Pre-WWI Possibilities?

[jmlima]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
...
Mm. So how does an army forage in TOAW?

eh,eh,eh... it's abstracted on the supply system... [:D] [;)]

[a white rabbit]

ORIGINAL: jmlima

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

..at my scale, use off-map supply point with very low range, ...

whoooo! Hang on there. I didn't knew you could add a range to supply points in TOAW. So, how did you do it? [&:]

..try the list of Events, starts Supply Radius 1 and Supply Radius 2 can be set

[jmlima]

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

ORIGINAL: jmlima

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

..at my scale, use off-map supply point with very low range, ...

whoooo! Hang on there. I didn't knew you could add a range to supply points in TOAW. So, how did you do it? [&:]

..try the list of Events, starts Supply Radius 1 and Supply Radius 2 can be set

As far as my knowledge goes, that does not set a defined range for the supply point, but a number of hexes to which supply extend from a road.

It's not exactly the same thing as, let's say, a supply point has got a 20hex range, after that range, no supply can be drawn from it.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
I may need to do a "How to..." AAR thing after all.

Note that I've now done just such an AAR on "Waterloo 1815". Find it here:

tm.asp?m=1567752

[ColinWright]

...Nonetheless, the exercise, futile though it is, got me thinking. what other battles or campaigns of the 1792-1904 era can TOAW handle? Are there campaigns even earlier it can manage? If someone could come up with a weapon stat for things like muskets and pikes, would Thirty Year's Wars campaigns be possible? what about certain ACW campaigns like the ones that led up to Shiloh and Antietam? would the March Through Georgia be a viable scenario? what about the Franco-Prussian war that humiliated and finally deposed napoleon III and set the stage for modern Germany?

I'd wanted a Napoleon's Art of War or Grant's Art of War game for some time. Might this, with some tweaking, be it?

I don't think OPART can work very well for anything prior to World War One. It fails on the following counts.

1. The player has perfect knowledge of where his own forces are and what their condition is. Rare in the pre-modern era.

2. He is able to issue orders to them and have them obeyed -- all with no delay and with complete certainty of correct execution. Also rare in the pre-modern era.

3. The supply system is almost completely irrelevant. What killed Napoleon on the retreat from Moscow wasn't the inability to rail more shells up from Paris. It was the lack of local forage.

4. The densities are completely off.

5. The defender receives an advantage that just didn't exist in the pre-modern era. You're the Russians at Borodino? Why, just entrench: the French would be mad to attack you.

6. In the modern era, the campaign arena and the size of the battlefield are such that they can reasonably both be portrayed on the same map. Similarly with the time scales. The Eastern Front is a thousand miles long and was a serious contest for about three years and Kursk and the associated battles spanned perhaps a fifth of that and lasted a month or two: you can represent both the large and the small view at once. Go to Napoleon's invasion of Russia and Borodino: a potentially decisive battle occurs within an area that would be at most one hex on the campaign map and is settled in at most one turn. In the pre-modern era, the difference in scale between the campaigns and the battles tends to be much to great to allow both to be simulated on the same screen and at the same intervals.

Now, 4 and 5 could be dealt with fairly easily, and some campaigns could be modeled in spite of 6, but 1, 2, and 3 are killers. If you're going to attempt to model pre-modern warfare, OPART III is only slightly more appropriate than 'The Sims.' Both will give you equally valid simulations.

That said, by all means go ahead if you've got nothing better to do. You may even produce a scenario that is of limited validity. However, I have little patience for the argument that OPART is really the appropriate tool for the pre-modern era. It obviously isn't.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
I don't think OPART can work very well for anything prior to World War One.

And no experimental evidence to the contrary will ever be entertained.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
I don't think OPART can work very well for anything prior to World War One.

And no experimental evidence to the contrary will ever be entertained.

Au contraire. I find the first post in this thread excellent evidence. I'm also aware of the difficulties that have attended efforts to simulate the American Revolution and the American Civil War with OPART. Finally, I note that you haven't attempted to refute my points. One doesn't need evidence to observe that OPART won't -- can't -- provide supply based on the ratio of troops in a given area to the food production of that area, etc.

