Sunday battle - CinC notes

It’s always a fun challenge orchestrating divisions and trying to react to a changing battlefield.

Ever since we added scouts to the game I try at least half the time - yesterday fir example - to wait to really develop a plan until I hear back from them. I personally like adding that realism part.

Looking at the replay it was amazing to see hardly any enemy at the objectives for most of the game. So using hindsight we could have raced there, taken up defensive positions and let French come at us.

Then again ... the fact that we started on same side of map as objectives meant such a scenario was the last conceivable thing in my mind. Surely there are at least a couple divisions holding them. So there is the mental picture I kept.

The other salient picture in my mind was making sure our infantry and cav divisions operated in tandem. So Ehey/Miko and Grog/Donkey were the main maneuver elements with Digbys infantry  in reserve

Add to that the broken terrain, with just enough trees and high grass to make it hard to see how a division was employed. That included thinking a division was farther north than where it truly was (in case of donkey and miko) because a flank unit was more or less actually separated from the main body. And with no favorable road network on our side of river to move laterally across our line, the further the left flank stretched north the less we were able to mutually support. And the fact that our right flank got engaged early more or less exacerbated that “be careful not to overextend the left against enemy strength” mindset.

Getting sitreps helped. I spent most of my time near middle of line to get messages faster with little possibility of interception.Which meant I really couldn’t see what was going on regarding either flank when I was there. Ehey telling me the French in his front were ignoring him set up a good possibility for hitting those french from 2 directions early in the game. Miko telling me the middle objective was unoccupied opened the door to having him and Ehey take it and go beyond to set themselves up in good ground SW of the last objective (which I assumed had a lot of French on it by then ... i just didn’t realize it spent most of the game unoccupied).

As things developed, I put Digby in the middle. The only way for him to rapidly get there was literally run into the back of Miko because that was where the favorable road turned east. And for about 15-20 minutes I wasn’t 100 sure whether to send him North to support Miko/Ehey or south to hit the French attacking Grog/Donkey from behind.

This was where the broken terrain was a factor. Donkey had a brigade somewhat separated and farther north than the rest of his division. So from my vantage point on west side of river thought his fight was much closer to Digby than it actually was, and thus not that much of a march to help dislodge our right flank to free it and get to the last objective.  

Digby had a better view of things on his side of the river and in effect told me sending him south was insane. Too far. His message arrived at about the same time
Donkey told me the French in front of him were collapsing and Miko telling me the French in front of him were gearing up to attack. So I sent Digby north and told Grog/Donkey to do likewise.

At about this time I came across one of my cavalry scouting patrols. Behind our lines. Communicating with nobody. It reminded me of the general lack of scouting reports that day. Zero in fact. It would be nice to hear a report of “no contact yet” than silence.

In the end we had entire corps focused on last objective which was what I was aiming at. But it didn't unfold in the way I anticipated. Mostly because my picture of the battlefield was what I thought Kevin would set up as opposed to what he actually did.

In the replay watching our left flank largely unopposed with the objectives wide open, with a large enemy force rushing to get there from the opposite end of the map I could not help but think of Burnside at Fredericksburg. Waiting for pontoons to cross the Rappahammock river whilst Lee’s army raced to the other side. By the time he did cross, Lee was waiting for him in strength. I am sure Miko and Ehey felt much like Hancock did, wanting to get something across the river fast.

Oh well. Still a victory depending upon Kevin’s interpretation:-)

There's not much interpretation needed. It was a dismal loss. Only one out of three objectives were taken and held.

What if the French holding the objectives were not highly motivated or cared little about what they held? Clearly our British corps cared a lot. Surely that must count for something:-)

Several people noted the lack of ANY cavalry scouting reports. I have a nagging fear something involving that area of code got broken in recent updates.

When I was waiting behind Miko/Ehey it was a shame I was sent east instead of north. Had I gone north and been assigned on Ehey's/Mikos left we may have won. As it was my troops were not needed in the region that Grog/Shaun were pushing north. I did have a bit of a chuckle when I was ordered to go along east the Weissembourg road and "hold the river crossing" only to see British troops about 1/2 mile on the far side of it happily marching north without a care in the world.

I actually think you managed the battle very well Pat, but its so hard to ascertain what the enemy is doing when you have such a limited view of things. My only real comment was that the march north initially was very slow with lots of stop-start.

