Deployment

[DeadInThrench]

Was just looking at the HPS C1776 Cowpens scenario and..... one thing that is obviously lacking in both the HPS EAW series as well as HnM.... is DEPLOYMENT.

In the ancient times..... at least for wargames on them.... deployment was the biggest thing.... simply because once the armies joined in combat.... not much the commanders could do. In contrast, in modern times (say, Steel Panthers), deployment is not that big a deal because of the mobility available.

In THIS time period... something in between, IMO. At Cowpens, Morgan set his troops up knowing that Tarleton and the British would attack head on (and they did) and would not try any outflank maneuvers. But, what if you are playing against a human opponent, who might just try an outflank maneuver? Well, you should at least have the option to set your forces up differently... even if playing against the computer who will attack just like Tarleton.

Meanwhile... at Mollwitz... sheesh... the Austrians should at least be given a chance. Maybe put all your cavalry on one side and set your infantry back further. At least something other than have to relive the same historical result of the Prussian infantry just marching across the field and that was that.

Also... Frederick at Prague... sheesh... a bigger battlefield and the option of trying to outflank rather than essentially being stuck with the frontal assult through the fish ponds.

Whatever... IMO.. should be an option... manual deployment or historical. If manual then the defender should deploy first and then the attacker. Yeah, would be nice if you could do this against the computer and then the computer deploys in a reasonably intelligent fashion.

DiT

[lancerunolfsson]

The best way to do deployment is blind. We do this in most of our miniaturs games and it can be real interesting when the screens between the two sides of the table are removed.

[DeadInThrench]

Hmmm..... IMO in MOST battles the attacking commander got to see the defender's forces before he deployed. But, no doubt what you are saying re blind deployment and the interesting situations it tends to present.

Also.... in SOME cases.... allowing either side to deploy is inappropriate. I am talking surprise and ambush scenarios. At Monongahela, Braddock was not ambused but he was surprised... and allowing either side to deploy in situations like this (as well as ambush scenarios) is inappropriate... doesn't make any sense when you look at the situation.

Also..... there is the matter of allowing one side to deploy and then the other side starts with his army coming onto the battlefield.... and thus THEN he deploys. A lot of 'gamers' might feel this is unecessary and it would mean adding time to a scenario but... it would give a bit better feel for the historical situation.

So, one could envision a pop-up that comes up when you are starting a scenario that allows for 1) historical deployment, 2) defender then attacker, 3) blind, and possibly 4) defender then attacker moves onto battlefield (with the additional time for the scenario), and depending on the scenario, one of more of these options might not be available.

I brought up Mollwitz on Wikipedia and well as in PWM (pretty similar) and, in THIS case... the battle was fought in a driving snowstorm so options 1 and 3 would be valid but not option 2. 4 could be possible but probably not needed. At Lobositz... probably just options 1 and 4. I believe in this one the Prussians are moving onto the battlefield and thus the only consideration is if to allow the Austiran commander a different deployment than he had historically. I guess the possible option re the Prussians is to allow a different setup re which of his forces are entering the battle first along the road.

But... in all these cases.... would really want a bigger battlefield than is currently available with the PWM scenarios. Right now, the battlefields in the PWM battles are pretty much confined to the actuall area that the battle took place on and, at least compared to the HPS EAW scenarios, you kinda feel a bit cramped. Mollwitz, for example, should at least extend out to the Oder River... which was just to the NE. If you are gonna allow for deployment (which IMO would add a LOT of play value to HnM2) then you really want the bigger maps so you can see what your choices are.

Oh, the other thing... in looking at the Battle of Mollwitz.... Neipperg had 22,000 men at his disposal but only had around 17,000 of these at the battle. What happenend to the other 5,000? Having these might just give the Austrian commander a chance... and thus would make for a nice option in scenarios where deployment before the battle is allowed. Frederick, for his part, left some units where they could not participate in the battle so an option on the Prussian side would be appropriate also IMO.

Yeah, Mollwitz is a perfect example where allowing deployment would significantly increae the value of this scenario. The Austrians..... kinda got surprised and just deployed as best they could. Frederick, with his deployment, looks like the 'newbie' he was at the time.

DiT

[lancerunolfsson]

There is something to be said for the idea that defender deploys followed by attacker. This of course makes the assumption that the defender just sits on his tail while the attacker deploys!!! One wonders why there were not more cases from ancient warfare through the 19thC that the "defender" did not simply attack at the first appearance of the "attacker" while he was trying to shake out in to line. especially before artillery could be deployed?

You make a good point about the maps often being too small I don't have PWM but I have Prussias Glory. Many of the scenarios in that game begin with the armies in such close proximity that there is no real possibility of Grand tactical development within the time limit. Though you can mostly depend on the idea that the AI (if the historical defender) will remain static while you do just about whatever you like before engaging.

Forgetting all the other differences one of the things that I really like about the "Total War" (Shogun, Medieval, Rome) series is that invariably as the attacker you have a pretty significant approach march to make. As the defender you have to react to this, the reason the defender (if human) does not usually attack an approaching enemy in these games is because high ground is disproportionately advantageous for ones missile troops and the AI is usually not attacking without a very strong numerical superiority.

Historically though, one sees most of the time, less of a disparity in army size in cases where the defender has chosen to give battle. Most historical commanders, it seems prefer to continue withdrawing if faced by a numerically superior enemy. Unless forced by strategic conditions to make a stand. Or if presented the opportunity to defend a defile, River crossing etc that the attacker must pass.

So back to deployment. If the map is large enough deployment options become unimportant as there will be an approach march that the defender can react to for good or ill.

