Matrix Games Forums

OK, just thought I'd post these concerns relative to the PWM Guildford scenario I am looking at. Some of em might be long term stuff... only really significant to ARW scenarios but... whatever.

First... I had mentioned that the EAW series had 6 levels of unit quality (they rate them A - F) and.... HnM could use a couple more. As I recall... Tim mentioned that he was planning on as many as 10 levels (compared to a D10... the HPS games compare to a D6). This is fine but... my suggestion here is.... keep the NAMES of the quality levels... because it adds to the 'flavor' of the game. In other words... right now.... there is Green (4), Trained (5), Veteran (6) and Elite (7). One possibility here... is to drop Green and Trained down one level and add Experienced (5)... and Guard (8). Going beyond that... you could have Very Green (2), Extremely Green (1), Royal Guard (9), etc. Whatever, these are just suggestions.... just saying it is better to keep the names for the quality levels because it adds to the 'flavor' of the game than to go purely to numbers or letters.

Next... just want to say here that.... the EAW series has just a .6 modifier for being in a fort and... IMO this is a problem causing unbalance in some scenarios and... IMO the .25 modifier in HnM... is more appropriate.

Saying this because... while this seems like the right stuff... IMO.. the quality modifiers for fire combat in HnM... are way to strong.

At Guildford... Greene's first line... was the North Carolina militia which... were about as green as you can get. Nonetheless, The British (from my reading of the battle on brittishbattles.com).. complained about taking 'heavy' losses while moving across the battlefield... so heavy in fact that they stopped at 50 yards because they were at first afraid of going any closer (just at first).

With a .25 modifier that is there now for Green quality troops... that ain't gonna happen (IMO) in any scenario on Guildford given the quality of the North Carolina milita. I feel that there should be SOME modifier for quality... but much less than exists now. Rather, maybe just a 10% difference per level of quality. In other words... if Elite (7) were 1.0, then Veteran (6) should be .9, 'Experienced' (as I used it above, 5), .8, Trained, .7, Green, .6, Guard, 1.1... etc.

IMO.... unit quality is more a matter of 'willingness to fight'... and, although having an affect on fire effectiveness... should have a much greater affect on whether or not a unit runs or not.

Historically... the North Carolina militia... inflicted significant casualities on the British at Guilford but, once the British charged them (if not sooner), they headed for the hills (actually a very few reformed at the second line). In heading for the hills... they REALLY headed for the hills... not returning for the remainder of the battle, or the campaign, and, were in fact gone for the remainder of the war if I am not mistaken.

Oh... the OTHER thing that comes into play here... is the North Carolina militia... were behind a fence... and from what they are saying on britishbattles.com.... they were balancing their rifles on the fence and thereby were firing much more effectively.

IMO... should be an offensive fire modifier to units when firing out of any terrain where they can do this.... a fence (this is one piece of terrain that HnM needs... using hedge if the PWM Guilford scenario I am working on), but also stone walls, forts, etc. IMO, this modifier should be as much as 1.5... but only for units in the 'irregular line' formation that we have talked about in this forum.

But... then this gets into the whole deal about an 'irregular line' that was used in forts, etc, and... and this is just a guess but.... IMO.. the North Carolina militia.... and in fact all American militia.... were only capable of fighting in this 'irregular' line... not really capable of even the 2 deep line that was used by the British or American continentals.

Anyone have any factual data on this last one? Again, just a guess on my part.

DiT

Generally speaking, militia attempted to form up like regulars on the battlefield (although their lines were not as neatly dressed as regulars and their unit coherence was not as good).  At Guilford Courthouse the nature of the terrain  precluded such a formation for Greene's first two lines.  One thing I do in such scenarios is to set the morale and disruption factors so as to reduce the liklihood that green militia will stand against regulars for very long and certainly not against a bayonet assault.  You can also restrict militia to the skirmish formation and thus eliminate charges on their part.  While not perfect, these adaptations do give the game a more "realistic" feel.
 
