Square formation and movement

I figured I would copy my missive which I had posted in the French forum; this should give everyone a chance to offer their opinions on the movement of squares.

I would have to offer my agreement to Soldier's assertions (that squares should not be allowed to move once formed): simply because the system in scourge of war is not set up to properly support squares, having them able to move is not agreeable.

Yes, I am aware of several instances where disciplined troops, I think my memory recalls Crawford's light division as being on of those instances, where troops withdrew in square. However, these were few and far between, and were done successfully only by some of the finest troops of the period.

My issue with allowing it is threefold; one, the troops move far too fast in square, sure they are slow but they aren't THAT slow. This most definitely creates a gamey issue as these troops are able to maneuver around the battlefield far too quickly. They can also move in square over ANY terrain type, which is simply not practical. Secondly, troops of any quality can form square, keep square, and now can move in square. That is not realistic in any degree. Thirdly, and tying in with my second point, lower quality troops which formed square would be hard pressed to hold square, let alone move in square. The game does not model the effect of disorder based upon quality. Having a level 5 French battalion move in square would be a stretch to any degree; having a level 3 Spanish battalion form square, keep square, and then move in square is a manifest impossibility.

In summation, I would not be apposed to having units move in square if the game was set up properly to calculate the effect such a maneuver would create; essentially the farther a unit moves in square the more likely they are to break square; a calculation based upon quality and distance traveled. Since this sort of thing is impossible with our current engine we must be practical and work with the tools we have. I know in prior battles I operated under the assumption that I could not move in square and I was able to successfully extradite the majority of my division when faced with a outnumbering combined arms force by making a checkered formation and manually withdrawing each battalion behind the successive battalions. It took time, and luck, and skill but I was able to do it and have the majority of my division 70% combat effective. One mistake and I probably would have lost my entire division. This is how it should be.

The limitations of the formation are such that having a hard and fast no movement rule is not likely to effectuate the result of any game versus the opposite: a quality, veteran commander will be able to extradite most of his men out of a hard scrap. A newer player may have difficulty at first but they will learn.

If we want immobile squares, then it will have to be a house rule. I just checked, and the squares are already set to move at the slowest rate possible. It was a change I made sometime in the past and forgot about. There are no truly immobile units in the game. It is impossible to create one. I don't know if there is some game mechanic reason for this or if it's a bug. In any case, what we have is the best we can do.

Kevin,

My reference was to create a house rule. I find that with language, one man's "withdrawal" is another mans "advance." As such, it is always better to follow the KISS method.

I think there was a voiced concern that if you immobilized the squares they couldn't change facing to fire correctly. I guess this revelation would remove that concern. Turning does look quite distinct from advancing (to the rear).

I would assume if squares are declared immobile (house rule), they may still turn?

I’m the player who was involved with the incident with Soldier.

There is a game problem/bug with the movement in square.

1. In a previous game my opponent’s cavalry attacked a withdrawing unit that was given an order to form square. The unit began to form square while withdrawing. However it did not have the appearance of a square. When the cavalry engaged the unit about 2-3 seconds after the unit received the order to square, the unit just kept moving and no casualties were inflicted either way. The only thing that did happen was the fatigue for both units went down quickly.

2. In the  game played this weekend, I had drawn the short straw and had yucky garrison troops that no one wanted (only 8 regiments of conscripted infantry, I had no cavalry/artillery). The scenario rules required that I stay in place about 400 yards south of the city [1, 2] until 15 minutes game time had elapsed. My side had begun to withdraw about 2 minute’s game time. The enemy moving north from the south set their artillery up and engaged me at about 8-9 minutes game time. I had no support and I had to stay put. At about 18 minutes I ordered all of my units to move on the roads from the south of the city thru to the north of the city. Enemy cavalry caught up with my units at the southern end of the city.  As such the units were ordered into square. Alas, the same problem manifested itself (enemy cavalry did catch one unit and decimated it before the square order was received). There was no effect on the casualties either way, my units just kept walking north thru the city while being pursued by cavalry inside the city. During this chaotic engagement inside the city I was killed and replrostered north of the city. My units kept walking in square north thru the city streets during this time. However, the units continued to walk north when Soldier’s infantry caught up with my units inside the city [3]. Thus now I had cavalry and infantry all mixed up in a chaotic city. At this time I was running myself back to my units and had no control over my units.  During this chaotic time, (I couldn’t see it) a square unit of mine bumped into Soldier’s infantry and routed it. Alas, any courier giving a stance change by me would be intercepted or would take a while to get to the unit. When I was able to get back into contact with my troops I was able to get a few units out of square that were engaged with his infantry. I did see enemy infantry that had formed into squares in response to this problem, which I find appropriate. Furthermore, I did observe enemy cavalry near me still within the city. In the end the enemy was able wipeout all of my units. All be it the enemy did take unnecessary casualties.