Of course, we won't get anywhere with this argument. It's just that every time you cast this particular lure into the pond, I can't resist taking a snap at it. It'll get me every time.

[ColinWright]

Since 'LeMay' likes to use his Waterloo scenario as a poster child for the suitability of OPART to pre-modern warfare, and since he's helpfully furnished an AAR, let's take a look at how well OPART works in this case. According to LeMay. In this case. This ideal case.

'The unit-scale vs. hex-scale (Divisions @ 2.5km/hex) results in unit-densities so high that density-penalties have more impact on combat results than combat-odds do.' Sounds real Napoleonic. Avoid concentrating those troops.

'the “do not dig-in” house rule.' The house rule.

'losses from direct attacks come slowly. ' Yep. That's pretty authentic simulation of the pre-modern period. Witness Pickett's Charge. Or Cold Harbor. Looks like we're getting some quality simulation here.

'As I said above, density-penalties have more effect on the outcome than odds. Always try to spread out and never miss a chance to attack a dense enemy stack.' 'But mon general -- the enemy is far too thinly spread along that ridge and we have far too many troops. We must hit him more weakly and where he is more densely massed.' There they are again. Those classic Napoleonic tactics.

'Note the nine units in the hex above it prevent any retreat into that hex.' Ah. That was definitely a classic ploy in pre-modern warfare. Jam up the opposing player's retreat route with nine 'units.' Thus preventing retreat. I'm awed by the fidelity of the simulation.

'Cut-off Prussian units near the bottom of the map, and in another pocket, have been eliminated.' The kesselschlacht. I almost feel like I'm really in...1941.

Is this the jet roaring overhead that I'm supposed to hear?

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Since 'LeMay' likes to use his Waterloo scenario as a poster child for the suitability of OPART to pre-modern warfare, and since he's helpfully furnished an AAR, let's take a look at how well OPART works in this case. According to LeMay. In this case. This ideal case.

Christ. I had a look at this. Throughout the scenario, the action is a fluid battle in line eminiscent of the modern period. At no point is there even the remotest possibility of a) the French army splitting into two wings to fight two completely separate actions or b) the two sides breaking off contact with one another.

Now, I'm prepared to be charitable. Bob: could you explain how the above reflects the historical reality of Napeolonic warfare?

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Since 'LeMay' likes to use his Waterloo scenario as a poster child for the suitability of OPART to pre-modern warfare, and since he's helpfully furnished an AAR, let's take a look at how well OPART works in this case. According to LeMay. In this case. This ideal case.

'The unit-scale vs. hex-scale (Divisions @ 2.5km/hex) results in unit-densities so high that density-penalties have more impact on combat results than combat-odds do.' Sounds real Napoleonic. Avoid concentrating those troops.

'the “do not dig-in” house rule.' The house rule.

'losses from direct attacks come slowly. ' Yep. That's pretty authentic simulation of the pre-modern period. Witness Pickett's Charge. Or Cold Harbor. Looks like we're getting some quality simulation here.

'As I said above, density-penalties have more effect on the outcome than odds. Always try to spread out and never miss a chance to attack a dense enemy stack.' 'But mon general -- the enemy is far too thinly spread along that ridge and we have far too many troops. We must hit him more weakly and where he is more densely massed.' There they are again. Those classic Napoleonic tactics.

'Note the nine units in the hex above it prevent any retreat into that hex.' Ah. That was definitely a classic ploy in pre-modern warfare. Jam up the opposing player's retreat route with nine 'units.' Thus preventing retreat. I'm awed by the fidelity of the simulation.

'Cut-off Prussian units near the bottom of the map, and in another pocket, have been eliminated.' The kesselschlacht. I almost feel like I'm really in...1941.

Is this the jet roaring overhead that I'm supposed to hear?

I'm sure that there are tons of WWII scenarios out there that would love to work as well as Waterloo 1815 does. Look at the overall picture. The Ligny defenders were shattered and the British fell back on Waterloo, where a major engagement took place that required much more than "one die roll", while the French tried to hold off Prussian flanking efforts. Grouchy was detached to deal with the remains of the Ligny defenders. Combats were decided primarily on the basis of the operational strength and initiative of the participants.