Watching my scouts on the replay it really looked like one of them should have been able to see that first French division that moved down. The other group got stuck behind the enemy entirely so it was reasonable that I didn't hear from them.

It was certainly a bit of an awkward position in the beginning. I probably could have been more specific and given my position and included that I was screening Miko with a good position in relation to the spotted French. It might have aided your overall picture.

The timing for us when we reached that hill North of the middle objective was unfortunate. Caught on the large reverse slope left us no where to put guns and reinforcements were just a little too far given the amount of French in front of us. At 16:57 I finally got my cavalry to go up and chase away an entire brigade that wasn't in square and some of their guns. I guess maybe their commander got killed or something. With the left side of the hill crest finally clear we could put some guns there but with 2 French divisions sitting in that field and the woods behind it we were unable to keep the forward momentum. Having to fight a corps of heavy cavalry didn't make things any easier.

I am to blame for abandoning the crossing objective. You placed your regiments there when you left and when we were running out of time and manpower to take the third objective I was getting desperate to send off that heavy cav. I think I had managed to preserve most of my division until the last 30 minutes or so. I knew there certainly was no way to get the third objective without sending the cavalry in so I made an all or nothing attack so I could at least claim to have exhausted all options. I figured Kevin was going to hold out the victory on us without all 3 anyway.

In retrospect of course had Miko and I just taken that hill when the enemy wasn't there even if we were stretched out away from the rest of the army we could have held off long enough to be rescued. Before watching the replay though I myself wasn't sure there was anything that could have been done differently. Being cautious with the first French division that marched south was reasonable, especially with a limited picture of the army's deployment.

I found the scouting problem and fixed it. It was Martin's fault again.

I do apologise most unreservedly for spoiling our recent games. I keep asking Kevin to adjust the code that controls Phil's horse and in doing that he must have accidentally caused it to affect the scouts horses as well.

So all this time instead of a “scout” button on the toolbar we really should have been using an “R” button for “reduce by 50 men” since essentially that is what we were doing with “scouts” and all because there was a perceived need for an “H” button to guilt Phil’s horse into a “commit Hari-kari” stance for orders.

And Digby is to blame for all this

Interesting

With the latest modification, Phil's horse is blazing fast as it approaches the enemy and slow as an ox as it tries to escape. It took a bit of fiddling, but I think I got it right.

Shouldn't it gallop towards the nearest enemy battery and then expire 50 yards from their muzzles?

Alternatively, Phil runs headlong into a wall of bayonets.

It is certainly a stupid question, but why with the replay file I downloaded on the discord server I can only review the 15 last minutes of the battle ? From 17:45 to 17:49.

There are never stupid questions on this forum, so don’t worry about that. I might write stupid things at times. And Phils horse notoriously is accused of stupid independent actions ... but never a stupid question

Whenever we have a re-start mid game (someone crashes, bad frame, etc) then a replay file will only reflect what happened at time of the stop. So sometimes a single game will have more than one replay file associated with it. You would need replay file from earlier in the game, that’s all. And the game you noted had at least 2 and possibly 3 files.

Does someone has the first replays ? It seems that I only have the last one.

Good game Vince and good performance using a Division for the first time in one of our MP games. Your attack near the bridge was conducted admirably and without question or hesitation, which is all one could ask for from a Subordinate General of the Empire. Cold steel was liberally applied when required, as requested by our General of Cavalry.
I hope you did not get tired of my frequent orders and counter orders. I can get carried away when the action gets heated.
I will send you both replays tomorrow in case you missed the last 10mins.

I have put both parts of the Smolensk battle replay up on Dropbox. Grab it while you can as my Dropbox account is pretty full and I'll probably not be able to keep it there long.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/cu38f0292j8dba9/Smolensk_Replay.rar

I agree with Grog's comments that Vince got stuck in in fine style near the bridge, not hesitating at all to smash the enemy before him once my cavalry had softened them up but got beaten back by sheer numbers.