1.  The KS forum:
 5) Inside the city's defences there are many obstacles and buildings, however all troops may still move and fight inside the defences as much as the SoW software allows. There will be the usual pathing and visibility problems in the city streets and for cavalry any wooded areas will present the usual melee problems.

2. Due to the chaotic nature of fighting in cities, Napoleon was known to shy away from fighting inside cities. (there are exceptions)

3. The square walking speed is set at .1 MPH, infantry can walk at 4 MPH.

Given the SoW game limitations it seems to me that the incident in Santander was no-one's fault. A better response to the squares in the city would have been to outflank the built-up area and wait for the Spanish to try and get out to the NW across the open. They could then easily have been destroyed with little trouble. If they didn't try to leave they'd be surrounded and taken prisoner anyway.

I am still seeing this incident as a storm in a teacup that does not need more rule amendments to address it. We are already beginning to allow squares to only move when withdrawing.

SJ - I agree with your post and accept what you say. It does look from the replay as though you had no control for a while.

Yes, city fights were a chaotic mess where commanders could exercise little control. From the well-known fights around Hougoumont, Plancenoit, Ligny and St Amand in the 100 days campaign, even small towns and villages could suck in and chew up large numbers of troops for little gain.

To avoid the problem of fighting squares in cities its best to avoid cities completely and work out a different approach to resolve the problem in your favour instead of bulling on into the enemy.

Just because an enemy in is a certain place doesn't mean you have to fight him there.

Well put Martin.

"Given the SoW game limitations it seems to me that the incident in Santander was no-one's fault. A better response to the squares in the city would have been to outflank the built-up area and wait for the Spanish to try and get out to the NW across the open. They could then easily have been destroyed with little trouble. If they didn't try to leave they'd be surrounded and taken prisoner anyway.

To avoid the problem of fighting squares in cities its best to avoid cities completely and work out a different approach to resolve the problem in your favour instead of bulling on into the enemy."

This response is an absolute head scratcher to me...

1. You can't leave an enemy in your rear as lord only knows what kind of mischief they might get into, particularly with 80 guns parked about facing west!!
2. The French had too few commanders to have an entire division sit and watch a brigade of brigands and wait for them to leave.

They had to be destroyed and quickly so the main pursuit can continue. Combines arms of cavalry putting them to square and then infantry shooting them up is a viable tactic. Well, until the squares advance at the blocking infantry and put them to melee. Regardless, it happened, we move on...

But the answer is not "avoid fighting in the cities." Do you really believe that? How about the total ridiculousness of being able to form a square in a city at all. Perhaps the answer more realistically should not be "don't fight in the cities" but rather, "don't form square in a city."

How do you know it was an enemy brigade?

If that enemy formation required a player to control it then leaving one of your players facing him off is a fair exchange.

We already use the square formation inside our stone wall enclosures that represent strongpoints, walls farms, chirches, granaries, etc. Its the only mechanic we've been able to come up with to represent strongly defended stone/brick buildings. So squares in "towns" is allowed.

As I said, if the enemy was retreating (and its clear from the replay that he was, even if it may not have been clear on the ground) and given that the French were assaulting a defended city, then my suggestion of waiting until the Spanish attempted to withdraw out of the built up area to defeat them in the open, or simply holding position to trap him inside the city, to later accept his surrender were the better options.

I do not know why you keep chewing at this bone. We have already discovered that SJ could do nothing about this, his general was killed and his avatar was riding back to the city from a distant respawn point, there was thus no way of him stopping what the AI was doing.

We cannot make squares immobile, that has recently been discovered.

Therefore what should we do?

People have suggested shooting at squares with infantry which we know destroys them quite fast, or withdrawing away from them to avoid melee (they are slow moving). I have additionally pointed out elsewhere that even if you lose 500 casualties from a rogue AI square what does it matter? These 500 are breadcrumbs.

Ignore these minor trivial issues and play on.

I spent an hour yesterday writing a long post that put out my thoughts as regards campaign victory and loss considerations. Yet you are still obsessing about casualty numbers. I am therefore directing you again to that topic and locking this one.

Any further topics opened on this subject will be deleted.