AltHist-A: Shall We Try Again?

[Marshal Villars]

Vaalen, yes I too believe that it was an exceptionally harsh winter, as they often were in the early 1700s. Which makes me believe that this 7.75% should be even lower.

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: Marshal Villars

Vaalen, yes I too believe that it was an exceptionally harsh winter, as they often were in the early 1700s. Which makes me believe that this 7.75% should be even lower.

One thing people aren't keeping in mind is that 15% march attrition is not 15% march attrition.

It is 15% of [X - (morale * 300)] where X is the strength of the division, with modifiers.

The size of the divisions in your army is very important.

The actual percentage of the entire force lost goes down as the size of the divisions decreases. If you have a number of 6 morale divisions (our high morale Swedes) at 50% strength your march attrition starts getting smaller as a percentage of the entire force (less than 10% to be more precise). The fact you are under the foraging limit as you would be with a force of around 40,000 men in almost every COG EE Province wouldn't hurt either.

If your base multiplier starts off as .1 instead of .15 you end up at around 6.4% of the total lost each move.

Also, the assumption that the Swedes didn't have baggage I find very strange.

[:D]

[Mus]

BTW Vaalen and Randomizer shoot me your emails in a PM so I can send out files.

[Marshal Villars]

LOL. The "assumption" that they didn't have baggage was only a joke, and I meant that they didn't have the "CoG:EE baggage upgrade", because it was (apparently) available only after 1790 according to CoG:EE. I am simply assuming that the baggage train upgrade in the game is a more advanced form of "baggage train" than the Swedes certainly did have with them in their campaign.

I agree with the fact that these were high morale Swedes. However, I do not think that even these troops were capable of what later troops were capable of under the types of systems developed by Frederick the Great. So, I think it would be fair to say they had some of the highest morale in Europe for their time. But advancements in the psychology of indoctrination and the effect of Frederickan drill on "morale" had not come along.

[Marshal Villars]

Mus, I see and know the equation you are presenting here. And WITHIN each unit, X has a linear relationship with the losses inflicted. But I see your point that when combining several units together, to determine the losses from a march of a single space, one can't simply do the equation :

15% of [X - (morale * 300)]

by substituting the whole army size for the value of X. You are making the point that the army's losses have to be calculated for each unit individually and then added together.

Interesting! (in my opinion somewhat odd, but something we need to work with).

Can I give you my final decision on the march attrition tonight then (about 9pm New York time)? Before you do your turn and send out the files? I have to get going now, but can run some numbers tonight.

[Randomizer]

I noted that Spain in the 1792 scenario has two infantry divisions with forage capability.  Based on the discussions about limiting the forage attribute, how do we treat this or will it be a factor in the game?
 
@Mus
PM sent.

[Marshal Villars]

Thanks for bringing that up Randomizer. We will simply add a grandfather clause for them. I think that is okay.

NEW VERSION OF RULE 11.0. Note the change to 11.1 (2+2) and the new 11.3!!!!!!

11.0 FORAGER ABILITY ABUSE PREVENTION
11.1 Players may only give the "forager" special ability to up to 2 irregular cavalry in their army. Additionally, players may give up to 2 light infantry units in their service this ability--but NO MORE. Other than this, units with "forager" ability are not allowed. If a player discovers that he has more than 2 irregular cavalry or more than 2 light infantry units operating with forager ability at any time, he must immediately eliminate the excess. Note that this is based largely on the honor system, but allies are encouraged to check each other's units from time to time, because if there is a mistake it will likely be an honest one.
11.2 Exception: The Austrian, Ottoman, Polish, and Russian players may have up to a TOTAL of 8 irregular cavalry AND 4 light infantry with this ability.
11.3 Exception: Spain may always have two infantry units with forager ability in addition to the above limitations.

[Randomizer]

Woo Hoo.  Honey, lock the kids in the hacienda, we're going foraging!
 
"Pillage?  You call one chicken pillage?"
Gary Larson

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: Marshal Villars

Interesting! (in my opinion somewhat odd, but something we need to work with).

It is as if the formula is written with the assumption that as a unit gets smaller the toughest soldiers are left.

