Impromptu Games

The half spanish/half italian attaché to Gudin's HQ also emerged miraculously unscathed from that slaughter.
A young innkeeper claims the man was already lodged in her finest room at that late time.
Some good 50 miles back from the battle front...
She confirms he was certainly white dressed too.
But, to her limited knowledges of military things, his large coat really didn't have a martial nature.
Neither his footwear or that hat so much similar to a night cap.
The poor girl isn't supposed to be trusted for the ends of the ongoing investigation, of course.
Anyway, the only potential honourable and impartial witness left, awake or alive, to settle this disgraceful dispute within French officer corps, is still nowhere to be found.

The clocks changed in the US so I can play today at the non-usual time, 15:00 EST, 19:00 GMT. The Brits will be a several weeks late to the party as usual.
Friday's game was a walk in the park for the cavalry. Hacking and slashing all those helpless infantrymen made for tired arms. I guess the ground pounders have a different take on the day's festivities, grueling, bloody fight and all that. But infantry is cheap, so do we really care for their opinion?

I shall be there at the appointed hour. I imagine some Americans might be early though...

If we have enough for a PvP game I'd be up for that today but if people would rather relax I have this, 5 players vs AI...

Situation

Spring 1814, Southern France... er, Germany

We have taken the war to the enemy at last and invaded over the Pyrenees via Bayonne and the Bidassoa river and on into France. The wine has improved measurably but the women have not and the food is definitely worse. The women and food were so nasty in fact that His Grace decided to bypass France altogether and has gone on into Germany in search of some decent female company and grub. Apparently the Germans are fond of sausages so the move is a wise strategy in terms of culinary advancement.

Much to His Grace's annoyance however the French insist in preventing our departure from southern France and demand we buy plates of boiled snails from them. Disgusting.

They have put a corps across our path which we must shatter and drive past.

Intelligence

Our cavalry patrols have identified two enemy corps lying across our path east. It seems that the towns of Vendenheim, Lampertheim and Mundolsheim are all garrisoned. We have been unable to patrol deeper into enemy controlled territory due to the overpowering stink of garlic.

Objectives

We must break through and reach Reichstett in the east by dusk, securing all the marked French kitchens and destroying them.

Forces

1st Corps: Lt Gen Sir Arthur Wellesley (17609 Inf. 7003 Cav. 48 Guns)

1st Division: Maj Gen Henry Campbell (6555 Inf. 12 Guns)
Leith's Brigade: Maj Gen Sir James Leith (1747 Inf. 4 btns. Avg. Exp. 5.6)
Harvey's Portuguese Brigade: Brig Gen William Munday Harvey (2927 Inf. 5 btns. Avg. Exp. 4.4)
von Alten's Light Brigade: Brig Gen Baron Charles von Alten (1881 Inf. 4 btns. Avg. Exp. 6.2)
Gardiner's Coy. RA: Maj Franklin Gardiner (6 Guns Avg. Exp. 6.0)
Elliot's Coy. RA: Capt Edward Elliot (6 Guns Avg. Exp. 6.0)

2nd Division: Lt Gen Sir David Baird (4780 Inf. 12 Guns)
Anstruther's Brigade: Lt Col Robert Ross (1607 Inf. 4 btns. Avg. Exp. 6.2)
Ellis' Brigade: Lt Col Henry W. Ellis (1551 Inf. 5 btns. Avg. Exp. 6.5)
Disney's Brigade: Brig Gen Moore Disney (1622 Inf. 4 btns. Avg. Exp. 5.2)
Lawson's Coy. RA: Capt Robert Lawson (6 Guns Avg. Exp. 6.0)
Bull's Troop RHA: Capt Robert Bull (6 Guns Avg. Exp. 7.0)

3rd Division: Lt Gen MacKenzie Fraser (6274 Inf. 12 Guns)
Bentinck's Brigade: Brig Gen William Bentinck (2429 Inf. 4 btns. Avg. Exp. 6.1)
Manningham's Brigade: Brig Gen Coote Manningham (1957 Inf. 4 btns. Avg. Exp. 5.7)
Howard's Brigade: Maj Gen Howard (1888 Inf. 4 btns. Avg. Exp. 6.7)
Ross' Troop RHA: Capt Hew Dalrymple Ross (6 Guns Avg. Exp. 7.0)
Cleeves' 4th Coy. KGA: Capt Andrew Cleeves (6 Guns Avg. Exp. 6.0)

