Today's Game July 19th

I don’t think the VP issue is straightforward.  

* In our face-to-face kriegsspiels, we normally have specific victory conditions for both sides, although they may be asymmetric.  So, at least in theory, both sides could achieve them.

* They always have importance, but are not always *critically* important.  But the players don’t always know that for situational reasons.

* And in any case it’s no good achieving your objective if you no longer have a viable force.  If that’s the case the objective is likely to have little value.

* Of course, the situation may mean you can recover stragglers, and reorganize into a viable force overnight.  In which case the statement above is not true.

* OTOH you may fail to achieve an geographic objective, but if you’ve decisively defeated the enemy, there will be nothing to stop you securing it the next day.

* Always assuming that securing it was not time-critical.  For example marching to the relief of a fortress which was about to fall.  In which case the next day is too late.

It’s very difficult to come-up with a rule that covers all situations.  All I can suggest is the approach we use in our kriegsspiels.  There, the final decision on victory/defeat always rests with the person who organised the game.  Only they are aware of the whole picture, know what’s in everyone’s briefings, and hopefully have the objectivity to come to an informed and unbiased view.

That may not be a perfect approach, but it does seem to work.  It does require that all players accept the decision, but over many years we have not found that to be a problem.  One difference in our MP games is that the organiser plays, rather than umpires.  But they typically take a minor command, and so are probably less invested in the result.

Martin (J)

Martin, I see lawyer-potential in you. All you lack is a few more "to the contrary notwithstandings..." ;-)

That will be five thousand dollars please, Ron

Accepting we didn't take the objective and NSD's victory.

I am curious about how my commanders felt at the battle end? Just taking into account the actual fighting.

Did you feel we were getting the upperhand in the battle or we're getting our asses kicked?

I couldn't see beyond the ridge of Martin's position (Roland's division) but all the fighting around Goumont was reduced to mopping up some French battalions.

I only ever felt dubious about our position early on when I took the second ridge and began to get pounded by French guns. One of my batteries had a cannon rout before it had opened fire. Then with my guns pulled back (er... forced back) off that ridge I saw masses of French infantry attacking I wondered if we would be able to stop them.

The second worrying moment was when I had to pull back to keep connected with our left and saw Goumont woods full of cheering garlic eaters who then pushed Mike's brigade back and swarmed around the chateau.

After that though I found out my reserve brigade had brought powder and bullets with them and these, with help from Mark's brigade to my left and mine and Roland's 40+ guns managed to stop the enemy on this flank.

Iberalc wrote:Did you feel we were getting the upperhand in the battle or we're getting our asses kicked?

One vote for "asses kicked."

My brigade was in good shape and the French had relented. I was once very worried, but when I saw a brigade led by Pepe of Villaflor come up beside me, I knew the day was ours.

We are Russians, of course we won.

Actually, the idea was for us to attack and drive away the snail eaters. Instead, they counterattacked and drove us back. I really don't understand what happened. We had a colored battle plan and everything. What more did we need?

"What more did we need?"

An Austrian with a firmer Rückgrat?  

I don’t think the VP issue is straightforward.

Thank you, Martin. Very helpful.

And don't get me started on the implications of losing your baggage train

Martin (J)