Sumter

Hmmmm..... R U Bill Sherman (<g>.... don't have to answer this one if you don't want to)? I noticed in Bill's Guilford scenario that he had solutioned the North Carolina militia problem by giving them a starting morale of 5.
Anyways... that is one way to solution the problem. My only concern with that... any good game player.... if the militia commander makes his activation roll... or if Greene makes his and you move him up to that area.... will 'rally' those troops and... in reality they can't be rallyed. Maybe a starting MAX MORALE that we have discussed here in these forums for troops that otherwise have routed or taken significant morale hits in a battle.... with THESE troops.... starting with a max morale of 5 or so.

It is possible Tim's idea of quality levels ranging from 1-10 will fix this problem allowing these troops to start with morale of 10. But.... means they would have to take multiple morale checks before routing and.... not sure that is fast enough. Maybe... the British account has the British units taking significant casualities before the militia ran in the other direction.

In any case... IMO... the design challange here is that these units inflict significant casualties but then run right away... and IMO that is a significant challange in game design terms.

Oh... according to britishbattles.com.... SOME of the North Carolina militia reformed up with the Virginia militia in the second line. The rest... headed for the hills in what I would call in game terms... TERMINAL ROUT. However... at Cowpens.. in almost exactly the same situation.... Morgan had a river to his back and there was thus no place for the militia to terminally rout to. So, they stopped behind the lines and Morgan got them reformed and... sheesh... used them for a flank attack on Tarlton's forces and in fact with that Tarlton's forces... threw in the towel.

So... how do you simulate this in game terms? Hmmm... not easy IMO.... but... I would imagine you gotta give Morgan's militia higher starting morale (or quality) because... they have no place to run to.

Uh.... I have done some work on a Guilford scenario and.... will post what I have in separate posts for your perusal and anyone else's that has an interest in the era.

DiT

Oh... one thing.... at Guilford... both the 1st and 3rd line were positioned at the edge of woods and... the whole thing about line infantry in woods has been discussed at length here but.... looking at the battle.... IMO.... the reason Greene positioned his units at the edge of the woods... was so they would have maximum firing time on the British as they were crossing the clearing. So... as far as the continenal line infantry at the edge of the woods... IMO.. in game terms... should gain no defensive benifit for being in the woods and should not suffer any penalties.

Also... lots of other things regarding woods and this battle. The British... after breaking the first line.... had a considerable distance to go in heavy woods.... and fighting the second line of militia in the middle of it. Then.... when they broke out of the woods... saw Greene's continental infantry and... attacked immediately.

IMO... things would not work along these lines with HnM as it stands now. Back to the idea of an 'irregular line' that all units can fight in... would be a modifier for each unit as to how well they could do this and.... only the equivalent of ONE line used for the purposes of fire combat but.... they would not suffer disruption when moving through things like woods. Probably line units moving into woods... and possibly other rough terrain... should automatically go into this formation. Then.... when they come out into a clearing... change formation back to LINE with possible disruption.

Hmmm... the more I think about this.. the more it sounds like 'skirmish order' for line infantry. Essentially just like skirmish order for light infantry except... a modifier for line infantry depending on what level of ability they had to operate as such.

Yeah... IMO... line infantry should automatically drop to this when moving into woods and not be allowed to form into line in woods UNLESS they were at the edge of the woods.. in game turns... facing into non-woods.

Another factor here... as if there weren't enough already <g>.... given the 1st line of militia were at the edge of the woods... one could think that they could probably have been formed up in line like the 3rd line. But.... obviously the militia were not as good at this as the continentals but.. another factor here... they were BEHIND A FENCE... and this brings into play the 'fortification' formation (single line?) that has been discussed here in these forums also.

A lot of data here IMO but possibly... situation solutioned simply by allowing (and sometimes forcing) line infantry to fall into skirmish order.... with a modifier and a maximum of the equivalent of a single line allowed to fire (IMO, this is the same as light infantry).... and then adding the new 'fort' formation... a single line allowed to fire... but get an attack benifit for firing out and.... of course the defensive benifits of being in a fort, behind a fence or stone wall, etc.

