Waterloo II Battle Results 18 May 2013

The Iron Duke bested one of Napoleon’s elite corps in a fierce struggle at Ostrowitz. Boldly splitting his forces, Wellington nonetheless was able to concentrate against the French flank, driving north across the Post Road toward the prize. The battle reached crescendo in a final desperate fight at the river for the objective.

Battle Replay File:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/zf3vj34axm20r0d/Waterloo%20II%20Replay%2018%20May%202013.zip

Follow the link below for a PDF summary of the battle results and player Order of Battle.

Respectfully submitted,
W.J. Palmer

Thank you Ron for organsing the game. I appreciate the work you put in for everyone's entertainment.

It was a good game but watching the replay again I was surprised at how very spread out the French were. Justin skilfully concentrated the whole Allied army against just 1 French brigade and their artillery in Ostrowitz Forest as the initial combat. He also ordered me to place the Guards on the right flank near the river and possibly the sight of them was enough to make the supporting French brigades shy away?

While that one brigade (Palmer's?) was getting flattened by Soldier's and Baldwin's Dutch-Belgians the other French brigades which I think were Grenier and Foy actually pulled back and let him get clobbered.

The Allies were also lucky in gaining Ostrowitz Hill and as a result had excellent artillery positions on their right flank which overlooked the valley in which the objective lay. Those guns really helped me on the right.

I decided I like commanding British Foot Guards, it's like having 2 1,000-strong battalions of Terminators

Last game was a big one and players dropped so this time Ron went for a small game and of course no-one dropped We have yet to find that balanced middle-ground. Next time I think 1 player on each side could have a 2-brigade division, those with the known most stable connections.

What did people think of Kevin's cavalry and horse artillery speed tweaks?

My fault Digby, but the main problem was not the spread out, because we have anyway three brigades on the location in little time, but it was very difficult to express the ideas in another language especially with courier (short forms for a expression, are of course differents in the languages): what I wanted was attract the center near the river and the guns and let the cavalry charge at this moment, breaking it, on the left Grog should attack starting from the wood. Unluckily the guns was not under my direct control and was very dificult move them in defensive situation (Desalle must be the only AI of game which move the guns advancing!) . When I saw cavalry fall back to the river and go to right I saw I did a mistake of communication, and unluckily the two guards regiments on the left were two monsters also for a full brigade.

Returning to cavalry charge: I think from what I tested that for improve the possibility to charge of cavalry it must be set the parameter "canfight" to 0 and increase the range of cavalry weapon: As Ollie told some of his units charged and stopped in the middle of fight: I think this is related to fact they tried to shoot, so blocking them the possibility to shoot will solve the problem.

PS: before I forget: my english teacher at work insists to tell that is impolite\express anger status in english reply only yes or no, without replicate also the verb of sentence or forget the "please", so I think perhaps there is something of true in this; the fact is that in italian is normal tell simply yes\no to every answers if you have anything to add, or don't tell "please" for every request (usually is thought implicit especially in request to friends, relatives, the voice tone express it; it is sufficient the "thanks" after), so if you hear me or Suchet replicate with yes\no don't remain shocked

Not a problem Davide, I am endlessly impressed with any non-English speaker's ability to use our language. In Italian I can order a simple meal and beers and be polite but that is about it!

The battle at Ostrowitz hill

Mr. Digby wrote:What did people think of Kevin's cavalry and horse artillery speed tweaks?

Thanks for the game Ron - I love these battles so much, they are epic!

As for the cavalry mod, I have to say, I think it is SPOT ON. I used to ride horses, and played polo for a few years, and last night's game took me back at one or two points:

Firstly, as I was bringing the cavalry corps up to the objective, Napoleon indicated he was impatient with my slow progress. Once the division reached the road, I organisted each squadron into road formation and all were at a steady walk. I ended up in between the two brigades on the road. Once both brigades were organised into road formation and on the road, I gave the order to "gallop", and WOW, it took me back to giving the ponies a little kick and the acceleration and speed - the squadrons launched into an extremely convincing gallop along the road, and the thunder of hooves was all around... I have to admit I felt an amount of pride as my cavalry corps thundered along that road, and any onlookers (Grog?) must have seen a spectacular sight, but that was only half of it.

