Matrix Games Forums

Originally posted by Ktarn
The rules say that 1 sp roughly equals 1000 to 2000 men, which means that claiming that with the current rules 1000 men can stop a multi corps army, isnt that far off.

I wish to weigh-in here (again.) A multi-corps army being stopped by 1000 to 2000 men????? Huh?

Imagine -- its 1812 and the French and their Allies enter Russia. 2000 men stand before them. (The game is monthly turns, right?) These "brave" (actually, stupid) men stop the Grande Armee cold. Yeah, right. They get squashed like a little bug if they don't run beforehand. How long will it take? An hour or two? Maybe less?

1000 to 2000 men is nothing but a poor speed bumb to a multi-corps army and that should be reflected in the game.

If that is a rule in this game, then it is a ludicrous rule. There is a distinct difference between reality and all this rule lawyering. If this sort of thing gets into the computer version, it will be a terrible thing indeed.

To the game designers: Please don't allow this sort of thing to happen in your game. [Pretty please]

However, w/o such a rule, there is no stopping Le Grande Arme.
It can reach Madrid in one turn forced march.
It will run rampant thru Italy. The game will become watching the
French establish a 'rotation' of countries as he moves across
Europe, keeping his sceduale of defeated powers.

So which rule Le Tondu is more harmfull?

Hi, Yuck 1 month per turn? Way too long to represent campaigning
Should be made a week at most.
(I know this makes the game 4 times as long)

But it allows smaller forces to "hold up" larger ones without preventing the larger force from reaching their objective (without enemy actually getting a larger force in the way)

Not everyone can just deploy full corps in defensive postures. Smaller fortified units that buy time for the field army should be allowed.

My only comment to that is that I have played with both interpretations (one that it stops movement and the other that "overwhelming odds" results in something akin to an overrun of the small unit), and in both cases solid play from the allies always proved victorious against France -- even a well played France.

The "corps link fence", valid or not, is not the only means of stopping Napoleon.

Bastions can be bypassed or masked. The intent is to FORCE the
French to either pay cash for supply(my choice) OR attrit.

Now if there are other ways, I am unaware of them. Thus I iwll promote this one =) Yes I HAVE played the game many times.
This is just like the rule that doesnt allow ANY power to lose more than THREE provinces. It is needed to prevent certain powers
from simply vanishing. Prussia and Austria come to mind.

Originally posted by Chiteng
However, w/o such a rule, there is no stopping Le Grande Armee.
It can reach Madrid in one turn forced march.
It will run rampant thru Italy. The game will become watching the
French establish a 'rotation' of countries as he moves across
Europe, keeping his sceduale of defeated powers.

So which rule Le Tondu is more harmfull?

Shouldn't the question be: Which rule is more realistic?

A month to Madrid sounds like a generous amount of time for the Grande Armee. Then again, for the Russians and Austrians, it isn't enough time, IMO.

Why should the French player be penalized with sickly unrealistic rules (like 2000 men stopping a mult-corps army for a month) just to balance out (what you have described as) patient correct playing by the French player??? All players in this game can benefit from hindsight in just about any way except the French player?? That is just crazy and unfair.

I already explained why. Apparently you dont consider it important. Well as for realism, hundreds of thousands of
French died of what the game terms attrition, in Spain,
in REALITY. So I would say that it is FAR more realistic
to for France to attrit, anyway you can.

I certainly have no issue with corps, guerillas, etc. blocking supply. That is the way to cause realistic attrition imo. Besides, all this goes back to a rule that purportedly helps the other powers control the mighty and evil Frenchie.

For one thing, if the game starts before 1805 the French player is far from dominant.

Also, a strong coalition can force France to suffer significant minor country control losses. Imagine Russians and British invading around the crossing arrow (and close to Paris), while Prussians and Austrians create a solid opponent to the Grande Armee and also field numerous smaller forces to attack French controlled minors.

Corps fences are far more defensive and delay the inevitable, imo....

That is true, however:

I would prefere to see the French pay for supply, rather than for
cavalry. If you get my drift?

It is a rare French player that is willing to take historical losses
foraging.