Kevin - the game mechanism that makes units surrender when they are isolated and near large numbers of enemy - can it be looked at in any way? It seems a bit silly for a cavalry unit to shatter more than one enemy unit and get stuck in and then, often with very low losses, surrender. Could this be converted into a retreat move maybe, with some kind of extra disorder penalty so they need resting for some time after their extreme but successful exertions? Perhaps if their kill to own loss ratio is very high something could be coded so they don't surrender but get forced back? I suppose we can say that the unit in reality still exists somewhere behind our lines, shattered but alive and no longer battle worthy and that in reality it didn't surrender but the on-screen resolution just feels wrong.

I can say something about cavalry surrendering last game
So, my both brave regiments of Carabiniers surrendered after looooong charge... I wonder if they could break off and flee if they were to surrender, rather than charge and then full regiment suddenly drops in morale and surrenders... I was astound to see that my light cav performs 100 times better than my decent heavies?

After the battle... actually if we had one player in my corps who could take a cavalry brigade and support Ehey from the start this could be won actually as we would break through at Smolensk earlier and Ehey would probably attract division or two on his flank... The great scenario how it was, I'd advise to avoid PvAI on maps with the non-fordable rivers especially if action is to take place near these rivers.

Agree with Martin re Cavalry surrendering a little too easily in recent games. If it were possible, I would like to see Regiments retreat sooner if overwhelmed by numbers (not outed units) or flee if their morale drops significantly due to taking high casualties or if charged in flank or rear. Though, we do want to avoid prolonged back and forth Cav actions or protracted delaying tactics.

I wonder if some of this is attributed to a lack of supporting Regiments or if the Cav Commander is too distant, which will influence Moral. In this case, I am content that the 'lone' Regiment suffers a significant penalty, as I think we should be avoiding attacking multiple targets in separate directions simultaneously or hesitating on commiting ones precious cavalry!. I have noticed that keeping a Brigade whole and in mutual support can be devastating and will eliminate the best of enemy cavalry regiments which are sent forward unsupported.

On what Miko says, I have been thinking that Light Cavalry are too effective and outperform, generally, the Heavies in our games. I think it might be due to their increased speed and stamina. Whilst I think they should always have the edge on these attributes, IMO (or perhaps a feeling, which I need to be test out more) it is a little too easy for experienced players to race them around seeking flanks and soft targets, repeatedly, without adequate recovery time. Do we need to look at recovery times?

Another thing is that some LCav Regiments are huge and it might be worth considering splitting them, as with the French Guard Chasseur a Chaval and Horse Grenadiers??

Cheers

Mike

Thanks Grog and Martin, it was a very nice game despite quite laggy at the end. I was struggling to click on the buttons sometimes.

No problem with many orders Grog, it helps me to learn. Thanks for give me the honnor of leading this charge !

I didn't expected Russians will retreat so easily after the first charge since I charged first with only 2 regiments. I wanted to put at least 3 or 4 regiments to push everybody away from that bridge but it seems that they didn't answer my orders.

The charge was efficient but not pretty academic in its execution I would say ^^. Actually, is there a way to make a whole brigade advance closer to enemies without deployment to fight, in preparation for a charge  ?
That time, I needed to TC every regiment and make them charge one by one because letting the AI do it make them form square systematically due to the presence of one cavalry regiment, i guess. Or did I use the wrong stance ?

It would say that a division commander should rely on his brigade subordinates then letting the AI do the job most of the time. It is a pity that I didn't manage to make it work, the charge would have been even more massive, with more regiments marching together.

I also had some issues with 2 regiments that didn't want to exit the road even with TC, no way to unselect "use roads".

And another question: How did you assess the Russians morale level before the charge ? Because charge can also lead to high number of casualties, that time, they just fled.

That time, I needed to TC every regiment and make them charge one by one because letting the AI do it make them form square systematically due to the presence of one cavalry regiment, i guess. Or did I use the wrong stance ?

Unfortunately, yes you need to TC battalions when attacking in presence of enemy cavalry - you're risking them being massacred like mine in the previous battle, though.
I've witnessed AI on enemy side being able to move up squares against my cavalry - I don't know what stance is used for that but extra condition might be that I didn't have infantry with me.

