Pre-WWI Possibilities?

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I said the Ligny defenders only - the ones actually in Ligny. The rest of the army is not set up to shatter.

Yeah. Your difficulty is that the Ligny defenders didn't shatter. The battle of Ligny was a defeat for the Prussians- but their force was sufficiently organised after the battle to be able to fend off the French attempts to launch the kind of direct pursuit you embarked upon. Obviously, they weren't "shattered", and it was this force- not some new body- which the French had to face again at Wavre and later Waterloo.

I'm aware of the premise of your AAR. Naturally a French victory must be possible if the scenario is to be worth playing. But you achieved the victory in a wholly unrealistic way. Most fundamentally, you were able to have a relatively real time overview of the battlefield which was denied to Napoleon or Wellington. You never had to ask "Where is Grouchy?" You could see his units.

[ColinWright]

..

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
What I at least notice is not the fact of the French winning -- but the manner in which they do it. Spread out, envelop the enemy, minimize their own density, take advantage of the 'overcrowding' of the enemy. Yep, sounds really Napoleonic.

Now you're just papering over the problems with semantics. 'Stragglers' aren't getting pocketed -- it's whole corps. Your efforts to claim otherwise notwithstanding, this looks nothing like the battle of Waterloo in the close-up view -- and if you pulled back and gave the players a bigger map, it wouldn't look like the battle of Waterloo in the long view either.

I suggest you get your vision checked. Or better yet, try fitting your theory to the results instead of distorting your observations of the results to fit your theory. The French remain heavily concentrated on the two axes of advance. Only small elements are out of concentration - for the very real reason that the defenders are broken and are being victoriously pursued.

As to the tactics, they're not that far off. Did Wellington put his entire force on that ridge? No. Most was behind it. Did Napoleon throw his entire force at him right from the get-go. Again, no. He started with only the I Corps, with II Corps as a diversion. Other elements were thrown in successively as the battle progressed.

And broken stragglers are broken stragglers, no matter their size. They certainly would have been subject to flanking & even envelopment.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
Yeah- a frontage of five hexes. This triples when the player takes over, running the width of the map.

Wrong! Look at the French Ligny position at the end of turn 1. It's five hexes. When the Quatre Bras battle is added, it more or less doubles - for two battles.

But not, you'll note, holding a solid line over a stretch of countryside 30-40km wide. That did not happen prior to the 20th century. Ever.

Nor is a solid line being held in the AAR. Again, look at the AAR more closely. There are two heavy concentrations of French units, with only a few single units out of concentration.

Not in your scenario, apparently. Since concentrating is fatal.

Apparently not, since the French remain heavily concentrated throughout the scenario.

Single units of only six or eight thousand men on a frontage of 2.5km. That's barely more than 2 men per metre!

But in Napoleonic terms that's not much. Small detachments.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
Yeah. Your difficulty is that the Ligny defenders didn't shatter. The battle of Ligny was a defeat for the Prussians- but their force was sufficiently organised after the battle to be able to fend off the French attempts to launch the kind of direct pursuit you embarked upon.

Again, read the first post in this thread. The results in the AAR are not guaranteed.

Obviously, they weren't "shattered", and it was this force- not some new body- which the French had to face again at Wavre and later Waterloo.

Actually, they weren't. Very few if any of the Prussians that were at Ligny actually turned up at Waterloo. What did were Prussian elements that hadn't been at Ligny.

I'm aware of the premise of your AAR. Naturally a French victory must be possible if the scenario is to be worth playing. But you achieved the victory in a wholly unrealistic way.

No, I don't think I did. The French Player has to marshall his forces skillfully and he needs all of them to pull it off. Just like any other operational scenario.

Most fundamentally, you were able to have a relatively real time overview of the battlefield which was denied to Napoleon or Wellington. You never had to ask "Where is Grouchy?" You could see his units.

It has no real effect on the game. Grouchy can't come to Napoleon's aide. It's too far and he's too preoccupied. Now, it there some hindsight effect? Of course. But that's not a problem limited to just pre-20th Century subjects. Find me a French player that doesn't know the history of this campaign and the Prussians can catch him by surprise.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
I suggest you get your vision checked. Or better yet, try fitting your theory to the results instead of distorting your observations of the results to fit your theory...

I'm beginning to realize that when you resort to these sort of remarks, it's just your way of conceding the point.