Originally posted by Chiteng
.............Well as for realism, hundreds of thousands of
French died of what the game terms attrition, in Spain,
in REALITY......

Hmmm. According to you Chiteng, hundreds of thousands in Spain alone? Let's see. That's 200,000 or more that died due to attrition (not counting the battles that were fought there.) Hmmm. Something just doesn't seem right with that.

If it isn't too hard, I would appreciate knowing where your statistics came from. Do you have exact numbers? While my library (200+ volumes) focuses mainly on the rest of Europe, I do have a small section regarding the Peninsula. I plan to expand it some in the future. (Its just is too hard to get unbiased accounts of the events there.)

I really am curious to know about your numbers.

Thanks --and Happy Holidays to you and yours!

200,000 attrition losses does not seem unrealistic for "Napoleon's Spanish Ulcer". 7 years in Spain resulted in a large number of losses due to disease, starvation, desertion, and fighting partisans.

I have a good number of sources on the subject, but I am visiting relatives for the Holidays and am unable to access them.

If someone has a more precise number, I would be curious to see it and it's source as well.

You dont have Chandler handy? His is the classic work. I do have it here, I will have to dig it out of its box. I didnt say 'died'
I said suffered from what the game terms 'attrition'

Surely desertion disease and generally being rendered combat
ineffective. Then again remember that the Spanish Campaign
didnt end when Le Tondu left for Wagram. He kept shovling
troops into that pest hole.

I am visiting my Mother for Christmas, and she just isn't the Napoleonic buff......

OK, what you meant is that they were classified as what the game calls attrition.

I believe that attrition is a very nebulous word. It can have several layers of meaning. It is an attritional loss if a soldat falls out of formation and has to bandage his feet before he re-joins his Regiment later on? The loss is temporary for certain. If he is killed by murdering peasants along the way, it is permanent. Is it an attritional loss if a trooper's horse goes lame or breaks a leg while on the march? Is the number subtracted when he rejoins his regiment with a new mount? How well were these statistics kept? Who kept them?

It was said that in France at certain times an entire army was enroute --to somewhere. They would trade their orders mid-route with someone who had orders to go in the opposite direction. Guys would be marching back and force all of the time. When they were caught, they didn't like what happened to them when they went into penal battalions. Are they attritional losses? When they rejoin their army in a penal battalion is their number subtracted?

All sides gave shaded statistics about their own armies and those of the enemy. Are these English/Spanish statistics about the French? If they are French statistics then they might be low. If they are English/ Spanish statistics, then they most certainly are over-inflated. Hmmm.

Even though the word "spin" wasn't used back then, it doesn't mean that the concept wasn't practised. Much of it was due to just plain bad bookeeping which existed in many areas too.

With all of this rule lawyering going on, I just thought that some perspective should be thrown onto the table. I'm not saying that attrition didn't exist. I'm not trying to hassel anyone about this subject. I'm just asking because I want to learn. That's all.

I'll check back for more information. Thanks guys.

Attrition should refer to losses of available strength due to reasons other than combat.

Since a majority of casualties during the Napoleonic period were due to reasons other than combat, it is a big category of losses.

Given the French army, at least early on, subject to less desertion and was adept at foraging. This resulted in the French suffering less attrition than it's opponents.

Still, they suffered from disease, the number 1 cause of casualties, like anyone else.

As for statistics and record keeping, only anal-retentive nation of shopkeepers armies kept good records as to strength and losses. It is the only army you can track strength by battalion/squadron on a regular basis to derive effects of non-combat losses.

Other armies it is detective work to find the numbers, and they will be estimates. It can be done, and some realtively accurate estimates generated. You will not get a by the man accounting for any army, but it is not a requirement when analyzing statistcis of a large organization. I would suggest far more soldiers died of disease than doing something like "trade their orders mid-route with someone". In looking at the army as a whole, I would suggest that that particular scenario if far less common and "statistically insignificant" when drawing conclusions about non-combat losses. Dysentery, frostbite, hypothermia, and desertion were probably hundreds or thousands times more common.

Suffice to say, disease being the biggest cause of casualties, not modeling it appropriately for all armies as "attrition"would be a major historical inaccuracy.