After a few moments of this frantic gallop, I realised something that you quickly discover when galloping with a group of other horses - you quickly lose control! Indeed, in a completely accurate manner, I would have stood no chance of being able to stop that splendid display - couriers would not have caught up with the squadrons for a very long time, and timing everything would have been impossible. So you let your horse go, and we arrived in no time in a cloud of dust (I imagine), and hearty laughter.

The mod is absolutely spot on. I can't fault the speed of either the couriers or the cavalry themselves. I found I was a little slower that the cavalry, but I think this gives the right effect.

The only trouble I did have towards the end of the game was convincing my cavalry to charge. For some reason, although their morale and health were high, and casualties were low, squadrons would charge up to enemy battalions (even their flank), stop short, reform, and then retreat. I think I finally found that to order them forward one must take control.

In this game I really felt like all the mistakes I made were genuine "KS"-type mistakes. I was slow in responding to Napoleon's orders to move up at the start, but this was because of a confused message - AWESOME! It was my choice, but I decided to stay put and sent a courier to confirm the order - truned out I was wrong and should have been bolder, but this is what KS is all about.

Then as I was coming up, and saw several opportunities to charge enemy infantry (before we lost our guns), I received a message from Napoleon to fall back, and not engage. I did so, but then found out I had fallen back to far, and was responsible for the loss of our guns - FANTASTIC STUFF! Blunder Sir!!!

I was getting orders from Napoleon to bring my brigades to the centre, but requests from Ron to keep some on the right to discourage the infantry over there - difficult decision! THIS IS WHAT KS IS ALL ABOUT!

Absolutely terrific game, I really enjoyed it. I would like to continue to hone my skills at cavalry command, especially with this new mod.

Did I say I enjoyed the game?

Mitra wrote:

My fault Digby, but the main problem was not the spread out, because we have anyway three brigades on the location in little time, but it was very difficult to express the ideas in another language especially with courier (short forms for a expression, are of course differents in the languages

You are being too hard on yourself. I have always found your written courier communication to be in very good english. I never have any problem understanding you. Your mistake was to assume that cavalry commanders are able to understand orders of some complexity. I make the same same mistake of treating them like infantry commanders too. With the cavalry, it is best to keep things simple.

I'm not swallowing the bait me this time, damn your impudence Kevin.

I believe Kevin's remarks demand satisfaction!

mitra wrote:PS: before I forget: my english teacher at work insists to tell that is impolite\express anger status in english reply only yes or no, without replicate also the verb of sentence or forget the "please", so I think perhaps there is something of true in this; the fact is that in italian is normal tell simply yes\no to every answers if you have anything to add, or don't tell "please" for every request (usually is thought implicit especially in request to friends, relatives, the voice tone express it; it is sufficient the "thanks" after), so if you hear me or Suchet replicate with yes\no don't remain shocked

I think perhaps you should not worry about being polite.

An emphatic, "Screw You, HELL NO!" works wonders, as does, "FREAKING A, Hell Yes, let's DO IT!"

Of course, I prefer, "Eat Me, Kevin!"

Just to clear things up a bit...

The communication difficulties were nothing to do with the quality of Mitra's English. The order that I received from him was one of the computer-generated "move your forces to the position I have marked on the map. When I looked on the map I wasn't convinced this is what was intended, and wondered if the message had been sent by mistake (how many times have I double clicked a spot on the field, to discover that I have someone else selected!) Also, when I looked back at my map a few moments later, the position indicator had disappeared. I wasn't sure what was happening, so I send a courier to clarify the orders.

There's no problem here, as I say, I feel these were genuine KS-style problems. Nobody's English is to blame. Possibly only my interpretation of received courier messages!

Its also a shame that the MP game generates these computer-issued orders to all the subordinate generals in a players command, even if some of them are human. SoW ought to switch those off for human subordinates.