It's okay, Bob: we understand.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Wrong! Look at the French Ligny position at the end of turn 1. It's five hexes. When the Quatre Bras battle is added, it more or less doubles - for two battles.

Two, joined battles. But at Quatre Bras the French force was concentrated on a frontage of far less than the 12km you have it covering, and the space between it and Ligny was larger than the length of the whole battle line. This could never happen in your scenario.

Nor is a solid line being held in the AAR. Again, look at the AAR more closely. There are two heavy concentrations of French units, with only a few single units out of concentration.

Well, 20th century armies still concentrate while holding a solid line- like the line you use.

Apparently not, since the French remain heavily concentrated throughout the scenario.

Not heavily concentrated. How many divisions do you have in one hex at a maximum? Four? At Waterloo it would have been more like eight, as the battle was fought along a frontage of just two hexes. Your force at Waterloo is three divisions to a hex (from what I can tell) making the total in the extended line there 10 divisions. Much less than was actually needed here.

But in Napoleonic terms that's not much. Small detachments.

It's more than the few cavalry scouts that would have been in that area in reality.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Again, read the first post in this thread. The results in the AAR are not guaranteed.

No, but you stated that the Prussians at Ligny were set up to shatter.

Actually, they weren't. Very few if any of the Prussians that were at Ligny actually turned up at Waterloo. What did were Prussian elements that hadn't been at Ligny.

I took a look. Two of the three Prussian corps commanders at Ligny;

"From the field of Ligny he retired with the rest of Blücher's army on Wavre, and when the other corps marched towards Waterloo, Thielmann covered this movement against Grouchy, fighting the spirited action of Wavre (18-19 June 1815)"

"Lieutenant-General Graf von Zieten commanded the Prussian I Corps. He Corps fought a holding action against the French on 15 June, and was heavily engaged against the French the next day at the Battle of Ligny and then again two days later on June 18 at the Battle of Waterloo."

Unless these two men abandoned their (intact) corps, both corps were evidently capable of heavy fighting. Anyway, the campaign map of the battle itself shows Zieten's I Corps coming into the battle.

No, I don't think I did. The French Player has to marshall his forces skillfully and he needs all of them to pull it off. Just like any other operational scenario.

I'm sure it's a great challenge, and a fun game- provided you bear in mind that it doesn't bear any relation to historical reality besides the fact you've used a real map and the names of some real units and generals.

It has no real effect on the game. Grouchy can't come to Napoleon's aide. It's too far and he's too preoccupied.

I bet you he could. It's about five hexes and he could screen the Prussians with a few divisions.

Now, it there some hindsight effect? Of course. But that's not a problem limited to just pre-20th Century subjects. Find me a French player that doesn't know the history of this campaign and the Prussians can catch him by surprise.

But Napoleon will still know Grouchy's situation- even if you get a martian to play.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Did Wellington put his entire force on that ridge? No. Most was behind it.

True. However, his position on the day was less than a mile deep- including cavalry and reserves, and including the forward positions at Hougmont and la Haie Sainte. Being generous, half of one hex at your scale.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
Two, joined battles. But at Quatre Bras the French force was concentrated on a frontage of far less than the 12km you have it covering, and the space between it and Ligny was larger than the length of the whole battle line. This could never happen in your scenario.

Nor should I require it to happen. Note the initial French deployments at the Battle of Ligny. It illustrates how spread out Napoleonic armies would normally be. It would have applied at Quatre Bras too, if Ney had chosen to do so. He just underestimated what was in front of him. There is a hindsight issue here. But, as I've stated before, that's not exclusive to pre-20th Century.

Well, 20th century armies still concentrate while holding a solid line- like the line you use.

Again, take the width of the initial Ligny deployments. Then double them for two battles. Discount a few isolated single units. It's completely within Napoleonic norms.

Not heavily concentrated. How many divisions do you have in one hex at a maximum? Four? At Waterloo it would have been more like eight, as the battle was fought along a frontage of just two hexes. Your force at Waterloo is three divisions to a hex (from what I can tell) making the total in the extended line there 10 divisions. Much less than was actually needed here.

I realize it's impossible to tell from a screenshot instead of the actual turn saves, but there are consistently stacks of at least six and occasionally as much as nine units on both sides. And stacks are always concentrated in no more than 4-5 hexes across. The Waterloo situation on turn 8 has a French stack of seven behind the lines. At the finish, there is a stack of nine.