In that case I think there should be a corresponding rise in morale/quality as the raw recruits and low morale types fall out but there isn't.

This would help compensate for the trend of all forces towards the quality of the draft (usually 4.5 morale) as time goes on in the game.

Plus we need the ability to drill while encamped to get morale up to around 6 morale maximum, to represent the fact that some countries had much better training regimes for their troops and thus consistently had a higher quality, but that is a long term want.

ORIGINAL: Marshal Villars

Can I give you my final decision on the march attrition tonight then (about 9pm New York time)? Before you do your turn and send out the files? I have to get going now, but can run some numbers tonight.

I already did the turn. Just waiting on some people's emails.

Considering the ease with which even Wellington attrition can be mitigated to the point of being a non factor (as in we seriously had some people ask if march attrition was even on in the one or two we did with wellington versus the ones that were bonaparte), I won't be interested in playing if you want it even lower.

So I guess either way I don't have to redo the turn. I am either replaced or away we go (just need Vaalen's email).

[:D]

[Marshal Villars]

LOL. No I don't want it lower! I was considering raising it.

But now that we have started, I am fine with it all!

[Mus]

I might consider a redo if we go higher.

[:D]

Or it might be best to just stick with Wellington on this one and you can see for yourself that in many cases (marching through friendly territory on roads for example) your replacements actually "fill the void" of march attrition as it is created at this level on a turn by turn basis to the point where it's barely noticed.

Only time I have been truly impressed by march attrition was seeing your out of supply movements through Bavaria in heavy snowstorms in no frills and getting down to 20% strength and seeing Anthropoid get wacked for 30% losses in one turn marching through similar conditions on the Russian/Prussian border in Another PBEM. Both of those were Bonaparte in some of the worst conditions possible and should have resulted in huge hits IMO

The fact that Wellington is so easily mitigated *might* be an indication that players are moving too conservatively as you pointed out, not force marching much, staying in supply almost at all times, etc., but I actually think it is because the combats at the ends of those marches are entirely up to "dice rolls" with the player playing little part in the outcome.

Being out of supply, force marching, etc. are serious factors that adjust the dice rolls of your assault/counterassault negatively in the quick/instant combats, and so players move conservatively and refrain from these "riskier" moves to increase their odds in the decisive combats.

Honestly the goal in future PBEM products needs to be more input on the part of the player to influence outcomes so that there is more player skill involved at the operational and tactical levels instead of only at the grand strategy. Larger more detailed maps and shorter turn cycles are called for.

[Marshal Villars]

Okay. Let's go with Wellington on this one.

Oh. By the way, part of my losses in the march on Munich was a siege attempt there! I lost 20,000 men in a "firing at the walls" fest which didn't bring any real gains for me!

[Marshal Villars]

By the way, anyone in my play-testing group, get your b*&t into the forum at your earliest chance (whenever you have clearance).

[Marshal Villars]

It seems that the march attrition equation Losses=15%x(N-(Morale*300)) means that the more units you have in your army of say, 50,000, the better protected you are against losses. In effect, the term (Morale*300) stays the same regardless of the unit's size. Which means that as the unit gets smaller, the losses it takes shrink at an even faster rate. Mus made the interesting observation that it seems as if the equation makes the assumption that the toughest, most loyal individuals in each unit stay around the longest (but in that case, the average morale of the unit should be going up at the same time). It seems that perhaps a linear relationship should be introduced, which would function the same for an army of 100,000 as it would for a unit of 10,000 if they had the same morale. In my opinion if we have time to change it, Leviathan should be using a linear relationship like the following:

Losses=(Number of men in the unit)*(1/morale of unit)*(X)

Note that the final value (X) is a fixed number which can be adjusted to raise or lower march attrition losses globally during testing. In this case a value of 1/5 (.20) returns excellent results. If a unit is 10,000 men and their morale is 4.0, the march attrition result gives 500 (with X=.2). The value of X would have to be settled on after some thorough testing. I think that for a single space, the .2 is too high, and perhaps a .1 would be closer to a final value used.

