Regular Monday SOW HITS games

Roland said.......

are you going to put up a list of the main mod features? - or is there already a thread on this forum to this mod?

This will be covered in a word doc included with the mod, which will include some historical background and play hints (as with the little Bighorn Mod).  

Martin (J)

Digby said........

I've only played one game using Martin's Reiswitz Mod and I noted that cavalry was almost useless when charging enemy infantry. Infantry small arms ranges are LONG. Artillery didn't seem too powerful and still needs to be supported by infantry.

Infantry weapons had a longer range and were more accurate than Napoelonic ones were.  This was particularly the case on European battlefields, which were much more open than ACW ones.  So life was more difficult for cavalry.  But you could still get a good charge in if you picked your time, approached from dead ground, and waited until the infantry had taken casualties.  Artillery was more vulnerable to infantry fire than it was in Napoleonic times.  Although its own range had increased as well, LOS considerations meant that it couldn't always use the extra range, whereas infantry often could.

I'm currently experimenting with making the guns also vulnerable to cavalry attack - as they should be.  This is the main reason I haven't already posted a link to the new version of the mod.

Martin - beware using the 10 mile map. Kevin created a scenario on it recently and it crashed and crashed and crashed. We never found out why and had to give up. I suspect the 10 mile map is loading SoW to near it's limits. I am avoiding it for Peninsular campaign battles .

Thanks for the heads-up.  I didn't play in that game.  How large were the forces involved?  I suspect these ones will be smaller, which will presumably help.  I may need to have something in reserve though.

Martin (J)

Roland said......

there should be a significant difference in range between the Prussian Zündnadelgewehr and the Austrian System Lorenz... the first has a rate of fire about 3 times higher - but the second one shoots a lot further as well as it is more accurate...

In the Prussian k/spiel, both armies were organised and armed identically, so I have given the infantry of both sides Austrian Lorenz weapons.  And identical artillery too.  I am specifically *not* aiming to replicate the Austrian-Prussian War, although that and the 1859 Italian War are probably the closest major wars in terms of the weaponry.

I want to bring out that this was a period of rapid technological change, and that mid 19th C commanders did not know what tactics were going to work.  They learned on the job, and typically only participated in a very small number of engagements.  Unlike SOW players, they had no real opportunity to keep re-fighting battles and experiment with new approaches.  We have it way too easy in that regard.  As soon as I feel players are starting to crack the system, I will start changing some of the stats

Martin (J)

sounds good to me - it will make things much more balanced that way

besides - nowadays there are still enough commanders who have no idea what tactics are going to work as well - so not much has changed... Everyone is busy working on counter-insurgency and desert combat - completely forgetting that this is rather restricted to a certain area on the globe, where people seem to have fun dropping bombs onto (anyone really it would appear...)  - and now with the whole Ukraine stuff going on people are slowly going back to conventional warfare - and this is where they have realized: we have no idea what is going to work and what isn't... simply because there has never been a modern war between two major factions, which are basically on the same lvl of technology - because what we have seen so far in the late 20th century was like Custer and the Indians... or Cortez and the Aztecs..

anyway - sry - I wandered off there again... I am sure the fight on Monday will be a blast!

I think the 10 mile map problem had to do with one player's bad internet connection. We've played two other battles on it without an problems.

That's good to know Kevin.

Thanks

Martin (J)

Roland asked for some more details of the KS Reisswitz Mod, and here are some excepts from the notes which come with it......

Design approach

I set out to reflect the traditional Red and Blue armies used in the original Prussian detachments kriegsspiel training game for junior officers, first published in 1824, but later updated many times.  I hope the mod will act as a act as a bridge between traditional face-to-face kriegsspielers and the online MP SOW community.

I chose not to set the game in the Napoleonic period, partly for a change, but mainly because engagements between detachments were relative rare in that period.  That was perhaps mainly because small forces were quite vulnerable, given the short range weapons and the need to maintain tight formations meant that say a division could only defend a limited frontage.

I have therefore tried to reflect some aspects of typical German armies of the mid 19th C, although Red and Blue are not based on any specific armies.   The weaponry is similar to that used in the 1859 Italian War and the 1866 Austro-Prussian War, but again I have in no way attempted to duplicate those particular wars.  

This mod is largely based on the stock ACW game, but several changes have been made to reflect the more formal and complex organisation, and generally better standard of training, of contemporary European armies of the mid 19th C.