Look again at the initial Ligny deployments. No stack has more than six divisions in it and they are spread across five hexes.

It's more than the few cavalry scouts that would have been in that area in reality.

Not if they were chasing down broken stragglers. And, of course, there are units shifting from the Ligny battle to the Waterloo one. They have no reason to concentrate on the way.

No WW II scenario has to meet this sort of nit-picking.

[ColinWright]

No WW II scenario has to meet this sort of nit-picking.

That's just not true. The sort of deviation from historical reality you're attempting to justify would be immediately pointed out if it occurred in a World War Two scenario.

In most cases, it also would be possible to address if it occurred in a twentieth century scenario. Which is the problem: OPART isn't a very good tool for modelling pre-modern warfare. Nevertheless, you feel compelled to insist otherwise. Why?

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
No, but you stated that the Prussians at Ligny were set up to shatter.

Just the units in the single hex of Ligny. Not the entire Prussian force in the Battle of Ligny.

I took a look. Two of the three Prussian corps commanders at Ligny;

"From the field of Ligny he retired with the rest of Blücher's army on Wavre, and when the other corps marched towards Waterloo, Thielmann covered this movement against Grouchy, fighting the spirited action of Wavre (18-19 June 1815)"

"Lieutenant-General Graf von Zieten commanded the Prussian I Corps. He Corps fought a holding action against the French on 15 June, and was heavily engaged against the French the next day at the Battle of Ligny and then again two days later on June 18 at the Battle of Waterloo."

Unless these two men abandoned their (intact) corps, both corps were evidently capable of heavy fighting. Anyway, the campaign map of the battle itself shows Zieten's I Corps coming into the battle.

So, in other words, you would have been blindsided by the Prussians too (if you hadn't read the AAR). Exellent! I'm sure plenty of other players could fall in the same trap. They'll think they have them under control by Grouchy, and - bam! - get hit by Bulow.

At Waterloo, it was primarily the Bulow and the IV Corps that got there first and caused the problems. They weren't at Ligny. Some elements from Ligny did get there, and, if the French player is less successful at Ligny, some of them could in the game too. III Corps (Thielmann) is probably best positioned to do so, being in the rear.

provided you bear in mind that it doesn't bear any relation to historical reality ...

It bears a lot of relation to historical reality. It's range of possible outcomes straddle the historical range of possibilities. That in itself says I got a lot right. Lots of WWII scenarios would like to do as well. Your claims to the contrary, the forces function very much like Napoleonic ones would, operationally. The players are given operational choices that Napoleon would have had to make (what forces to devote to the two axes, when and whether to shift forces between them, how to marshall his forces to break the enemy etc.)

I bet you he could. It's about five hexes and he could screen the Prussians with a few divisions.

But he can't wait until the day of Waterloo to do so. It's too far by then. So he wouldn't get any head start from knowing Napoleon's situation on that day.

But Napoleon will still know Grouchy's situation- even if you get a martian to play.

So what? How long did it take him to figure out that those people on his flank were Prussians and not Grouchy?

And just what sort of game is there out there in which the French player doesn't know what's happening with both situations? And who would want it if there was?

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Did Wellington put his entire force on that ridge? No. Most was behind it.

True. However, his position on the day was less than a mile deep- including cavalry and reserves, and including the forward positions at Hougmont and la Haie Sainte. Being generous, half of one hex at your scale.

Depending upon where the hex boundary is.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
That's just not true. The sort of deviation from historical reality you're attempting to justify would be immediately pointed out if it occurred in a World War Two scenario.

What deviation from historical reality? Operationally, everything in the AAR (if observed fairly) are within Napoleonic norms. And that's how a WWII scenario would be evaluated. Not whether it reproduced some tactical minutia that happened on Omaha Beach.

In most cases, it also would be possible to address if it occurred in a twentieth century scenario. Which is the problem: OPART isn't a very good tool for modelling pre-modern warfare. Nevertheless, you feel compelled to insist otherwise. Why?

I'm not delusional enough to expect a fair evaluation of the subject from the likes of you. Regardless, it's not the job of the prosecutor to convince the defense attorneys.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
That's just not true. The sort of deviation from historical reality you're attempting to justify would be immediately pointed out if it occurred in a World War Two scenario.

