Time, within the wargame, which is effected, portrayed and implemented upon the Synthetic Battlefield Environment itself, within the parameters defined by these four (4) "Laws of Physics and the 'Historical Mechanics' of these three (3) BOS Move-Shoot-C3".

'Coup d'Oeil' is also the other major portion in completing the Player's own "Paradigm Shift." Because like his 'Historical Battlefield Counterpart' it requires him to assess the current tactical situation, by juggling and making sense of all the restrictions, constraints, and current battlefield metrics and then determine how he can use or mitigate these factors in order to effectively maneuver his Combat Units to derive and exploit tactical/situational advantages (windows of opportunity) on the synthetic battlefield before him.

YES, again, it requires each Player to "Make Decisions under conditions of Imperfect Knowledge, Uncertainty and Risk all within historical 'REAL TIME' Movement/Combat/SA constraints."

However, the impact of this imperfect knowledge and uncertainty has a dramatic, underlying, subliminal effect on how each Player acts in a given situation. Something that doesn't require any CdO rules, but like actual combat, becomes a critical, underlying factor that will indirectly effect combat outcome.

But that IS what Combat Command is ALL about anyway,..Right?

FINALLY!!

Rather then listening me continue to babble away!

I'm asking several of the CdO Players from these Historicon 2022 wargames, 'themselves', to provide you with their very own feedback and assessment of what it was like to participate in one of the three (3) Battle of Quatre Bras wargames we sponsored.

The first one should be able to provide his feedback for you tonight.

Regards, James (aka: Analsim)

if 'French Infantry' had a Combat Batting Average of 0.367 (~37%) against British Infantry, then YOU the French CdO Player can assume that your Infantry has a "BASE to WIN %" of 37% going into a tactical combat with the Brits!

I'm very curious about how you arrived at these averages. Wouldn't these results be dependent upon conditions that could only be reproduced in those historical circumstances? For example, in Spain, against an overextended French enemy comprised mostly of conscripts, who is battling the environment, the civilians, and guerillas, the British perform quite well. Put them on Walcheren, though, against the same enemy, and they're not so impressive.

I suspect that most victories and defeats were decided by factors far above the battalion-vs-battalion level, but rather at the level of high command who put them in that situation, with or without good leadership, supply, communications, etc. For example, what's the base chance of an 1806 Prussian infantry battlaion beating its French counterpart? Historically, wouldn't it be about 5%? Is that really correct, or is that just a reflection of dreadful Prussian upper-level leadership in that campaign?

And averaged how? Across all periods and unit types and campaigns? Wouldn't that result in giving my untrained 1814 conscripts a better-than-historical chance, and my hard-bitten 1805 veterans a less-than-historical chance, if their effectiveness were averaged for a base result?

What would be the base chance of a French lancer regiment defeating Spanish dragoons? Since Napoleon never sent any lancers to fight in Spain, how would we establish that?

And what do we do if we want to play my Spanish against your Turks, or my British against your Austrians? There are no historical examples of that happening, so how would the historical averages be established?

Garth in the Park,

1. How did I arrived at these averages?
You start by first identifying a 'measurable criteria' to measure by, which in my CdO's case, was to identify the definition and evaluation criteria of a "Napoleonic Battlefield Engagement"

CdO BATTLEFIELD ENGAGEMENTS: An Engagement is a combat between two (2) forces, neither larger than a Division (i.e., 10,000 Soldiers) and not smaller than a Company (i.e., 100 Soldiers), in which each force has an assigned or perceived Mission (i.e., Attack, Defend, Maneuver, Delay & etc.).

An Engagement begins when the attacking force initiates combat in pursuit of its Mission, and ends when any of these conditions are met:
1) The attacker has accomplished the Mission, or
2) Ceases to try to accomplish the Mission, or
3) When one or both sides receive sufficient reinforcements to alter the ‘Original Force Ratio', thus initiating a ‘New Engagement'.

"Measure Of Performance (MOP)": Which measures how the system/individual/entity performs its functions in a given environment (e.g., number of targets detected, reaction time, number of targets nominated, susceptibility of deception, task completion time).

Thus, the MOP that was used for CdO, in respect to a Napoleonic Engagement, was simply, "Did the Attacker WIN the engagement,..YES or NO?

In CdO's case I spent 5 years, identifying, documenting and analyzing over 800+ Napoleonic engagements, compiling the results within a Minitab v20 Statistical Database, that I then can use to quickly look at and analyze the effects that 80+ Combat variables have on all these engagement's outcome.