I have played in a couple of games where my immediate superior never once sent me a written order; he just clicked around the map and used the computer orders to send me instructions.

I don't think thats quite in the spirit of Kriegspiel!

Next time I think I might ignore them!

I agree it does take me out of the spirit of the game and the roleplaying aspect, you start to feel like you're no better than the A.I. although I did turn into the terminator last game...

Baldwin1 wrote:I agree it does take me out of the spirit of the game and the roleplaying aspect, you start to feel like you're no better than the A.I. although I did turn into the terminator last game...

No doubt you are a force to be reckoned with -- under the right leadership.

Mr. Digby wrote:Its also a shame that the MP game generates these computer-issued orders to all the subordinate generals in a players command, even if some of them are human. SoW ought to switch those off for human subordinates.

I have played in a couple of games where my immediate superior never once sent me a written order; he just clicked around the map and used the computer orders to send me instructions.

I don't think thats quite in the spirit of Kriegspiel!

Next time I think I might ignore them!

I agree. The problem I had was every time Justin sent a courier to the artillery, I got it too because I had corps. So when he would send me a courier using the map or computer orders, I was never quite sure if it was for me or the artillery.

That said, he did a good job leading the army and it was his first time and I'll never do it, so I think we (I) should cut him some slack -- just a little though.

kg little mac wrote:

Mr. Digby wrote:Its also a shame that the MP game generates these computer-issued orders to all the subordinate generals in a players command, even if some of them are human. SoW ought to switch those off for human subordinates.

I have played in a couple of games where my immediate superior never once sent me a written order; he just clicked around the map and used the computer orders to send me instructions.

I don't think thats quite in the spirit of Kriegspiel!

Next time I think I might ignore them!

I agree. The problem I had was every time Justin sent a courier to the artillery, I got it too because I had corps. So when he would send me a courier using the map or computer orders, I was never quite sure if it was for me or the artillery.

That said, he did a good job leading the army and it was his first time and I'll never do it, so I think we (I) should cut him some slack -- just a little though.

Ah sorry, I hadn't realized that!

One easy way to distinguish them though; I only ever sent you free text couriers, while the arty got a steady stream of auto orders. Does mean it might be more ideal if we can find a way to put an arty commander above his command, with only NPCs between the two.

If Soldier had been 'senior division commander' and we'd left the Corps role empty that might have avoided spamming him with formation corrections at some points.

Soldier wrote:

That said, he did a good job leading the army and it was his first time and I'll never do it, so I think we (I) should cut him some slack -- just a little though.

Hmm, sounds like General Eat Me will have further opportunities to send Soldier onto suicidal glory.

Justin wrote:

If Soldier had been 'senior division commander' and we'd left the Corps role empty that might have avoided spamming him with formation corrections at some points.

Soldier actually looks forward to the courier's arrival. It feels the love in each and every missive. Besides, if you don't spam him the AI corps commander will.

Khryses wrote:If Soldier had been 'senior division commander' and we'd left the Corps role empty that might have avoided spamming him with formation corrections at some points.

True, but it would have opened up the possibility of command chaos had any of the division commanders dropped during the game -- the CinC would be the only person capable of directing those units.

Having a human in the initial role as artillery division commander is a good thing in really big games. However, when there are only 10 or 12 players, including 2 CinC's and 2 cavalry commanders, it brings the number of straight infantry commands down to perilously low levels.

We could try games without a dedicated cavalry command, it did happen at times, especially in the smaller battles such as we tend to fight. A division consisting of an infantry brigade, a cavalry brigade (smallish) and a battery might be an interesting thing to try.

It would need a custom OOB but Hay's software can do that easily enough.