[Marshal Villars]

By the way, Gil R will be taking the "Invasion Plan Emails". Let's make his life VERY easy by making sure that the topic line is ALWAYS the same and uses the following standard:

ALTHIST (COUNTRY) (MONTH) (YEAR) Invasion Plan

The target province is called out INSIDE of the email as follows. The body of the text contains ONLY this...

On her June 1792 turn, Britain begins the planning of the invasion of Picardy.


So, if Russia would like to BEGIN the planning an invasion of the province of Zeeland with her February 1794 orders, the email title would look EXACTLY like this:

ALTHIST Russia February 1794 Invasion Plan

The body of the email would have only the following in it:

On her February 1794 turn, Russia begins the planning of the invasion of Zeeland.

Note that it is not necessary to state when the invasion will occur. You simply need to make sure that you realize that as soon as this is sent, you are not allowed to land multiple units on enemy held land anywhere until the proper number of turns have passed for your nationality. See the rules for details, but this will be the standard form of all invasion emails so that Gil can quickly know that they can be ignored and put into a folder for us and quickly referred to in case someone here needs proof. I would say that for now, we will have a general rule that 33% of all invasions will be checked for their adherence to the rules, with in game adjustments as needed. We can circulate Gil's email, but we won't put it in here for Bots to pick up and spam. So, I will send it out to you all.

[montesaurus]

I will be looking for the set up, as Prussia is ready to go![:'(]

[Mus]

Initial files sent, let me know if anyone didn't receive.

Remember that your turns go to SPAIN, which is Randomizer.

Randomizer, have you done COG EE PBEM Before? There are some threads on the subject of turn merging that are important. Apparently if you interrupt the process you get incorrectly merged turns where only Spanish and automatically occuring moves (such as stationary diplomats performing their missions and fleet intercepts) take place.

Thread about it:

tm.asp?m=2132866

[IronWarrior]

I need some clarification on the rules in section 3.0 Protectorate Abuse Prevention. Can Austria liberate/transfer Luxembourg on turn one? It appears that there are French forces adjacent, so which of these rules takes precedence? The exception? or the exception to the exception? Or is turn one a one time exception to the exception to the exception? [:D]

3.1.4 Exception: At the beginning of the game, the Austrian controlled provinces of Lombardy, Tuscany, Flanders, and Luxembourg may be transferred in any desired manner which is consistent with Vanilla play. Once transferred, unless immediately retransferred to Austria, each of these provinces loses any special status and is treated according to Vanilla rules, except where overruled by the House Rules for the rest of the game.

3.2 EXCEPTION PROTECTORATE PROVINCES (3.1.2 to 3.1.6) MAY NOT BE TRANSFERED IF ANOTHER NATION IS AT WAR WITH YOU AND HAS TROOPS IN IT OR ADJACENT TO IT
DESIGN NOTE: Intended to prevent the "you're invading my protectorate and rather than lose it to my enemy next turn, I will transfer it to a friend NOW" ploy.
3.2.1 When considering the possible transfer of an exception protectorate province (3.1.2 to 3.1.6) to another player, you may not create a treaty to do so at any time a nation with which you are war has any troops in OR ADJACENT TO the protectorate province you are considering the transfer of. Note that if a protectorate has more than one region in it, you may not transfer any part of a protectorate if the enemy troops are adjacent to or within any portion of the "mother" protectorate.

BTW I am guessing we had a false start as I haven't sent my turn yet? [;)]

[MorningDew]

Sadly, I'm going to be a slight hold up on this. I have an overnight business related trip and will not be able to look at this until late Friday night.

So Russia might be delayed until Friday night or Saturday.

Sorry guys!!!

[Marshal Villars]

@IW

Until you are at peace with France, you may not transfer either Flanders or Luxembourg.

However, Austria, Prussia, and France should note rule 2.0 requires that they should come to a cease fire in the next turn or as quickly as possible. And they should note that Austria and Prussia should dissolve their alliance as quickly as possible as well. Mus pointed out that this could take a couple of turns since there is a diplomatic orders limit of 1 for most nations right now.

As soon as you are at peace with all of the nations who have troops in or adjacent to Flanders/Luxembourg, you can transfer them.

This is my interpretation of the rules. If anyone has a different interpretation, let me know.