Variables such as Force ratio, Terrain, Leadership, Training, Experience, Surprise, Outcomes, Artillery Support and many, many more.

However, this is really an over simplification of setting up the criteria and compiling the results because you need to address these other issues:

1. Adequate Sample size. Which for the most part requires a minimum of thirty (30) samples for each type of combat variable being evaluated.

2. I also needed to structure the criteria in order to meet the requirements of establishing 'Statistical Independence' of each of these 800 Engagements. In statistical probability, we say two (2) events are independent if, knowing one event occurred doesn't change the probability of the other event.

3. Such things are important later on to establishing the validity and statistical confidence, by which this data can be considered VALID and USABLE for its intended purpose.

2. Your other questions and speculations.

YES, I can sort and identify the Combat Effectiveness of just about any Napoleonic Army, by Campaign, and Year.

Yes, the Base WIN % will be lower for Poorer quality Army's like those making up Napoleon's 1814 campaign. However, it's just the opposite for the French Army that participated in Napoleon's 1805 Campaign.

Before addressing your next series of questions, I want you to know that Napoleon had two (2) Squadrons of Polish Guard Lancers that fought at The Battle of Somosierra on 30 November 1808, during the Peninsular War, when a combined Franco-Spanish-Polish force under the direct command of Napoleon Bonaparte forced a passage through Spanish guerrillas stationed at the Sierra de Guadarrama, which shielded Madrid from direct French attack. At the Somosierra mountain pass, 60 miles (97 km) north of Madrid, a heavily outnumbered Spanish detachment of conscripts and artillery under Benito de San Juan aimed to block Napoleon's advance on the Spanish capital. Napoleon overwhelmed the Spanish positions in a combined arms attack, sending the Polish Chevau-légers of the Imperial Guard at the Spanish guns while French infantry advanced up the slopes.

However, the main problem with issues such as Your 1) French Lancers vs Spanish Dragoons example is Sample Size (i.e., number of examples).

Because You need a minimum of three (3) samples just to make a hypothesize that their may be a viable trend present at all. And 30 samples to establish that the the trend is statistically reliable.

In respects to Your last two examples, 1) Spanish vs Turks and 2) Brits vs Austrians, You have to remember that it has to be "REAL HISTORY", before you can accurately measure and validate the results.

This doesn't mean that it's Impossible to determine such hypothetical things! It's just means you have to use an alternate approach, such as using a historical analogy as a guide. Regardless, the results would largely made up of speculation in any case.

Regards,..James

the MOP that was used for CdO, in respect to a Napoleonic Engagement, was simply, "Did the Attacker WIN the engagement,..YES or NO?

By "engagement" you mean that smallish 10k slice that you're looking at, and not the whole battle? For example, the French won the "engagement" at La Haie Sainte, but not at Waterloo overall, so what does that tell us about the % chance of French infantry beating British infantry?

(And, considering how many of Beaky's men weren't British, how are you separating the "French can beat British" results from the "French can beat Dutch-Belgians" and "French can beat Hanoverians" and "the French can beat British until Prussians show up" and so on?)

I'm also sort of curious about how you'd slice up a big battle into these @10k "engagements." Isn't that sort of arbitrary? If you slice Aspern-Essling one way, you might get a result in which the French win that "engagement," but if you slice it a different way, you might see an Austrian victory in that slice, and so on. It would depend upon where you drew the lines.

If your French division attacks elements of two of my Austrian divisions, one of which is quite different from the other in terms of composition, unit quality, leadership,and so on, that's an engagement that will look very different depending upon how we draw the lines.

Variables such as Force ratio, Terrain, Leadership, Training, Experience, Surprise, Outcomes, Artillery Support and many, many more.

I don't think those are variables. In a time when armies were so similar and symmetrical, I think those factors are what determines the outcome.

I keep thinking about the poor 1806 Prussians, for example, who had many very good units, and could have done a lot better if their idiot commanders had deployed and led them better. Our only historical examples, though, give us such lopsided results that you'd have to conclude the 1806 Prussians were worthless.

What's the base chance for an 1806 Prussian battalion to beat a French battalion? If we're just going from the historical results, it would be about 3% or so, right?

I want you to know that Napoleon had two (2) Squadrons of Polish Guard Lancers that fought at The Battle of Somosierra

Yes, but that wasn't what I was asking. I was asking if I could do a What-If 1812 scenario in which Napoleon sent his new Lancier regiments to Spain instead of Russia? And since there's no historical basis for that, how would we know what a Lancier regiment's odds are, of beating a Spanish dragoon regiment?

the results would largely made up of speculation in any case.