At the operational level, it really does work. Does it work at the tactical level? Not entirely. But that's generally true for all scenarios. TOAW is an operational simulator. But note that some Napoleonic flavor has been injected via the equipment edit.

Are there house rules? Yes. Know of any WWII scenarios with house rules, Colin?

Are the Ligny defenders set up to shatter? Yes. They should be.

Do other Allied units shatter for assorted reasons? Yes. What's wrong with that?

Is there any need for foraging to be modeled? Of course not. The scenario is three days in length and both sides had supply trains (they are modeled).

Is there any need for some sort of aide-de-camp system? Again, no. The scope and scale are such that it's not necessary. Units will remain within reasonable command range of commanders no matter how scattered they get. Movement allowances have been adjusted down to allow for time for orders to be delivered.

[Curtis Lemay]

duplicate post

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
Christ. I had a look at this. Throughout the scenario, the action is a fluid battle in line eminiscent of the modern period. At no point is there even the remotest possibility of a) the French army splitting into two wings to fight two completely separate actions or b) the two sides breaking off contact with one another.

But in fact both a) and b) occurred in the AAR.

Now, I'm prepared to be charitable.

No you are not.

[ColinWright]

Well, the thing of it is, this is apparently about as good as it gets. Waterloo avoids a lot of the bigger problems with modelling the pre-modern era. The short length means we needn't worry about foraging. The commanders all having a clear understanding of what they were about avoids the problems with communications (actually, such failures had much to do with the outcome of Waterloo in real life -- but not in Bob's scenario.) The unusually short time-span of the campaign and unusually small theater means we avoid the generally present problem of a yawning gulf between the strategic scale and the scale of the battles.

And yet the scenario seems at best partially successful. It's like you stake me to a quarter of a million dollars -- and my restaurant goes broke in three years anyway. Maybe I'm not a great restauranteur. Maybe OPART really isn't suited to the pre-modern era. We stack the deck -- and the scenario flops anyway.

It's not a case of black and white. Waterloo does demonstrate that it's possible to simulate some pre-modern actions to some extent with OPART. Conversely, there have been various modern actions that OPART can't handle very well: the 1940 campaign, for example.

The point is that we could take a list of 'twenty great campaigns of the twentieth century' and put out reasonably satisfying OPART scenarios on eighteen of them. Take 'twenty great campaigns of previous centuries.' How many of the OPART scenarios will work? One? Two? In most of them, it'll be like herding cats to get a situation even vaguely resembling the historical one -- and then it'll be one big stack whacking at another. Lotsa fun.

OPART is not the right tool for the pre-modern era. It might work occasionally: if my computer is acting up and I whack it with a hammer, it might improve. But it's not the right tool -- and that's what I said in the first place.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I'm sure that there are tons of WWII scenarios out there that would love to work as well as Waterloo 1815 does.

That there are bad scenarios out there does not automatically make your scenario a good one. As stated elsewhere, if you like making them that's your perogative. But your claim to reality is unconvincing.

Look at the overall picture. The Ligny defenders were shattered and the British fell back on Waterloo,

The coalition fell back on Waterloo in a fighting retreat, whilst constantly engaged to the enemy. Disengagement only occured when the Prussian force was basically annihilated. The actual battle of Waterloo occured after a full day of maneouvre and regrouping, which in your scenario was filled with furious action. The fighting on the day lasted only about eight hours; less than a turn and a half at your scale.

Are the Ligny defenders set up to shatter? Yes. They should be.

The Prussians broke- they didn't shatter. The flanks held their ground and were able to withdraw in good order, breaking contact with the French.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
Christ. I had a look at this. Throughout the scenario, the action is a fluid battle in line eminiscent of the modern period. At no point is there even the remotest possibility of a) the French army splitting into two wings to fight two completely separate actions or b) the two sides breaking off contact with one another.

But in fact both a) and b) occurred in the AAR.

Let's examine this.

