AARs - post here all after battle comments and replay files

What "fire density" should do is increased chance to hit per gun if guns are massed...

I can follow your explanation but my question is why should this happen? What law of physics is at work here to cause losses higher than the aggregate of several batteries firing individually?

This conversation is why this beautiful warbird was created.

At Borodino, 170 cannon fired at the Raevesky Redoubt from various directions for hours. The 18 guns in redoubt weren't silenced until the French cavalry entered it from the rear.

Surely Napoleon and his senior commanders by 1812 knew about warfare and that firing upon a target behind earthworks was not very effective... so why did they do it? Surely shedloads of incoming fire is going to keep the defenders heads down to some degree? Enough to cover an assault? Or maybe the redoubt was simply targetted because it was an obvious aiming point?

What "fire density" should do is increased chance to hit per gun if guns are massed...

"I can follow your explanation but my question is why should this happen? What law of physics is at work here to cause losses higher than the aggregate of several batteries firing individually?"

Interesting discussion.

Clearly having more guns would do more damage in absolute terms. In relative terms however, I'd always understood that individual guns were less effective, because with so much fire being laid on a target, and all the extra dust and debris, it was more difficult for the gunners to adjust their targeting.  Wasn't that one of the contemporary arguments against massed batteries?

Martin (J)

When Boney decided to attack the center of the Russian position against the advice of his marshals, he employed the standard tactics of the day. Since he determined the redoubt should be the focal point of the attack, the standard procedure would mass the batteries and fire at that point to reduce the enemy's will to resist. The resulting fire did fill in the trench in front of the redoubt with dirt and sand, but did little else. Troops in the open near the redoubt suffered terribly, but the redoubt was always operational, much to the French cavalry's displeasure.

Question is there a demoralizing factor in this game.

i.e. After being in the redoubt for hours real life/minutes in SOW would the men lose morale?

I can follow your explanation but my question is why should this happen? What law of physics is at work here to cause losses higher than the aggregate of several batteries firing individually?

It's harder to dodge two bullets at the same time than two bullets fired 2 minutes one from another - hence "fire density" is quite an adequate term for it
3 batteries firing simultaneously in SoW for 1 hour equals to one battery firing for 3 hours - and this is not accurate mathematical model but close enough to have fun.

Muskets are even better example - but there are several reasons why infantry kept close formations and fire volleys - however fire density was one of them (but for infantry it was two edge sword... being in close formation could produce a wall of fire but also being "the wall" to fire at...

Artillery could be more dispersed - I think even in Wiki description of Eylau it's quoted that French artillery was gaining upper hand in artillery duel because were more dispersed...

Battle for Mistresses - I really liked the scenario and the decision making problems that it produced.
French side started planning from the wrong premise that enemy will keep their forces together.
So obviously it's always better to keep your army together, but what if enemy splits??
should we then:
a) split forces too?
b) keep corps together and attack the enemy that is attacking our objective
c) keep corps together and attack the enemy that is defending their objective

Neither side was able to save their mistress from being defiled by the enemy. A shameful result, gentlemen. Shameful.

I just could not believe that we were fighting over women.

Apart from beer and cake, what else is worth fighting over?

Rather than calling this the Battle For The Mistresses, it should be labeled French Split Personality.  The premise of the battle was that Napoleon's mistress, Countess Maria Lontchinska, was traveling north to visit the Emperor.  Her carriage was intercepted by an Austrian cavalry patrol as it was passing through Wanfersee.  At the same time, French forces found Archduke Charles' mistress, Baroness Anna Krakovska in Ligny, waiting for a visit by the Duke.  This was an intolerable situation.


The Austrians were tasked with freeing the Baroness while protecting their prize in Wanfersee.  The French were assigned the same task except in reverse.


Both sides moved toward the opposing objective.  The Austrians decided to split their forces, reclaim the Baroness and then attack the French from two directions.  A risky plan should the French attack the Austrian blocking force vigorously and with both divisions.


Seeing that the French were advancing as a single unit, Mike decided to fall back to the next ridge and draw the French further south.  This would give Andrew the choice of making a dash for the Baroness or possibly attacking Miko's division.


The French decided to also split their forces to meet the two threats.  However, in a bold, new tactical strategy, they sent a brigade from Martin's division to assist Miko, while Miko sent one of his brigades to help Martin.  The Emperor's brilliance was on full display.  The Austrians attacked first.  Martin repulsed the attack against him in short order.


The French then launched their own assault.  Martin was repulsed in turn, while the attack against Andrew came from two directions but was also unsuccessful.


With darkness falling, Mike's full division was beginning its attack against Martin's rump division.  Andrew had made it to the outskirts of Ligny, but was not in control of the town and unable to rescue the Baroness.

Thanks Kevin. It was a fun battle and the Ligny map is fast becoming one of my favourites.