I agree with Mr. Digby: a mixed division including cavalry - a brigade at most to be sure - plus artillery would be a pleasant exercise. Although I think two infantry brigades might be tolerable. Span of command considerations - in Real Life(tm) - set a maximum of five so two brigades of foot, one of horse and one battery of artillery seems as if it would be doable.

kg little mac wrote:

mitra wrote:PS: before I forget: my english teacher at work insists to tell that is impolite\express anger status in english reply only yes or no, without replicate also the verb of sentence or forget the "please", so I think perhaps there is something of true in this; the fact is that in italian is normal tell simply yes\no to every answers if you have anything to add, or don't tell "please" for every request (usually is thought implicit especially in request to friends, relatives, the voice tone express it; it is sufficient the "thanks" after), so if you hear me or Suchet replicate with yes\no don't remain shocked

I think perhaps you should not worry about being polite.

An emphatic, "Screw You, HELL NO!" works wonders, as does, "FREAKING A, Hell Yes, let's DO IT!"

Of course, I prefer, "Eat Me, Kevin!"

I can assure you in italian things like "hell no", "freaking" etc, are the polite level. When we become emphatic we start immediatly with dirty words as exclamation, in some regions (typically Veneto and Tuscany) they switch immediatly to blasphemy

http://www.i-italy.org/4672/when-italian-says-parolaccia

Blackstreet wrote:Just to clear things up a bit...

The communication difficulties were nothing to do with the quality of Mitra's English. The order that I received from him was one of the computer-generated "move your forces to the position I have marked on the map. When I looked on the map I wasn't convinced this is what was intended, and wondered if the message had been sent by mistake (how many times have I double clicked a spot on the field, to discover that I have someone else selected!) Also, when I looked back at my map a few moments later, the position indicator had disappeared. I wasn't sure what was happening, so I send a courier to clarify the orders.

There's no problem here, as I say, I feel these were genuine KS-style problems. Nobody's English is to blame. Possibly only my interpretation of received courier messages!

I saw it happen another time in another match; the marker disappeared from the map; very strange

On the order of battle issue:

I believe since you need to TC cav to get them to charge the commander of cav needs to at least be at the Div level, at Corps level the orders are so delayed you basically can't get them to charge in time before they are likely shot to pieces. I tried cav at div and it was manageable but I would prefer brigade but maybe that's just me. So at least bringing the Cav division into the main corps might work better and erasing the cav corps position. May take some OOB editing or using scenario generator but it's possible. Not sure how tough controlling inf at Corps level is, but I think the middle man should be erased whenever possible to speed up courier process. So basically saying erase army level and cav corps level. Based on the number of troops we are basically fighting corps vs corps battles anyway, so let's not pretend it's army vs army size. If there are drops CinC just sucks it up and does the best he can or he can let AI deal with the micromanaging. It's no less stressful for him than if the div commander has to take on an extra brigade when someone drops.

Cavalry needs to have a battery it can use to blow up the squares. For a cavalry commander to have control of a battery, he needs to be at division level. I've observed that a human commander is able to manage 2 cav brigades and an arty battery. The cav brigades can only effectively be micromanaged one brigade at a time. The other is usually to the rear, resting. In the game this Saturday, I'd like to try having 2 cavalry commanders per side.

So although it is quite historically correct to have mixed divisions, from a practical side, the cavalry really needs to be a separate division(s).

Uncle Billy wrote:Cavalry needs to have a battery it can use to blow up the squares. For a cavalry commander to have control of a battery, he needs to be at division level. I've observed that a human commander is able to manage 2 cav brigades and an arty battery. The cav brigades can only effectively be micromanaged one brigade at a time. The other is usually to the rear, resting. In the game this Saturday, I'd like to try having 2 cavalry commanders per side.

So although it is quite historically correct to have mixed divisions, from a practical side, the cavalry really needs to be a separate division(s).

I was going to say this. We've already discovered in the past that the AI is no good at handling cavalry, so it needs dedicated human command.

Personally, I think you're either a cavalry officer, or you ain't. I would suggest that the minimum requisites for anyone proposing to command the cavalry be:

1. appropriate moustache, preferably cavalry whiskers
   
2. the ability to wear ones hat at an extremely rakish angle
   
3. an insatiable appetite for brandy, tobacco, and women
   
4. more gusto than intelligence (which has been pointed out elsewhere)