Turn 1: Units in contact on both sides of the map. A one hex gap between the two French wings stretches to two hexes because the left wing is frozen
Turn 2: Units in contact on both sides of the map. The gap shrinks to one hex. French forces span the width of the map
Turn 3: Everyone takes their six hours sleep for the night.
Turn 4: Units in contact on both sides of the map. There are no wings; only one continuous solid line across the map. Grouchy and Napoleon never lost contact.
Turn 5: Units in contact on both sides of the map. New British units- not engaged previously- are preparing a position in the northwest guarding the road to Brussels. Nothing has disengaged. Is it even possible for the Prussians to reach Wavre on the second day as they did historically, or do they have to rely on the new units which you appear to have given them? The French line has a one hex gap, otherwise running between the map edges
Turn 6: Contact continues. The Prussians and Grouchy have no been fighting the battle of Ligny for two straight days. A one hex gap in the French line.
Turn 7: Another night time turn.
Turn 8: The single most disjointed turn of the game. There are no less than three 2.5km gaps in the line. Of course no unit could slip through these gaps as they are all covered by the ZOCs of the cavalry divisions.
Turn 9: Realising his mistake, Napoleon closes two of the gaps, extending the battle line at Waterloo to some 20km, essentially linking the battles of Waterloo and Wavre into one single clash.
Turn 10: Once again, the French battle line stretches across the map. The Prussians in the East and their French opponents have been in constant action for two and a half days.

So in summary, units stay in contact with the enemy until they are annihilated. Because it's Bob playing and he wants things to go right, he makes sure the reinforcements sit waiting at Waterloo and Wavre rather than coming forward- and considers this evidence of disengaging. The French had an almost completely solid cordon across the width of the map on turns 2-7, as well as turns 9 and 10. At no point after turn 2 was there a gap of more than one hex between the two French wings.

Bob, I think I'd need to be more than charitable.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
That there are bad scenarios out there does not automatically make your scenario a good one. As stated elsewhere, if you like making them that's your perogative. But your claim to reality is unconvincing.

There are plenty of good scenarios out there that would like to work as well as Waterloo. Could it work better? Of course. But it already works (in an operational sense) as well as most other scenarios out there. It can't be expected to reproduce every peice of tactical minutia. Not even WWII scenarios do that.

Look at the overall picture. The Ligny defenders were shattered and the British fell back on Waterloo,

The coalition fell back on Waterloo in a fighting retreat, whilst constantly engaged to the enemy. Disengagement only occured when the Prussian force was basically annihilated. The actual battle of Waterloo occured after a full day of maneouvre and regrouping, which in your scenario was filled with furious action. The fighting on the day lasted only about eight hours; less than a turn and a half at your scale.

Read the first post in this thread. The French, in general, face a tough task. In my AAR I was specifically illustrating an example of the French pulling off a victory. Is that always going to happen? No. Or perhaps you think scenarios should straitjacket players into the historical results no matter what.

In this specific instance of play, both the Prussians at the Battle of Ligny and the British at the Battle of Quatre Bras were beaten. And the French then broke them and destroyed them in detail in a victorious pursuit. Just like Napoleon did in numerous occasions. Note that that entailed pursuing broken forces all over the place with stagglers getting pocketed and lots of troops deciding that they had had enough of playing toy soldier.

Poorer play by the French or better play by the Allies would have left them in better shape (particularly the British part) and better able to disengage and pull back. Even in this instance, note that some of the Quatre Bras force did successfully disengage and make it back to Waterloo (the Brunswick Contingent).

Are the Ligny defenders set up to shatter? Yes. They should be.

The Prussians broke- they didn't shatter. The flanks held their ground and were able to withdraw in good order, breaking contact with the French.

I said the Ligny defenders only - the ones actually in Ligny. The rest of the army is not set up to shatter. That will depend upon how well the French player marshalls his forces.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
Let's examine this.