What deviation from historical reality? Operationally, everything in the AAR (if observed fairly) are within Napoleonic norms. And that's how a WWII scenario would be evaluated. Not whether it reproduced some tactical minutia that happened on Omaha Beach.

In this case, the 'minutia' is the whole damned scenario. If someone did an OPART scenario that covered just Omaha Beach, I would expect the course of play to indeed resemble what actually happened.

In most cases, it also would be possible to address if it occurred in a twentieth century scenario. Which is the problem: OPART isn't a very good tool for modelling pre-modern warfare. Nevertheless, you feel compelled to insist otherwise. Why?

I'm not delusional enough to expect a fair evaluation of the subject from the likes of you.

That is to say, from the likes of those who read your own AAR and notice the gross deviations from the military realities of the period in question instead of just taking your word for it when you say it works fine. I take it we were just supposed to accept your assertions on faith. OPART works for pre-modern warfare -- and how do we know? 'Curtis LeMay' says it does. Case closed -- or at least, you'd like life to be like that.

Regardless, it's not the job of the prosecutor to convince the defense attorneys.

That may well be -- but as it happens, you're the one defending the scenario. You seem to be getting our roles crossed up.

[Chuck2]

It's certainly possible but would take a lot of changes to the engine. That isn't going to happen. People are right that TOAW isn't going to be made into a game covering pre-WW1 warfare but they are wrong that its not possible to model operational warfare from that period.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Again, take the width of the initial Ligny deployments. Then double them for two battles. Discount a few isolated single units. It's completely within Napoleonic norms.

It really isn't. Throughout the scenario, you never achieve realistic levels of concentration, and the excess units are strung out in a cordon across the map. The "few isolated units" you point to typically represent half or a third of the troop density in the pitched battles.

And stacks are always concentrated in no more than 4-5 hexes across. The Waterloo situation on turn 8 has a French stack of seven behind the lines. At the finish, there is a stack of nine.

This presumably is including artillery and HQs.

Not if they were chasing down broken stragglers.

Stragglers are hunted down by small parties- not a continuous cordon across the map.

No WW II scenario has to meet this sort of nit-picking.

Scenarios which claim to be a demonstration of tremendous historical accuracy do tend to. I recall one designer in particular who made such claims- and received the same attention. He shall of course remain nameless.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

So, in other words, you would have been blindsided by the Prussians too (if you hadn't read the AAR). Exellent! I'm sure plenty of other players could fall in the same trap. They'll think they have them under control by Grouchy, and - bam! - get hit by Bulow.

And Zeiten- who fought at both Ligny and Waterloo.

However my point is that none of the Prussian forces at Ligny were shattered. The centre gave way but was able to withdraw without harrassment.

So what? How long did it take him to figure out that those people on his flank were Prussians and not Grouchy?

Well, the Prussians actually engaged in action against the British for a period. Obviously, identification was a problem.

And just what sort of game is there out there in which the French player doesn't know what's happening with both situations? And who would want it if there was?

Perhaps someone who's interested in simulating the situation historical commanders may have found themselves in.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Depending upon where the hex boundary is.

If you put it in the middle of the British position, that puts the French in the same hexes as the British. Obviously, one can't do that in TOAW.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
It really isn't. Throughout the scenario, you never achieve realistic levels of concentration, and the excess units are strung out in a cordon across the map. The "few isolated units" you point to typically represent half or a third of the troop density in the pitched battles.

No they don't. The French forces retain concentrations that more or less match the concentrations they had at the start of the Ligny battle. Your observations of the AAR and your presumtions about Napoleonic warfare at this scale have been consistently off. But you're sticking to your story, so they have to be.

This presumably is including artillery and HQs.

As did the initial Ligny dispositions.

Stragglers are hunted down by small parties- not a continuous cordon across the map.

Stragglers are hunted down by forces at least superior to them. If they are division sized, they'll be chased down by division sized parties at least.

Scenarios which claim to be a demonstration of tremendous historical accuracy do tend to. I recall one designer in particular who made such claims- and received the same attention. He shall of course remain nameless.

Where is that perfect WWII scenario that has no problems and recreates all aspects of its subject perfectly? It's not CFNA - there are no minefields and the supply system is too crude. It's not Okinawa - there are no caves. Barbarossa sims have no production system and the weather model sucks. And were the Poles really motivated to hold out for 8 turns instead of 7? Please don't say Seelow - I might hurt myself from laughing.

Waterloo works as well as most scenarios out there.