Armies, weapons and tactics

The armies of both sides are armed and organised in similar fashion, as they were in the Prussian Kriegsspiel.  Infantry and jaeger (light infantry) battalions consist of 700 men, cavalry squadrons of 175, and artillery batteries of 8 guns.

The infantry are armed with newish Lorenz rifled muskets.  Although these are most effective at considerably shorter ranges, they can kill at up to c300 yds.  On the more open European battlefields, this increase in range is more useful than on more heavily-wooded ACW battlefields.  As a result, infantry are no longer trained to fight in square, relying on firepower to defend against hostile cavalry.  Jaegers use the same weapons but are especially proficient in open-order fighting and are often better shots.  

At the time, contemporaries were divided on how much all of this should change infantry tactics.  Some argued that assault columns would suffer severely from the more extended killing zone, and more accurate fire.  Others believed that only with the faster-moving columns, could advancing infantry cross the killing zone in a reasonable time.  Proponents of both views could draw on recent experience to support their case.

To reflect this lack of certainty I have tried to adjust matters so that both fire and rapid movement could be successful, depending on circumstances.  The mod is a work in progress, and this process of adjustment is likely to continue for some while.  But broadly I would like players to experiment to find what works best, just as the real generals had to do.

Artillery ranges have also increased since the Napoleonic period.  It has been found that the new rifled artillery can be quite vulnerable to infantry fire however, as they frequently cannot use their maximum range of well over 2,000 yds, even on more open European battlefields.

The case of the cavalry is more straightforward.  At least in the Red and Blue armies, they see themselves as a 'shock' arm, and are neither armed nor trained to fight dismounted.  Charging formed infantry is of course more difficult than it used to be, but there were a number of cases in this period where cavalry successfully charged formed infantry.  

Cavalry types still very much reflect the Napoleonic period, with heavy cuirassiers, medium dragoons, and a range of lighter types - lancers, hussars and chasseurs.  That said, the differences between these types in combat is perhaps less pronounced than it was even a generation ago.

Martin (J)

We have 6 players so far, and full briefings have now gone out to them.  I will post a link to the latest version of the KS Reisswitz mod here some time tomorrow.

We can certainly fit more in.  As well as a CinC, there is a mix of divisional and brigade-level commands available.

If you would like to play please complete the doodle http://doodle.com/6gnpbsuvt92sg9hf

Martin (J)

Hi Martin

I'm hoping to play monday but not yet got the green light. I'll fill in the doodle when I know.

Mike

Filthy Reds need to be taught a lesson. The commission of war atrocities should be the order of the day.

always picking on the Reds... how do you think the Russians are feeling like when they play wargames/ take part in their exercises?

Its why NATO now uses Blue and Orange

nice - NATO is ahead of Austria then

edit: since when? - last one I was a part of we still had red and blue

I always thought this was since before 1989 when the Wall fell. I was told it was done during the late 70s or early 80s simply because someone saying over the radio "the reds are attacking" might be badly misconstrued! Also a decision probably for political reasons.

well this is rather new to me - but then I wasn't active during the cold war anyway.... besides many colours are used - but I have also seen the traditional red vs blue

At the moment we have 6 confirmed players for Monday’s game.  This will start as usual at 19.30 (7.30 pm) UK time.

No-one has volunteered to be CinC, but Roland very splendidly offered to act to act as reserve.  So he is hereby appointed as Blue commander, the Landgraf Heinrich.  A high status dude if ever there was one. Please make sure you all accord him the appropriate respect  

The 3 Blue columns begin the game some way apart, and I think the scenario will work best if we allocate 2 players to each force.  This means that von Chemnitz and von Lutter can each have a subordinate regimental commander – either infantry or cavalry.  The CinC accompanies Vastengen, at least initially.  This may leave the latter without a subordinate.  But his is the smallest column, so I don’t see that as a major issue.

Here is a link to the latest version of the KS Reisswitz Mod, which we’ll be using in the game.  Even if you have previously installed it, you should update to this version, as there have been numerous changes, including additional sprites.  Please install it before the game...........
https://www.dropbox.com/s/2qoe9f7o67dze0k/KS%20Reisswitz%20v1_4.zip?dl=0

We can certainly fit more in, and this might be a nice game for less experienced MP players to cut their teeth on.  We are playing cooperatively vs the AI.  You can take a small command of just a few battalions or squadrons, and team-up with a more experienced player to show you the ropes.   If you would like to play please add your name to the doodle http://doodle.com/6gnpbsuvt92sg9hf

Martin (J)

A few thoughts arising from yesterday’s game:

1. I think the general view was that the new c1860 Reisswitz mod has infantry and cavalry about right, but that artillery needs beefing-up.  My take was that the changes need to be in 2 areas:

- Make the guns more effective.  At the moment casualties are too low.