Turn 1: Units in contact on both sides of the map. A one hex gap between the two French wings stretches to two hexes because the left wing is frozen
Turn 2: Units in contact on both sides of the map. The gap shrinks to one hex. French forces span the width of the map
Turn 3: Everyone takes their six hours sleep for the night.
Turn 4: Units in contact on both sides of the map. There are no wings; only one continuous solid line across the map. Grouchy and Napoleon never lost contact.
Turn 5: Units in contact on both sides of the map. New British units- not engaged previously- are preparing a position in the northwest guarding the road to Brussels. Nothing has disengaged. Is it even possible for the Prussians to reach Wavre on the second day as they did historically, or do they have to rely on the new units which you appear to have given them? The French line has a one hex gap, otherwise running between the map edges
Turn 6: Contact continues. The Prussians and Grouchy have no been fighting the battle of Ligny for two straight days. A one hex gap in the French line.
Turn 7: Another night time turn.
Turn 8: The single most disjointed turn of the game. There are no less than three 2.5km gaps in the line. Of course no unit could slip through these gaps as they are all covered by the ZOCs of the cavalry divisions.
Turn 9: Realising his mistake, Napoleon closes two of the gaps, extending the battle line at Waterloo to some 20km, essentially linking the battles of Waterloo and Wavre into one single clash.
Turn 10: Once again, the French battle line stretches across the map. The Prussians in the East and their French opponents have been in constant action for two and a half days.

So in summary, units stay in contact with the enemy until they are annihilated. Because it's Bob playing and he wants things to go right, he makes sure the reinforcements sit waiting at Waterloo and Wavre rather than coming forward- and considers this evidence of disengaging. The French had an almost completely solid cordon across the width of the map on turns 2-7, as well as turns 9 and 10. At no point after turn 2 was there a gap of more than one hex between the two French wings.

Bob, I think I'd need to be more than charitable.

First, note the initial deployments - they're historical. Pretty spread out, aren't they! Your presumptions about how Napoleonic forces would deploy at this scale are off. In fact, prior to the invasion by the French the Allies were much more spread out - all over Belgium. Napoleon was intending to exploit that. In fact, at Waterloo, Wellington had about 17,000 men spread out off map to the west, guarding his communications.

Did Napoleonic forces concentrate in the face of the enemy? Yes. But did that mean that they were in only one or two hexes at this scale? No.

Second, as I posted above, this AAR is an example of the French pulling off a victory. It deviates from history in that manner. That includes both the Ligny and Quatre Bras battles being won and exploited by the French.

Third, you need to look more carefully at the AAR. There really are heavy concentrations at certain points. The forces are not spread out as much as it appears on first examination. Only single units are making the situation look like a distributed front.

Fourth, there are very real reasons for the Allied player to fall back on Waterloo. Specifically, the concentration and value of the objectives there, and the real need to deny the French player the battle use of the second day.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
That there are bad scenarios out there does not automatically make your scenario a good one. As stated elsewhere, if you like making them that's your perogative. But your claim to reality is unconvincing.

There are plenty of good scenarios out there that would like to work as well as Waterloo. Could it work better? Of course. But it already works (in an operational sense) as well as most other scenarios out there. It can't be expected to reproduce every peice of tactical minutia. Not even WWII scenarios do that...

This is a bit like me pretending to perform Beethoven's Ninth by alternately banging a pot and hosing the cat, taping the resulting noise, and when people complain that it's not Beethoven's Ninth, saying 'I can't be expected to hit every note. Not even major orchestras do that.'

[ColinWright]

Read the first post in this thread. The French, in general, face a tough task. In my AAR I was specifically illustrating an example of the French pulling off a victory. Is that always going to happen? No. Or perhaps you think scenarios should straitjacket players into the historical results no matter what.

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.

In this specific instance of play, both the Prussians at the Battle of Ligny and the British at the Battle of Quatre Bras were beaten. And the French then broke them and destroyed them in detail in a victorious pursuit. Just like Napoleon did in numerous occasions. Note that that entailed pursuing broken forces all over the place with stagglers getting pocketed and lots of troops deciding that they had had enough of playing toy soldier.

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.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


First, note the initial deployments - they're historical. Pretty spread out, aren't they!

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

In fact, at Waterloo, Wellington had about 17,000 men spread out off map to the west, guarding his communications.

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.

Did Napoleonic forces concentrate in the face of the enemy? Yes.

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

Only single units are making the situation look like a distributed front.

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