Sorry for the amount of verbage here. IMO some times ya gotta deal with it until you can get down to the right, simple, solution.

DiT

dit...

I agree with Sumpter,, you can balance the quality modifier of .25 with a higher fire effect modifier. this will give you higher fire casualties for this militia unit. then give them lower Moral and higher disruption,, and i think you will get pretty near the same results as happened in reality...casualties caused and length of time before routing\retreating.

even tho more quality ratings would be nice.. the editor is very flexible here...

the problem with your numbers is that they are very subjective,, and hard to verify. So no matter how many catagories you have, as long as they can be modified eleswhere works pretty well.. the only way you can really set these values is by playtesting,, letting the ai play both sides..and see what the results are. then adjust them until they fit your historical belief...

"Anyone have any factual data on this last one? Again, just a guess on my part."..

I would suggest:

"Steuben, Baron von. A compend of military discipline, for the troops of New Hampshire". It may be found online.. not sure. check the google book search that i listed before.

America was strongly influenced by Prussia at this time,,and many of the States used Von Steuben's training manual(Prussian formations,training etc) for training their militia. I believe the American regulars used this as the basis for their training as well...

Militia did operate in the same formations as regular line.. They just didn't have the experience,training,moral.fore discipline to stand against Regular troops,, I believe they gained this experience rather rapidly "under the guns" so to speak of the Brits as the war progressed..


"unit quality is more a matter of 'willingness to fight'." Personally I put this under the catagory of moral. Unit quality is more a training issue and is an indicator of just what formations they can be in,how quickly they respond to orders,a basic level of musket accuracy which is fine tuned by the fire modifier. etc,,

considering fortifications of any sort.. I think that irregular is not the proper formation here.. this implies actually a lesser fire mofifier than either regular or militia. Shoulder to sholder behind cover,, with the rear rank loading and passing forewards loaded weapons is more of a regular line formation.

considering a fire modifier for units behind a fortification of any type.. Good point but you have to be careful as this is more or less commonly contained in the defensive modifier for each type of fortification. the only way to really check this is to have a casualty figure in your head,, the subjective part,, and see if the casualties caused by the defensive modifier agree with your idea.if so than the fire casualties and melee casualties are accounted for.. If not,,ask for a change.. this abstraction method, whichever type of game you are playing,, computer,board or miniatures...saves playtime and programming details... If you need some sources for siege warfare,, let me know.. I would be happy to post them...

As far as your mod,, I am looking forewards to it,, I think if you set militia in line formation,higher firefactor,lower morale, and more disruption, you will get exactly the results you want,,with a bit of tweaking here and there...no matter what the rally. Also, the chance of rally is just that, a chance,,and was prolly there during the real thing,, so that becomes a cool variable.. For me,, I don't want a scenario to always mimic reality,, just have the appropriate chance of doing that...

"So... how do you simulate this in game terms? Hmmm... not easy IMO"

not easy but by playtesting and tweaking the values mentioned above,, you should be able to create a fairly good chance of this happening,, takes lots of playtesting to truly balance a scenario... especially with these types of cool details you are trying to add.




I am looking forewards to seeing just how many of these catagories\ will be controled by sliders.. that will be a great improvement!

anvil

Good discussion...

1) I am trying to have every number in the game be a variable that can be set in the scenario editor. This is looking very good...but no sliders, sorry.

2) There is a defensive formation. If is the same graphic as square right now, but can have set modifiers as above...and all around fire/protection.

3) 10 quality levels...I did keep the names (can't remember the exact order while here at work)

4) Max Morale/min disruption...good ideas. Will add for the future.


Tim

Thanks Tim,,

dit,,,

"Another factor here... as if there weren't enough already <g>.." true,, onwards we go...