Otherwise maybe deployment should be a phased process.
1] defender deploys some large % of his army

2] Attacker deploys

3] Defender deploys the reminder of his army (representing reaction to the approach march.)

Or back to Blind deployment possibly giving the defender a smaller area of the map to deploy on to represent his being "fixed" strategically. Whille the attacker has a larger area of the map to deploy representing strategic initiative.

[DeadInThrench]

Lance.... I believe you have hit on the critical point that, in most cases, one side was the aggressor and the other the defender.... in the strategic sense... and typically this meant the defender chose his defensive position and the attacker attacked.

So.... in cases like Waterloo.... Wellington COULD have attacked Napoleon while he was deploying but..... Wellington would have given up that sunken road defensive position and, that would not have been to his advantage. So, he just sat there in his defensive position while Nappy deployed his army.

So, IMO, defender first then attacker (after seeing the defensive deployment) fills the bill for MOST battles, with the one adder, like you suggest, allowing the defender some deployment after the attacker in the event the attacker does something extreme like deploy most of his forces on one flank. Maybe allow the defensive player a 'reserve', maybe 25% of his force at most... that he can deploy behind the front lines, AFTER the attacker has deployed.

And this would cover MOST battles but not all. In those other cases... like Mollwtz for example... should be the BLIND deployment... and this should be allowed in all cases just for the fun of it.

Then there is the case of 'defender deploys and then the attacker moves onto the battlefield and deploys'. Actually this the most accurate historically but.... it also adds more time to the scenario to do this. The defender then attacker then defender reserve approach, is really just a simplification of this. So, if this option were allowed, the scenario would have to have time added to it to allow for the attacker deployment.

So.... guess what I am looking at now is...

1. Historical
2. Defender then attacker then defender reserve
3. Blind
4. Defender then attacker moves onto battlefield (with additional time added)

Whether these options were allowed would vary by battle... with all 4 possible for a Waterloo scenerio but just 1 and 3 available for Mollwitz and just option 1 available for Monongahela (a surprise encounter).

I mentioned this before but the OTHER thing that would make scenarios more interesting.... options that would be at the attacker's or defender's choosing and would affect VPs. The other side would not know what options were chosen until after the battle was over. So, at Mollwitz both sides could decide to include the troops that were not present at the battle but could have been..... if they want to give up the VPs. Options like this really make a big difference recreating the 'fog of war' that is otherwise difficult to recreate.

There are some battles that you can do a lot more with if you want. Lobositz is one example. Frederick really had no idea what size Austrian army was there so to duplicate that... allow the Austrian player the option of choosing how large his army is... and the VPs he needs to win are based on this. Then..... the Austrian deployment was covered by a fog until later in the morning and so.... exactly how large of an Austrian army you are looking at.... cannot be seen until the fog lifts. Also.... The area where Frederick deployed.... was not as covered in fog but because the Austrians were in the fog... they couldn't see exactly what Frederick had either (except in the vicinity of the Lobosch) so, in general Frederick's forces should not be seeable either until the fog lifts (maybe give Frederick some leeway also as far as his force size and VPs needed).

Yeah... would be a most interesting scenario where both sides are mostly in fog for the first portion of he battle, and then, the fog lifts.

DiT

[anvl]

Interesting thoughts,, but unfortunately,, i do not think this game has the programming base to be able to do any of this. the AI is too weak for one...and second,,at this time the editor and or game mechanics don't allow for one side to set up ingame,,then the other. in a pbem game,, this could be done,,perhaps,, by having the defense create the terrain,since he usually chooses his terrain,and set up his side, then sending the file to the attacker,,and letting him set up his side,, but again,, within a specified area for deployment.

As for the Prussians not knowing anything about the Austrians,, i don't agree,, they did not have all the info as to Austrian size,,but they did have an idea. This can be dealt with by giving the Attacker a certain +\_ % to add to his troop points. Or both sides can have their knowledge be within certain bounds,,so neither side actually knows the true size of the opposing force. This is more as it was during this time of limited communications.

its too easy for the attacker to always do the extreme,, unless you know your opponent really well..

miniatures games solve this problem by usually having a deployment area for both attacker and defender.

Ths Game, as is just doesn't have a very in deapth,, if any at all,, fog of war ability to make any of this be feasable without a major rewrite of the basic code.

I feel most of these issues are best handled, not in a game like this, but in a operational level or grand tactical level campaign game,, then all the above can be handled in a way better manner,,and many situations can be created via a good fog of war at this level,,and player differences.

considering why the defender didnt attack the other side during his setup,, well besides giving up his good defensive position,, the attacker went from road column to line of attack well out of artillery range usually. artillery vs column,,or reforming troops was devastating.. so,, if they decided to attack,, they had somewhere near a mile to march and by the time they got there,,they would have their lines sorted out,,and be ready for what ever came..

Finally,, i suspect that this is not going to be a major rewrite of the game,,but only small detail changes here and there. all of the above,,and most of the stuff on this board,, good ideas for the most part btw,, are really meant for a totally new game,,not a minor facelife.. hope i am wrong here..

anvil

[lancerunolfsson]

Finally,, i suspect that this is not going to be a major rewrite of the game,

Well it will be interesting to see what we wind up with. Before HnM message board left the Shrapnel site there was much discussion with Magnus of what seemed like an entirely new engine.

[Magnus]

Lance that's a completey new engine in the works, nothing to do with HnM3.

[anvl]

Yup,, [8D]

anvil

[lancerunolfsson]

10-4