Matrix Games Forums

I was going through the great AAR Bob shared on his scenario LEIPZIG 1813 AAR in the TOAW III forum; https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 0&t=218434

It was great to see the outcome and think about it's impact on history. That was a big one - and clearly feasible watching the way he played it.

My one question to any reader with knowledge on this topic - in this game, the French did a lot of surrounding and eliminating "pockets"; I thought that was more of a modern tactic. Is this more of a "representation" of breaking the enemy's ranks because of the game's limitation on this scale/ style of combat? At Austerlitz Napoleon surrounded the Allied left wing on three sides and that was enough to dissolve/break the formations.

I think you're probably correct about the encirclements.

It did happen in older times, but only occasionally (Cannae being notable).

Problem IMO was communications. Once the encircling force took off, they would be hard to recall or otherwise control in an age before radio. Visual signals were possible, but once smoke and dust stirred up on the battlefield, they weren't much help either.

Cheers

I said in that AAR that we can't expect TOAW to perfectly reproduce Napoleonic tactics just yet. But I'm sure the scenario does as well as the board game it was based upon - which also didn't reproduce those tactics perfectly either. Note also that the game has no limitations on the French Player's use of the Imperial Guard - that Napoleon was always reluctant to use.

Nevertheless, I would mention the pocketing that did occur at Shiloh. Furthermore, Ney was attempting just what I was in this game at Waterloo - (futiliy as it turned out). Cavalry was expected to seek out the enemy's flanks and rear. In most cases, it was cavalry that was doing the penetrating and surrounding in the game.

One other issue was that the Allied Player doesn't have the option to retreat prior to the French attack in the south - something they had been doing all year: "The Trachenberg Plan". That would have required much more map space in the south. I assumed that the Allies were committed to combat at this point.

Sticky ZOC can help tremendously with a scenario in that era. You can't move from one enemy ZOC to another. If you enter an enemy ZOC your movement ends.

Lobster wrote: Fri May 17, 2024 1:30 am Sticky ZOC can help tremendously with a scenario in that era. You can't move from one enemy ZOC to another. If you enter an enemy ZOC your movement ends.

So, no matter what the composition of the relative units? One guy with a bayonet can stop a cavalry division? TOAW's disengagement attack feature is much more realistic. Just need some Napoleonic elements to make it work better. For example, Linear deployment mode - such units would suffer flank penalties moving past enemy units - and those penalties would be much more penalizing than current flank penalties. Speed would still matter, though - benefiting cavalry in this process.

I can't wait for the discussions of where exactly in the hex the unit was and how it could be on both sides of the riverbank in those hexes where the river runs dead center. Napoleon's Wheeling Formation Around proficiency would be better than Blucher's. I can already tell it's not modeling sailing ships properly.
I'd gladly settle on just having the ability to move units between formations in lieu of an engine that also covers that whole other age of fighting.

I played this scenario, as the French and I also obtained an a-historic, massive, overwhelming victory. I found it easy, in fact way way too easy to envelope, encircle and destroy the allied forces. So, I'm thinking that perhaps the AI is not responding properly to avoid being encircled? When I have some time I'll play this scenario as the allied forces and see if I can obtain a better result.

Cpl GAC wrote: Fri May 17, 2024 7:18 pm I can't wait for the discussions of where exactly in the hex the unit was and how it could be on both sides of the riverbank in those hexes where the river runs dead center.

?? So...a unit can't be on both sides of a river at the same time? Of course it can! (In the real world). Now if your mind is mired in hexside rivers and cardboard counters then it can't - unless you cut that cardboard counter in half. But that has nothing to do with reality.

Napoleon's Wheeling Formation Around proficiency would be better than Blucher's.

Even the boardgame this scenario was based upon didn't have facing. The distance and time scales are beyond tactical. But we can assume that a unit moving from enemy ZOC to enemy ZOC is exposing its flank to enfilading disengagement attack.

I can already tell it's not modeling sailing ships properly.

No ships in Leipzig 1813. But we will have sailing ships one day.

I'd gladly settle on just having the ability to move units between formations in lieu of an engine that also covers that whole other age of fighting.

I expect the former will arrive before the latter. We can still talk about the latter.

I was tongue-in-cheek mimicking/adapting other threads' complaints about the game. Well, not that recent grouchy 70-year-old's out-of-the-blue shot. That was something to read. WTF.

I'm in the realistic flow river camp; because of everything the engine does under the hood when we place unit representations in the constriction of overlay hexes.

Someday we might have pieces liquid in movement molding to terrain per their deployment, but for now it's played out in square pieces and hexes representing the liquidity of movement. "You can't retreat into an area already occupied by a puddle of nine units already elbowing each other for space."

Cpl GAC wrote: Thu May 16, 2024 3:52 pm My one question to any reader with knowledge on this topic - in this game, the French did a lot of surrounding and eliminating "pockets"; I thought that was more of a modern tactic. Is this more of a "representation" of breaking the enemy's ranks because of the game's limitation on this scale/ style of combat?

In this particular scenario I think the envelopment tactic is a product of Movement Bias. The graphic below illustrates movement of up to 33 with the Movement Bias set at 400. 33 movement enables travel of up to 85.2 (33 X 2.5 Km) kilometers in a 6-hour turn. This is probably excessive. In the second graphic Movement Bias has been reset to 100. I am not suggesting that 100 is the correct setting, only that an adjustment can be made and tested until the result match the expectations.


Another adjustment which can be made is upping the ZOC Cost. This adjustment increases the movement cost to enter/exit an enemy ZOC and helps to prevent units from sliding down a row of enemy units.

Leipzig is a good period scenario but could be improved with a little adjustment.

Regards, RhinoBones

rhinobones wrote: Wed May 22, 2024 6:28 pm

Cpl GAC wrote: Thu May 16, 2024 3:52 pm My one question to any reader with knowledge on this topic - in this game, the French did a lot of surrounding and eliminating "pockets"; I thought that was more of a modern tactic. Is this more of a "representation" of breaking the enemy's ranks because of the game's limitation on this scale/ style of combat?

In this particular scenario I think the envelopment tactic is a product of Movement Bias. The graphic below illustrates movement of up to 33 with the Movement Bias set at 400. 33 movement enables travel of up to 85.2 (33 X 2.5 Km) kilometers in a 6-hour turn. This is probably excessive. In the second graphic Movement Bias has been reset to 100. I am not suggesting that 100 is the correct setting, only that an adjustment can be made and tested until the result match the expectations.

Another adjustment which can be made is upping the ZOC Cost. This adjustment increases the movement cost to enter/exit an enemy ZOC and helps to prevent units from sliding down a row of enemy units.

Leipzig is a good period scenario but could be improved with a little adjustment.

The scenario does use the 2.5km/hex scale. But that was because that was the smallest scale available at the time of the design. The true scale was 480 meters per hex and scenario factors are adjusted to effect that. 33 x .48 meters = 15.84km/6-hour turn (note that that's for cavalry...11.52km for infantry).

The ZOC cost adjustment was also not available at the time of design. Perhaps that does merit adjustment.

Wow - what a scenario.

I just loaded it up in TOAW 3. Even the briefing made my head spin.

Kudos for the time and research involved.

altipueri wrote: Thu May 23, 2024 9:49 am Wow - what a scenario.

I just loaded it up in TOAW 3. Even the briefing made my head spin.

Kudos for the time and research involved.

Thanks for your comments. But, I agree that there is room for improvement.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is the new option (which wasn't available at the time of the design) of new, shorter, turn intervals. 3-hour or even 1-hour turn intervals might make a difference in the Allies chances.