Paget's Cavalry Column: Lt Gen Henry Paget (3423 Cav. 6 Guns)
von Arentschildt's Brigade: Lt Colonel von Arentschildt (1002 Cav. 2 light regts. Avg. Exp. 6.5)
Otway's Portuguese Cavalry Brigade: Lt Col Loftus Otway (948 Cav. 3 light regts. Avg. Exp. 4.0)
von Bock's KGL Dragoon Brigade: Maj Gen Baron von Bock (768 Cav. 2 heavy regts. Avg. Exp. 7.0)
D'Urban's Portuguese Brigade: Lt Col Benjamin D'Urban (705 Cav. 2 light regts. Avg. Exp. 4.0)
Bean's Coy. 3rd Btn RA: Capt Richard Bean (6 Guns Avg. Exp. 6.0)

Anglo-Portuguese Cavalry Column: Lt Gen Stapleton Cotton (3580 Cav. 6 Guns)
Anson's Brigade: Lt Colonel Anson (858 Cav. 2 light regts. Avg. Exp. 6.0)
Hervey's Brigade: Lt Col Felton Hervey (828 Cav. 2 light regts. Avg. Exp. 6.0)
Somerset's Brigade: Lt Col Edward Somerset (875 Cav. 2 heavy regts. Avg. Exp. 6.5)
7th Hussars: Lt Col Hussey Vivian (1019 Cav. 2 light regts. Avg. Exp. 6.0)
Sympher's 2nd Coy. KGA: Capt Augustus Sympher (6 Guns Avg. Exp. 6.0)



Lots of pompously dressed light cavalry so Kevin should be at home.

I look especially good in powder-puff blue.

But doesn't it clash with the leopard-skin saddle cloth? Surely a fine manly shade of lilac brings a much sweeter visual harmony?

I can play today at the non-usual time, 15:00 EST, 19:00 GMT.
Sunday's PvP resulted in a loss for both sides. Only one word describes it, pitiful.

Except that the French secured 5 out of their 6 objectives and the Russians only 1 out of 6. So a major win for the French in terms of relative performance of the two armies. The one restriction on casualty percentage losses was completely unrealistic. I don't think we've ever had that small a loss in a PvP game so that means the basic game is not correct, not that the player team was at fault.

Sorry, only one of four objectives was secured by each army. Please re-read the situation report and then consult the final positions of the units. As for the casualty numbers, fighting to the last man is hardly realistic. That simply turns it into an arcade game.

Well Kevin, as a scenario creator, you knew where the French objective rectangle is... maybe a bit unfair roles assignment in Russian team, as you had to kind of pretend that you don't know it while controlling the wagons as well... I guess the casualties condition was there "just in case" )
It was stressful as usual PvP, but fun as well.. and I keep making commanding mistakes and not exploiting even bigger enemy mistakes.
I misread Martin's report as if French have crossed to the east bank of the river at least with full division.. then report about stalemate... and I wondered "wtf is Phill?"
Then when Martin reported about Kevin's division being defeated, I thought, "well that I'll be just facing some depleted units that are about to flee the field"... surprise... it was orderly withdrawal caused by destruction of the Grog's division...
looking forward to more of these 3v3s

To the end it will be known as a Glorious Russian Victory. I will be Parading my remaining battalion, in full Parade regalia down the streets of St Petersburg. Just as soon as I finish writing 15,000 letters to Russian widows.
Real world...IMHO...clear French victory

My initial plan was to try both crossings, figuring we'd find at least one open one, but I was afraid it'd get a little crowded if we banked all on one. Our objective and the weight of 2 divisions was in the north so I figured I'd just cross with Mike. Right as I was finishing crossing I got a letter from Kevin saying he encountered a division. I told him to keep it busy, but at the end of the game he'd probably have to withdraw north and hopefully cross in the north. A bit later he said he was against 2 divisions. I thought the 2nd division was further away from Miko so I ordered an all out attack on Alagon, thinking we had a 2v1 and that Kevin was in a good spot to defend against a 2v1 given the crossing. I gave him the knowingly difficult order to both survive while giving ground to the North so that we might get the wagons across by the end of the game since Mike and mine's push had secured the road and town.

And then a bit later Mike wrote me saying he was mostly destroyed and as I struggled to find his units that had once been right next to me I knew we'd likely gone over the casualty limit, as well as our control over the crossing and the road was now pretty threatened. So I told Grog to go try to defend the crossing and I set to trying to cause some French casualties in the hope that that side had some casualty restrictions as well. Otherwise I was just hoping one of our objectives were the same as the French and that by holding either the North bridge or the town we might drag them down with us. I didn't know Mike was fighting half of Miko's division and half of Phil's. I would have probably told him to wait for my flank attack to have gotten forward more before telling him to attack if I knew he was against those kinds of numbers.

In retrospect I think we could have gotten Kevin over the bridge just barely in time if I'd brought him North, but it seems like then there's a good chance of both sides achieving all objectives, which was also a stipulation for an Allied loss. It was still a fun game. I was hoping that the French division at Alagon was crapping himself seeing an entire division marching on his flank.