" Oh... one thing.... at Guilford... both the 1st and 3rd line were positioned at the edge of woods and... the whole thing about line infantry in woods has been discussed at length here but.... looking at the battle.... IMO.... the reason Greene positioned his units at the edge of the woods... was so they would have maximum firing time on the British as they were crossing the clearing. So... as far as the continenal line infantry at the edge of the woods... IMO.. in game terms... should gain no defensive benifit for being in the woods and should not suffer any penalties."

I don't agree with you.. within the scope of the existing rules, i think they can model this very well,, just set the disruption to whatever you feel works,, and i think you will see the results you want to model.. also i think there is good reason to belive that why they were in the woods would be to be hidden from the Brits for as long as possible. At this time with the Brown Bess musket,, a good first volley was way more important that firing for long periods of time and at longer ranges,, never forget "Don't fire 'til you see the Whites of their Eyes" Its worth a thought anyway..

also i am a little confused by this statement: " Oh... one thing.... at Guilford... both the 1st and 3rd line were positioned at the edge of woods" do you mean the 1st and 3rd regiments? or first line of infantry and 3rd line of infantry.. i am puzzled as to how two lines of infantry can be in the same place? unless they are intermingled.or side by side,, making a longer front line. just confused here..In that case it would be more like first brigade\3rd brigade,, each formed into brigade line.. (group move issue,, )

" Also... lots of other things regarding woods and this battle. The British... after breaking the first line.... had a considerable distance to go in heavy woods.... and fighting the second line of militia in the middle of it. Then.... when they broke out of the woods... saw Greene's continental infantry and... attacked immediately."

Again within the scope of the rules,,this can be modeled by tweaking the different mofifiers..



" Back to the idea of an 'irregular line' that all units can fight in... would be a modifier for each unit as to how well they could do this and.... only the equivalent of ONE line used for the purposes of fire combat but.... they would not suffer disruption when moving through things like woods. Probably line units moving into woods... and possibly other rough terrain... should automatically go into this formation. Then.... when they come out into a clearing... change formation back to LINE with possible disruption."

The problem with your irregular line idea.. or better thought of as skirmish order,,is that it was not uesd for regular troops at this time,,and would be non historic. So unfortunately, to be historic here,, the disruption must be there,and line formation they should be in, give them a commander with a higher command rating,, this will keep them moving... Actually what you want these troops to do here in woods and other rough terrain was not possible,,due to training and military thought until somewhere around and after 1860, for regular line infantry. I think actually the formation type you are speaking of here would be "Open Order",, but again,, not used til later in history...

"A lot of data here IMO but possibly... situation solutioned simply by allowing (and sometimes forcing) line infantry to fall into skirmish order.... with a modifier and a maximum of the equivalent of a single line allowed to fire (IMO, this is the same as light infantry).... and then adding the new 'fort' formation... a single line allowed to fire... but get an attack benifit for firing out and.... of course the defensive benifits of being in a fort, behind a fence or stone wall, etc."

I think i covered all this,,

Another thing to consider,, is how Dave did the scenarios. He broke many of the major battles down into smaller parts. You might want to consider doing this as well.. The reason is you can focus on one aspect of a battle,and model your units with special factors specific to a specific situation,, create a scenario for a siege,,or an attack on the woods,,or whatever,, then create a different scenario of the whole battle,,where a single unit firing out of the woods is less important to the whole.. hope this makes sense..Its also fun to do... and play... With the flexability of the editor,, you can do this,,and only need to have a brigade or so on each side,, 4 or 5 battalions on each side,, and actually model the command structure down to the company level,,where these details you are speaking of, can be modded pretty well,, and a whole different type of game!!

anvil

Tim... great but.... I sent you a private email on the anvl problem and have not gotten a response. If I really need to talk to someone else please let me know.

So... I will NOT be posting again in these forums again until I get what I feel is a satisfactory resolution of this problem.

Yeah.. I have said this before lets see if I can stick to it this time.

DiT

P.S. Yeah, better to just move on rather than get into fights. A host has the authority in his home... but I don't have to stay at the party.

DiT,
I responded to your e-mail.

I invite you to keep posting your ideas on the forum for discussion. All the posts above are very civil and constructive.

Tim