Something like this with an attack/defend requirement might work better if each side has 3 divisions.

Something like this with an attack/defend requirement might work better if each side has 3 divisions.

Agreed... However as 6 players available is a rarity I'd suggest the model I tried to introduce (maybe except the manually splitting brigades and cavalry which is a lot of work)... basically to have one "regular size division" and the other one which is split into 2... (say one has 2 infantry brigades and a battery and the other one has cavalry brigade, infantry brigade and a horse battery) - in case of 2 v 3 or 2 v 2 battle - one player can take corps commander and take the charge over the "split division".
or alternatively 3 half size divisions and then the corps commander could pick any 2/3 of what would effectively be 1.5 divisions.

Battle of Two Parties...
Phil & Miko successfully crashed gates to closed parties organised by Mike & Kevin.
Although, the main party venue has not been quite safe at the time of guests arrival.
Another battle of Ligny map which was a bit frustrating this time due to manoeuvring in an urban area...
"Good luck for us" worked this time - I think Mike should reverse his reverse psychology wishes

The Duchess of Richmond was hosting a Christmas ball at Sombreffe.  A satellite ball was to be held at Mont Portriaux for the less than distinguished officers.  Napoleon learned of the festivities and was outraged that he was not invited.  He ordered Reille's II Corps to secure an invitation by any means necessary.


The Reserve Corps under direct command of His Grace is called on to protect the festivities.


The French decide to focus their attention on the main venue, Sombreffe.  The snub of the Emperor appears to be the only consideration.


The French launch their assault on my division while Mike back's away in fear of getting his uniform mussed.  Must look sharp for the ladies.


My division cannot hold on such a wide front, attacked by two divisions.  With 15 minutes left in the battle, the second British division decides it is time to advance.  However, both party sites are in French hands by now.


As darkness falls, my division has been soundly beaten.  I think Mike's got off a round or two though.

Yesterday we supposed to die.. but instead we held the field with over 13K French wiped out
Tzar is pleased

Another bloodbath yesterday - although not for me... I suffered very little, seemed like Mike wanted to take revenge on Kevin for his betrayal
Phil on the other hand didn't seem to want to hurt me too much, so he sent Digby's brigade as a cannon fodder... then he knocked out some of my guns by superior counter battery fire and at later stage sneaky infantry charge knocked out another 3 of my guns...

I'm finishing making maps/description for my scenario - I'm really looking forward to playing it... although my role should be minimised... as intelligence/planning will be crucial for both sides. I've made it 3 v 3 - but playable 2v2 as well.. as 2 divisions are really half divisions...

I've noticed something disturbing recently... since the new KS version it's not longer possible to split batteries or brigades
I hope it wasn't deliberate change and only a side-effect of fixing detach/attach button for battalions?
If possible could that be restored or fixed with next version?

Apologises for not getting the scenario right again
it's a steep learning curve, so... question about experience:
is it sensible to start from 5 as an average experience? (corresponding names are a bit misleading)
4 = militia grade? / French third battalions?
3 = Hanoverian?
2 and less = don't use except Spanish militia?

5 = regular French/Austrian/Prussian
6 = regular British? French Young Guard?

Cavalry & Artillery - same exp grading as infantry?

I tend not to have fixed exp ratings in my games but set the rankings depending on the campaign or year, etc.

For me though French line infantry at 5 is a good basic rule, with grenadiers/voltigeurs at 6 and 4th battalions at 4. In my Peninsular camapign I then rated reservists at 3 and the Garde Nationale at 3 or 2. German allied units then tend to be 4s as well, or even 3s for the really crappy ones like the Westphalian division sent to Spain which completely evaporated due to desertion in a few months. Young Guard are then about a 6, Middle Guard 7 and Old Guard 8 or 9.

I tend to rate French artillery fairly high at 6 for foot and 7 for horse and guard with the OG foot artillery at about 8.

French average line cav at 5, poorer units at 4, better ones at 6 or 7, with guard being 7 or higher. Chasseurs of the Guard and Guard Horse Grenadiers at about a 9.

These can always be varied. I think starting the basic line infantry for most nations at 5 and then varying up for elite or famous units and down for conscripts is a good basis to work from. French IMHO should be basically a little better than most other nations except possibly British simply because in most instances their officers and middle-level commanders were better which with hindsight-armed wargamers we cannot reproduce.

Its also fairly well agreed that 1806 Prussian infantry and some Spanish infantry were very solid troops - it was just their commanders who were incompetent and their tactics poor, but we cannot represent that incompetence due to us all being human players with similar skills and hindsight so the only option we have in a computer game like SoW is to downrate the troops. It isn't a correct solution but it tends to lead towards similar results.

These are just my personal views of course, there are other ways to rate SoW troops.

Thanks Martin, that will help with my future scenario...