Sorry, only one of four objectives was secured by each army. Please re-read the situation report and then consult the final positions of the units. As for the casualty numbers, fighting to the last man is hardly realistic. That simply turns it into an arcade game.

I actually do have serious issues with this. First it just isn't possible to fight the way we fight our PvP games and place casualty %age limitations. Because this IS an arcade game. You may not think so but it is. This game is actually in no way realistic. We need to accept that before anything else. If you think the KS Mod and the SOWWL game engine provide any sort of realistic framework of Napoleonic warfare then you are deluding yourself.

Secondly the objectives were six in number:

1) bridge 1

(or)

2) bridge 2

3) the road junctions (about which the objective statement was not at all clear, so that is poor scenario design and not the fault of anyone else)

4) get the wagons to the objective

5) have at least 4 wagons left out of 8

6) do not suffer greater than 27% loss

Which part of these six is an issue?

In addition there was an objective 7 which was to deny the enemy getting his objectives.

The French secured:

#1 and #2 (we only had to achieve one of these but we achieved both).

2 out of the 3 road junctions of #3, whilst the scenario design did not say how many junctions there were. Given that our SOW maps do not even show all the roads you are asking too much of any player team here.

#4 and #5

So we failed only with #6 ...and, it could be argued #3 but that was working on poor/incomplete information and with the scenario designer knowing exactly which junctions HE thought were important and denying them to us.

So really quite poor sportsmanship I think Kevin.

When one side attains around 75-80% of what it is asked to do and the other attains about 20% I see a clear win for the first side.

If you want to put casualty limits on scenarios then we'd just sit there for three hours popping cannons at each other which some might enjoy but for me, call me when there's a scenario set up that actually allows us to fight.

Then we disagree.

Yes, we do.

I would like to hear why you think SOWWL is a realistic game and not an arcade game and also why placing %age casualty limitations on player teams is in any way realistic or useful (or enjoyable).

Uncle Billy wrote:Then we disagree.

We need to call for Pat as a mediator of the matters

"realism" is a word thrown around in computer wargaming a lot... but truly, I can't think of any really realistic game... they just tend to be closer to simulation or further away... so examples given for WW2 as this there are plenty:
Company of Heroes - totally arcade game, yet many people would say that it's so "realistic" because saying that has got some marketing value and game tends to be sold more...

Men of War - slightly better than CoH in terms that AT guns are effective against tanks but less against infantry... but still it's very arcade-y

Steel Division - this models different kind of arms better and maps are bigger but still player has got an absolute control over units and actions are taken immediately (no orders delay)

Combat mission series - this one got some flaws that I can't understand but in general it's the closest to simulation I have seen... obviously, we've got "god's view" of what all units can see.. but units got their own field of view and even if we see that they are in danger, they wouldn't react if it's not in they can't see it... I wish that game with similar engine would facilitate the MP game (in terms of several players on each side, rather than just 1v1 that is usually played in PBEM stile - nowdays using shared dropbox...)

Now SoW allows this unique separation of commands and some other nice features... but list of non-realistic stuff would be very long... casualties taken is one of them...
Let's say my infantry that was cut down by Ehey's cavalry... these units would surrender...
another thing - if a scenario is separated from broader context like some campaign, then players don't bother about "tomorrow" - imposing casualties limits is artificial and is not going to work...

I forgot that the UK does not have the same time frame as we do. I will have to wait until they catch up in order to play. I have a tight schedule and only have about 4.5 hrs free, so if the game takes a while to get started I will have to leave.

In the meanwhile if I get an opportunity to play I will.

Following what Miko said, no commander ever prior to very modern times planned operations where casualties were a critical cut-off point. That is because prior to the digital age a commander simply didn't know what his casualties were. In the black powder era there are many battles where we still don't know what each sides losses were. An engagement would be broken off once casualties (and other factors) exceeded a force's ability to carry out its orders but I see the morale rules handling that. A commander has no way of knowing when his losses attain a certain level. After a battle over the following days many "casualties" return to their units, so we could easily just halve the actual numbers the game gives and call that value the actual number. Certainly I feel it is highly unrealistic to take the raw figures at the end of an SoW scenario and say these were the losses in that battle, history tells us that is nonsense.

Losses in our SoW games are far too high if you count those numbers so clearly we need a different measure, maybe the game code can just be altered so we suffer far fewer losses, or code that will make units non-functional after fewer losses. When I see artillery hits that are causing 30 and 40 casualties a time I know that is just totally unrealistic. A British Napoleonic officer who served in Spain and at Waterloo whose name I now forget wrote that the most destructive cannon ball hit he ever witnessed killed or wounded 10 men. Perhaps our artillery effectiveness needs reducing?