Isn't that what's happening with your "variables"? What are the odds of French beating Dutch-Belgians? What are the odds of them doing it in the woods? Or when the latter are in a farmhouse? Or when the French have 50% more artillery? Or when this particular divisional commander isn't drunk today? And so on. There aren't enough historical examples for all of these variations, so you have to make up / speculate what the variable is worth in each case, right?

You have to remember that it has to be "REAL HISTORY", before you can accurately measure and validate the results.

I got the impression, above, that you were saying that the example of Polish Guard Lanciers, led in person by Napoleon, beating Spanish infantry and artillery, is "close enough" to tell us how French line Lanciers would do, five years later under totally different commanders and circumstances, when matched against Spanish dragoons? If that's what you were saying, that sounds like an example of the sort of Handwavium and speculation that all games have to use. But it's not REAL HISTORY.

Anyway, that's fine, if the game can only do historical recreations in the hope of seeing the historical results. To each his own.

I think you'll find, though, that many wargamers enjoy "What If" scenarios. These can be very simple and plausible, like Nap sending some Lanciers to Spain; or they can be purely for fun, like an Austrian-vs-Spanish battle. Either way, though, most wargaming has some degree of "What If," and isn't purely historical.

FWIW, I'm pretty sure the Poles at Somosierra did not have lances. They got them in 1809, at the earliest.

Correct about the Poles in 1808, they were known as chevaulegers at that time, only becoming lancers after the Austrian campaign of 1809.

Yes, a detail which immediately occurred to me, too.
Accuracy in little things might not be an invariable indication of the quality of research, etc etc etc, but …

I played the Saturday morning game
First off liked the play style, time and engagement rules. Combat wasn't just that % list, still had die rolls ( got bounced back twice and thought should had a better than average but was the bad die roll). The % to win is no different than Blackpowder or Empire giving a bonus.
If could a suggestion is tracking who in the time period has moved, or everyone moving simultaneously move or lose it.

My solo gaming is nothing but what if? But it still keeps the armies in their historical capabilities, see no reason CdO wouldn't treat it the same.

Garth in the Park,

I need you to re-read the Engagement definition and it's criteria over again. Because the majority of Your comments, questions and many of your assumptions exceed it's scope, boundaries and criteria which are set.

The term "Engagement", it's definition & criteria is a standard military 'Doctrinal Term'. And it falls 2nd in this order of precedent & scope of Combat: Skirmishes-->"ENGAGEMENTS"--> Battles--> Campaigns-->War.

Thus, Engagements are a sub-component of a Battle. So, Battles are made up of many Engagements.

FYI, the Mean (i.e., sample average) Engagement size of all 800+ examples of the attacking force participating in these Napoleonic engagements is: "1,535.58 Soldiers". That's hardly the extreme '10K Soldiers' you refer to many times in your comments above.

Additionally, these engagements were those already identified and described by the "Authors" of dozens of Napoleonic reference books that I used. Authors such as: Arnold, Bowden, Schneid, Hollins Gill, Oman, Castle, Dempsey, Muir, Fletcher, Nafziger, Napier, Adkins, Mikaberidze and at least a dozen others. They all provided the engagement descriptions and outcomes, NOT Me.

As an example of the "Impact that one (1) Engagement might have on its own", Know that I've identified ~90 Engagements within The Battle of Austerlitz alone. And given the fact that the mean engagement size was ~1,500 Soldiers, thus the vast majority of these Battle of Austerlitz Engagements are at the Regiment and below level, not the Divisional level.

However, You need not worry too much about the credibility and validity of my Engagement database, because I have already asked Dr. Perla (former DIR CNA), Prof. Mansager (former DIR. US Army MS&A Monterey) and G. Nafziger (Napoleonic author) if they would all be so kind as to evaluate this Napoleonic database "Independently" to ascertain it's validity and usefulness for my intended purpose in this wargame. I wanted three (3) Authorities to evaluate it so, that there would be "No Ties!"

Finally, I have 'NO PROBLEM' with wargamers, freelancing and creating their own "What If Scenarios" by using CdO. We all do it and that's part of the FUN.

My point 'IS' they will have to using their own 'Good Judgement' to determine the 'Combat Effectiveness' of any Antagonists and/or its component Army Units, that have never actually fought each other Historically!

Regards,

James

That's hardly the extreme '10K Soldiers' you refer to many times in your comments above.

I had no idea that was an "extreme." I was just quoting you:

"An Engagement is a combat between two (2) forces, neither larger than a Division (i.e., 10,000 Soldiers) and not smaller than a Company "

(I can think of many Napoleonic divisions with more than 10k men, by the way, but whatever.)