- If the ground permits (and the game engine allows), get the AI to deploy them further back, so as to take advantage of their increased range and also reduce their vulnerability to infantry fire.

Was that the consensus?

2. Matt asked why we didn’t have 2 teams.  I think there are a couple of reasons for that.  One is that we want to use the Monday games to attract those who are rather tentative about MP.  From discussions with some of that cohort, I think coop games vs the AI are seen as less intimidating and less competitive.  The other issue is whether we will have sufficient numbers for two teams.  I did assume that a Monday game would be much less popular than the Saturday and Sunday ones, and thought we would be lucky to get 4 or 5 players on average.  In fact we have had 8 players for each game so far, which would be enough for teams.  If numbers remain high, my feeling is that we should be flexible, and perhaps try for a mix of coop and team play.  Having teams does depend on enough folks registering on doodle well in advance though.  That is an issue more generally, and I see Kevin has referred to that in a recent post re weekend games.

3. Following the plan to use these sessions to experiment and put on a variety of games, I’ll do something different again for next Monday.  I’m thinking of doing an ACW scenario.  It’s a long time since our group ran an ACW game.  This will use the Additional Flags & Sprites Mod, and I’ll put up a link to the latest version in the next couple of days.  This will not be like a stock ACW game, will not be set in Virginia in 1863, and will probably not be at all balanced.  You have been warned   .

4. Anyone who fancies designing a scenario should feel free to put one on in this session.  I’m certainly not looking to have a monopoly.  And let’s face it folks, it’s the only way to get me to play CinC on a Monday!

5. Doodle for next Monday, 23rd March is here http://doodle.com/kma4gay82zrcikd2#table

Martin (J)

I think the game last night was great - it just had too many players with too few enemies (a fact that, like you said, was not to be foreseen)  - and thus the human factor in "micro management" ensured an easy win! - but the Mod as such (apart from the guns) and the map as such was VERY good!


I think it's a great idea to finally put up unbalanced scenarios! - I have been talking to Kevin - and I will certainly try and bring a few ideas of my own for scenarios - and those WILL be unbalanced - but both sides will be able to win - having different objectives...
in history you hardly ever had balanced battles - and still it wasn't always the stronger side that prevailed...

one thing I would certainly like to get into a bit more is the necessity for a CinC to be ready to sacrifice part of his troops to save the rest... I know these things are probably not very appreciated in MP games - but it should help working on one thing - player EGO... there is no "I" in combat - there is only "we"....

Great time yesterday! The game went well, Grog did great job with the Infantry and I got time to learn to handle the CAV better. Guns are my favorite part of the game, after I got behind some enemy CAV and they lets lose maybe 6 guns did and I got 4.6 points I came to the conclusion that the just looked real good crossing the field.

With us all agreeing that the guns need a tweak, I just took it as the guns had a bad day and did not perform well. Things like this have happened all through history. Personally I think the Gun crew probably drank to much the night before. Also we didn't have to face enemy enemy guns which could have been bad for Grog and I since the enemy did have a slight height advantage.

On the point of unbalanced games I am all for them. Personally I like the challenge and even more listening to the historical references about similar battles throughout history.

Great Job on your new mod in progress Martin and thanks for letting me one of the test mice!

Thanks for comments guys.

I still think we need to beef-up the guns, but don't want to go too far the other way. So can I ask anyone who has commanded artillery in our previous series of test games using this mod whether they noticed this problem.  Sean, Diggers, Kevin?

Martin (J)

You may want to test the guns with a better field of fire too! That never really had that but one time for me yesterday. That might make the difference.

Good point Mike. It was heavily wooded around Vogelsang, where we fought. Although I think Kevin had trouble getting much value from the guns further N where it was less wooded I believe.

Martin (J)

Monday's game will definitely be an ACW scenario set in NW Arkansas in the spring of 1862. I'll try and put up some details tomorrow.

Am designing this for about 8 players. Let's hope we get them

Martin (J)

Excellent - I will be there for sure - as per usual... I know - you are all anything but happy to see me there - but oh well - looks like you're stuck with me for a while...

Just to confirm, Kevin's battery was deployed in a wide open field and hardly fired, let alone hit anything. It was only about 500 yds from the enemy much of the time. The lack of firing could however be due to blocked targets or possibly a very slight uphill slope.