Its really a meaningless value as well, isn't it? Just 1's and 0's calculated by a program and actually it means nothing, certainly it doesn't need to mean killed and wounded and stragglers, it can just be a measure of unit stress and cohesion levels. Many modern wargames rules don't record casualties but just measure if a unit is able to fight or not, by means of stress points or something along those lines. That is all a general needs to know (or can know) - whether a certain unit is still functioning or not.

I personally see the casualties in SOW games as something along those lines.

I wonder if it would make sense to reduce overall lethality of cavalry and artillery in SoW, while making units more prone to fail the "morale test"... units would rather run away than stay and take fire. In Total War there are parameters to play with it, like morale penalties for casualties sustained in last 4 seconds 30 seconds etc... can't remember now but whole morale system was quite easy to mod (apart from hard coded bits that are very annoying). Maybe that way we'll see more units fleeing the field or surrendering rather than being cut down or shot to pieces...

Men who surrendered would be counted as casualties since they'd be among the missing. Presumably this value of 27% losses for Borodino would include troops taken prisoner by the enemy. So we can't have units surrender too easily since we'd be back to casualty rates just as high.

There needs, overall, to be less damage done to units whether by shooting and stabbing, units need to surrender less often and simply withdraw from action whether temporarily or permanently, more often.

I think melees that lasted less long would also help. I think we should almost entirely eliminate infantry melees as these were extremely rare and the stress prior to contact (that is the threat of what might happen if contact occurred) was usually enough to make one side withdraw and that would be whichever side blinked first.

One presumes that every single gun we capture inflicts a 15 man loss on the enemy. There's a problem right there in terms of the numbers.

Thanks again for the game on Tuesday. Great battle. A nice scenario, Martin, despite the AI sending all but one Division to 1st objective. I think that tendancy works really for some scenarios but less so with others, unfortunately. I would like to try some more games where one human player plays against the others. Perhaps, he can be devoid of any competitive responsibility (ie cannot win or lose). He could maybe arbitrate on how the individual 'team' performed in accordance to objectives?

Ehey. Thanks for doing another stream recording. It was a good Cav battle there and the slow ride around the devastated battle area of Mundolsheim was nicely done, with appropriate low key music playing. I half expected you to speak Wellington's post-Waterloo quote, something like "Next to a battle lost, there is nothing half as melancholy as after a battle won"

On the subject of Casualties/Game balance etc. I think the Mod has come a long way and Kevin, in particular, has done a fantastic job of portraying Napoleonic Warfare, given the engine to work with and inaccessibility of the majority of the Code.

I don't have time to give my pennysworth right now but I am interested in continuing the discussion.

I am more and more convinced that the AI ignores all but Obj.#1. I am sure we can use this to our benefit if we place the AI in an attacking stance with a 'route' of objectives the players need to hold with the furthest one from the AI being #1.

Did someone say one versus many in PvP?  That was fun! Would do it again lol

Interesting discussion. Lots of good points made. This mod continues to be the best player/AI integration out there, the scenarios always challenging and it continually evolves thru conversations like these.

Sorry to have been otherwise engaged of late.  I shall be back on the field soon on a fine horse, sans baggage train because Kevin will have stolen it and/or modded some code to make all valuable baggage automatically move via road to his HQ

Thanks for watching Grog! I like to walk around the battle in the last few minutes if I get the chance, but I only occasionally do. I'm really glad I took that stroll though as I agree: it was really quite beautiful, in the sad appreciation of the cost of the battle kind of way. Again I was just lucky on the music framing it so well as I was just playing Paradox grand strategy title soundtracks that day as they have beautiful orchestral soundtracks.

On another topic, I'm kind of fence sitting on both sides. I liked the idea of the casualty limits and what they were intending to do, but I think there's also something to what Miko and Martin have been saying. I have no experience in manipulating the actual numbers the game uses to calculate moral and all that so I couldn't say if changing those would be the way to go. But perhaps there's other ways to incorporate a little more of a feeling of responsibility to our poor sprite armies. The casualty limit numbers could be tweaked with. They might not reflect historical accuracy but the concept of trying not to lose troops would still be present. It would be a bit more work for a scenario creator but loosely chaining 2 or 3 missions together with carry over casualties might make us a bit more cautious to attack recklessly. This requires a bit more DungeonMastering than an independent unrelated mission every day though.

Grog wrote:I half expected you to speak Wellington's post-Waterloo quote, something like "Next to a battle lost, there is nothing half as melancholy as after a battle won"

Thanks God he didn't!
Next to post-traumatic stress, there's nothing worse for a dog than confusion or convoluted reasonings.
And they might even still able to go after those nauseating cossacks in disguise, after a short recovery period.

I echo the thanks to Ehey for streaming this once again, of course.

I can play today at the non-usual time, 15:00 EST, 19:00 GMT.
Tues. battle was an overwhelming victory for the British forces. The French put themselves in a confined space with no room to maneuver. It was like shooting fish in a barrel.
Expect a different battlefield experience today.