As for the yesterday's battle, I think the result would be semi-disaster for French... Kevin's divisions would probably abandon all the stolen goodies and after sending couriers around Spanish right flank, the contact with Gazan would be finally established. Phil however would probably wave the white flag as totally separated and being pushed back north-west...

I thought about having baggage train unit which would have to stay on the main road - thus bounding at least part of French forces to the road - it would actually play in their favour... French should seek the chance in quick breakthrough before the gap is sealed and/or overwhelming one of the allied flanks - I understand that better grade troops would be needed anyway...

Given that both sides had lower than expected ratings I am not sure the exp settings affected the result too much. The key to the Allied success was realising the French were not coming down the main highway and finding them going around the right. Once I was certain a major move was coming that way I just shortened my lines back to the best position I could find near Osma and waited.

We ended up with our usual problem of an attacker having to take a defensive position with close to equal forces, something I am getting a little frustrated with. We need more scenarios that give the attacker better odds. My Ljubiwizci scenario was a first attempt at that but I got the ratings of the Russian artillery wrong. Its no big deal and we can only make better attack/defend scenarios with more tests like that.

My Peninsular campaign Spanish ratings. These are 1808/1809. In later years , especially 1812/1813 when some British training and logistics began to pay off, certain infantry formations at least got better:

Once again, just my views on this.

Infantry:

Citizen city defenders: 1 (a rating of 0 apparently has unintended effects)(make these quite small units as well to make them brittle)
Guerillas/Miquelets: 1/2/3 depending on a random die roll (small units, can only skirmish which helps the player keep them in cavalry-unfriendly terrain)
Early Voluntarios regts: 1 (but are very big btns, often 900-1,000 men)
Later Voluntarios regts and National Militia: 2
National Militia Grenaderos btns: 3
Regular Musketeers: 3 (1813, e.g Morillos' Division, could be 4 or even 5)
Regular Grenaderos: 4
Spanish/Walloon Guardia: 5 (btns kept nearer paper strength than other units)
Cacadore/Tiradore/Light troops: 3 or more likely a 4

Artillery:

About 4.

(I use Austrian gun stats as these are the weakest. Later on in 1812 or so some British equipment was supplied so use British gun stats)

Cavalry:

Irregular/Voluntarios/Light regts: 2 or 3
Regular Dragoons and Horse: 3 or 4
Guardia: 4 or 5

All cav regts should be quite small due to lack of horse replacements. All except a few regts should be edged skill rated as poor. The guardia are average.

We ended up with our usual problem of an attacker having to take a defensive position with close to equal forces, something I am getting a little frustrated with. We need more scenarios that give the attacker better odds.

I understand frustration, but French were weaker here as they were not "attackers"... attacker/defender historically was not clearly defined except the obvious situation like sieges, delaying rearguard actions... for example at Coruna it was clear who is attacker and what is at stake... Waterloo too, but Wellington wouldn't make his stand if he didn't count on Prussian help...
now take Austerlitz, Marengo, Friedland... is there a clear attacker/defender role from start to finish?

In my scenario French were weaker than Allied forces combined, but much stronger than any Allied part separated - had they encountered Spanish division alone, they could easily overwhelm it... Allied haven't started on fortified position - they actually had to attack to stop the French as far away from the objective as possible... I tried to emphasise the significance of that by stating that the French division "off the map" is coming to help... as just camping around the objective point wouldn't be good enough for Allied success... I actually should have removed the objective altogether and mark wider "exit zone" for French along South-East border of the map... another lesson learned for me.

Got now another idea for this scenario - I'll redesign it and hope it will be more interesting for you.

The reason the French went north was so they would not be ambushed while moving down the main road. This poor quality army could not be expected to survive unless it could defend on very favorable ground. That's why the decision to go north was made. It was hoped we would run into an isolated division and destroy it or make it to the high ground north of the objective and defend. Unfortunately, the French were detected near Burgos. After that, the outcome was a forgone conclusion.

I ran the scenario this morning with the French just moving down the road and the Allies marching along the route they actually took. Both allied forces intercepted the French column west of Urquiza. The road march was fatal.

Perhaps going along the southern portion of the map would have been better, but it was felt that was the most obvious plan and the Allies actually move all their forces in that direction.

I don't think there was a way for the French to win. They were outnumbered by ~3,600 troops and with overall better quality. In total, it gave them a 33% advantage. All the Allies had to do was sit on the objective and wait. That, of course, is what they did.

I always encourage scenario makers to test out the scenario beforehand to make sure that the assumptions that go into the design actually pan out. It's a more laborious process than just plunking down the divisions on the map, but it does quickly demonstrate whether both sides have a reasonable chance or whether changes need to be made. I've found in making many scenarios that once the ratio of the normalized strengths of the armies exceed +/-5 or 6%, then the lesser army needs either better terrain to fight on or asymmetric objectives which allow it to succeed without becoming involved in a simple stand-up fight.