I also had some issues with 2 regiments that didn't want to exit the road even with TC, no way to unselect "use roads".

just selecting new destination for a unit exits "use roads"... that's why when moving brigade by using map command, "use roads" should be clicked each time after applying new destination

Vince - I almost never use the AI in combat. I almost always TC every battalion in a brigade but un-TC the brigade commander. This lets me direct attacks (or defence) where I see it is needed while the brigade commander is free to run around giving his command bonus. I find the AI is still too weak, slow and disjointed vs human control. The AI will also often send battalions off in directions you don't want them to due to its obsession with looking for flanks. I'd rather keep a brigade focussed on a narrow frontage and attacking down the "lane" I have mentally assigned it to. It was vital to TC units near that river, we all saw what a mess the AI makes of itself near uncrossable water. Others feel differently so this is just my personal take on it. This is no reflection at all on the awesome improvements Kevin has made to the game code but rather weaknesses in the original design.

The Russians collapsed quickly when you hit them near the bridge because my cavalry had already shattered them. I had been working them over thoroughly but had had 2 regiments surrender in their midst which is why I pulled away and asked Grog if you could give them a final push. It is why I also suggested bayonets to Grog instead of musketry. I'm pleased that the attack worked for you, it always raises the spirits when an attack goes as well as that.

I fully agree with Milo and Martin on all points.
Vince, Brigades under AI control can achieve great things, given good orders and appropriate stance (which I still havnt fully got the hang of after several years playing this game). Major issues arise when there is limited space and especially when other Brigades including cavalry are occupying or trying to move through the same area.
Each unit formation has its own invisible 'footprint' which is like a square block which will have to circumnavigate other unit blocks to get past. Infantry in line have very large footprints and don't allow interpenetration when engaged in firefight. Even Generals will run around them. Attack columns have smaller footprints. Column of Route, even smaller still, which I utilised to pass through the small gap between your Division and Phil's deployed squares on Tuesday. I still TC'd them individually, although brigade route column commands can be useful to pass through tight or cluttered areas. It is also a useful command to extricate a Brigade from a mixed up fight to reform and rest in the rear of the line.
Everyone has developed their own style and methods of movement and has adopted what works best for them. One advantage of playing brigade command is by observing how each player approaches Divisional command differently. I am enjoying watching Ehey's streaming and picking up one or two useful tips along the way. Also, his analysis of the finer points of Pat's Generalship you would find priceless!

Ok, very well. Thanks for the tips ! It's true that I rarely had occasions to play with limited space issues. Then I will now not prevent myself of TCing regiments depending on the situation.

Lucky for me, from many years in flying where aviators can be ruthless in critiques, I have developed a thick skin. And my recent years in leadership development has helped me become more reflective. So the combination works well.

You should hear my own “streaming” at subordinate commanders in terms of responsiveness and communication at times.

Believe me, on days where I am CinC if sometimes if I could “TC” a player I would!



As for division and brigade command, I have developed more trust in letting commanders do their thing and not TC. Since I will tend to prefer a more compact division formation (especially if a slot or gap or corner of 2 lines that open up that can be exploited) I will at times TC battalions if I need a more precise path. Sometimes I will TC the brigade commander if I need to brigade to a spot. When purely on defensive in a key area I will often TC multiple infantry battalions in square if I see a chance to push out offending cavalry. And I will TC a battalion on the flank at times to get it into a more advantageous position. But I try to unTC as quickly as practical because, if anything, I will have forgotten that I TCd someone and then find they are suddenly out of position or needlessly vulnerable.

Every player has their own style and preference. And a natural comfort zone.

I am probably at my best in this game as an infantry brigade or infantry division commander. I have a good track record taking objectives with infantry. I enjoy cavalry, and my “sweet spot” there is probably a brigade of light cav in a scouting or screening role. Not that I am great at it, but because it is fun. And while I will be fine taking a cav division if asked I am definitely below average with cavalry compared to others. I like a CinC role because I enjoy the interaction and dynamics and especially it’s unique challenge, but I usually take it because (1) nobody else wants it or (2) Kevin throws the gauntlet down for some impossible scenario that nobody else wants for themselves to lead but are happy to volunteer me instead (aka the “Pat folder”).

One more comment about letting the AI deploy its battalions - in MP games please always check where all your battalions and cavalry are and if they are in front of your sides guns (yours or a friendly players), please move them away at once (you will probably need to TC them). I had several instances near Smolensk on Tuesday where someone's infantry would march through my gun line and then halt and form square right in front of them while I was trying to shoot at some enemy cavalry. Quite frustrating!