In my opinion, however you slice it, the probability of a French BN defeating a British BN isn't determined by one being French and the other being British, nor by how many times a French BN has beaten a British BN in the past or somewhere else. It's determined by things like:

- How recently have these men been fed? How has the supply situation been on this campaign in general?
- Has this battalion been under fire for hours, or held back in reserve?
- How do they feel about their commanders?
- Are they on familiar ground?
- What can they perceive of the bigger picture and how it's going?
- Are they annoyed by behavior of other friendly units (their own cavalry passing through their formations was a frequent nuisance).

Again, this is just my opinion, but: I think most Napoleonic soldiers were peasants made of the same stuff, trained and equipped more or less the same way, and what really mattered was the situation into which their commanders had put them, not a "batting average," to use your analogy.

I have 'NO PROBLEM' with wargamers, freelancing and creating their own "What If Scenarios" by using CdO. We all do it and that's part of the FUN.

My point 'IS' they will have to using their own 'Good Judgement' to determine the 'Combat Effectiveness' of any Antagonists and/or its component Army Units, that have never actually fought each other Historically!

I understand that. I'm saying that most wargamers are going to want to do something that doesn't have a huge historical sampling from which you can estabish these percentages that are at the base of your system. That's going to be a problem for you, because you obviously place great importance on the historical data sample. So you're going to get a game in which some outcomes are based on 800 or however many data samples… and other outcomes that are based on pure conjecture.

Personally, I have no problem with conjecture. But it's odd, isn't it, to say that the game is nailed-down to precise historical outcomes… except for all those occasions on which it isn't.

And if I want to fight my British against my friend's Austrians, then the entire game will require our conjecture and coming up with our own combat values?

-

Getting back to the "situation into which their commanders had put them" issue:

Any game that uses randomizers and allows players to make their own decisions has already departed from historical outcomes. You know the old wargamer joke: "How many times did the French lose Waterloo? (Only the first time!)" As soon as you start rolling dice and letting players do their own thing, you're into "What If" territory and therefore potentially getting results that don't line up with historical outcomes or even historical probabilities.

And since players are in such a different state of mind than historical commanders were, they often make decisions that are far removed from what a historical commander would know and do. Standing peacefully and safely far above the battlefield, with no noise other than a bag of crisps, with perfect vision of both armies and perfect knowledge of all terrain, with nothing at stake either for my career or my life, I am not going to behave like an historical commander.

All of your historical examples of combat outcomes depend upon the situations into which commanders placed soldiers. But the historical data you input in your model comes from a different universe than the data I experience as a gamer. The results must be different.

When I lead my 1806 Prussians into battle, I will do a much better job than the poor old Duke of Brunswick did. That will result in combat situations that never existed historically and bear no resemblance to your data sample.

So: what should be the base chance of success for my 1806 Prussians – under my superior enlightened leadership – against the villainous French?

ALL,

First off, now that the effects of my original "TMP Historical Wargaming Blasts!" postings are dying down, and I have some actual "CdO Players from Historicon 2022" to provide YOU with their own independent opinions and assessment of my CdO Historically Based Wargame Design,..it's time for me to show & explain the historical basis of the design and provide my motives and goals in taking the overall approach I embarked upon on 'Napoleon's Birthday' last year (15 August 2021).

Let's start with the Historical Design Basis for this wargame.

Sigh. All right, there's obviously no point in continuing. I'll leave it at this: I have no problem with conjecture and making stuff up.

But when you issue these very grandiose proclamations about the "World's 1st Historically Accurate Wargame!" and how you're going to "debunk the Wargame Community's sacred paradigms" and "finally overhaul and establish our own Historical Wargame Lexicon," and you go on about how nobody has done it right until you, and just look at these people who've endorsed you, and "FINALLY!!" we're all going to "get it" and "once the light comes on" we'll make our "paradigm shift" and so on… then I'm curious to see what you're doing. And it turns out, what you're doing is pretty much the same as everybody else:

You've read some well-known books, you've taken notes, and you've created rules in which you move figures and roll dice. And, if your sources don't have the information you need, then it needs to be made up from conjecture. That describes pretty much every miniatures game I've ever played.

I have no problem with the product, at least as far as I understand it. But I do think you should tone down the boasting and exaggeration promising the "Coming of the Historical Anti-Christ" and so on.

If your game really is as mind-blowingly revolutionary as you claim, other people will tell you that. You won't need to tell them, yourself.