Original Horse and Musket player made scenarios

[PrinzHenrich]

I will wait for new relealase. For me 29 dolar is not a little (about 100 złotych plus transport) quite big cost for person who don't work.
If you want you can change Hnm to hm2. For: " PrinzHenrich,
before you put a lot of work into the scenarios for the old version of the game. I would like to discuss the new game and some scenarios you might want to work on.

Regards,
Tim"
I would like very much.
P.S. I have already done Reichenbach and Burkersdorf.

[DeadInThrench]

Maybe Magnus can give you some pointers on how to edit/create new uniform files... and if doing these in PWM as it exists now..... will allow them to be used in any new release.

Really... if Tim and company really plan to make the releases here..... would make things a lot easier on Magnus if you guys went and did some of the unit artwork.

If you look at Steel Panthers, TOAW, and other games.... a LOT of the scenarios that come with those games are USER DEVELOPED scenarios... and with HnM.... there was a wealth of those scenarios developed. Would be nice in any future release to see those included.

I doubt the PWM scenarios would be able to work with any new release... but should not be difficult to port them. As far as the uniform art is concerned, only Magnus would know if they would work.

DiT

[DeadInThrench]

Well, the big advantage in PWM over HnM.... is you can create a scenario at ANY scale not just 150 yards/hex.

Unless I am mistaken.... there was really no 'batallion' organizational structure during this age. Instead, regiments and the unit organization below that was companies. But, the significance of the 'batallion' structure is in giving flexibility to the regimental deployment.

So, the bottom line here.... is you can really organize your regiments into whatever number of 'batallions' you want. Better to keep a definite number of companies in each but, there is considerable leeway here.

The thing about HnM (all of em as a matter of fact).. is that only the top unit in a hex can fire, etc (to be honest, I preferred the Age of Rifles approach on this..... all units up to a certain stacking limit can fire... including just part of a unit being able to fire)... and what this means.... if you have a 750 str Prussian unit and the size of the Austrians is just 400, then the Austrians are getting the raw end of the stick. So, in scenario development in HnM (as it exists now), better to break that Prussian unit down into more batallions so that the size of all the units is more appropriate.

For myself, I came up with this value.... .6 men per foot per line. In other words, for a three line Prussian line infantry unit.... this would mean 54 men per 10 yards. For a British line (just 2 lines), it would mean just 36 men per 10 yards. For Austrians (4 lines), would mean 72 men per 10 yards. For light infnatry, I dunno. Maybe just half the Prussian total which would mean 27 men per 10 yards.

In any case, in scenario development in HnM, best to balance scale and the breakdowns into batallions.... so that all units are around the appropriate stacking size... so that things are balanced with the HnM 'just the top unit can fire'... constraint.

DiT

[PrinzHenrich]

To Tim
About what do you want to talk with me ? Details please

[anvl]

dit,,

there was really no 'batallion' organizational structure during this age

there was a structured battalion organization during this age,, as there was one for companies,,and even platoons.  this was different depending on nation as well..


I handle the stacking deal by not using it in my game,,and not stacking my units. 

battalions did not deploy skirmishers as was done during Nappy's time,, but there were a few types of units which were used as skirmishers on the flanks of the armies, as well as to hold rough ground,villages, etc,,, these were Grenzers, various frei corps, and most nations had a few units of jagers.  Some, but not all, could be rifle armed as well...

anvil

[DeadInThrench]

PrinzHeinrich..... if you have OOB data for the scenarios you put together.... down to the company level.... you should be able to tell if there was any batallion level organization or not.

I have full OOB for the French, British and Americans in the FIW and the ARW (from the HPS EAW series) including all leaders, down to the company level, and in no cases have I seen any batallion structure. Kinda doubt any other nation would have it but do not have the OOBs to be sure.

Oh, yeah, I place ZERO significance in anything anvl posts... and completely ignore him.

DiT

[Trenck]

Hi DiT,

hard words, and weak arguements!

The battalion was the essential element in army organization during this era!!!! The strength of troops was counted in battalions (infantry) and esquadrons (cavalry) ... not in regiments (!) ... and they acted on the field as battalions (joined together to regiments). Battalions were often attached to different regiments. For example a grenadeer battalion from infantry regiment No.1 could be attached to the infantry regiment No.7 during a battle (just an fictive example, but this was the normal practice!!!).
Just make some real studies in warfare before start big talking, please.
Here are some example from the web, have a look and think about. This are only a few, if you need more, I have "tons" of it (as real physical paper):






Best,

Trenck

[Trenck]

Here is one example from my bibliothec.

You can see the army structure is basing on battalions! The regiments are "only" summations of battalions.

[Tim Coakley]

I thought battalions were the building blocks as well...the main tactical unit of employment.

Regiments served as an "administrative/organizational" structure.

The British had some 1 battalion regiments and some with multiple battalions. They often split up where the battalions in a regiment would serve.

Great scans there Trenck.

Tim

[Trenck]

ORIGINAL: Tim Coakley

I thought battalions were the building blocks as well...the main tactical unit of employment.

Regiments served as an "administrative/organizational" structure.

Tim that's absolute correct!

Best,

Trenck

[Trenck]

And on regiments of continental army during AWI (ARW):

the total strength of continental army was between 17000 and 21000 men, devided into 27 (!) regiments ... calculation: each regiment had 630 up to 778 men ... that's the strength of a battalion!!!!!! They named it regiment anyway (sounds better and stronger [:D])!

Best,

Trenck

[anvl]

Trenck,,

thanks my friend,,, [;)] there is a ton of data like this on the net if one wants to do just a little research..Not just for the SYW, but for the whole of the fine Era of Blackpowder...

Tim,,

Like Trenck said,, you are spot on here..


dit,,

I have the new Mex\Am game from HPS,,and they too have oob's and names of officers for this conflict down to the company level and lower for the Mexican forces,,as an example,, but I chalk this up to "Poetic License" or more likely ease of game play and immersion, as this info is just not available due to the unstable nature of the Mex government during and after this very interesting conflict.. However the game itself is not bad,,,

anvil

[DeadInThrench]

ORIGINAL: Trenck

Hi DiT,

hard words, and weak arguements!

Just make some real studies in warfare before start big talking, please.

Best,

Trenck

Hmmmm.... I quoted my source anvil did not. So, maybe YOU should consider what you are saying before you say it!

As far as the demenor of your response, almost makes me think you were also one of the playtesters on PWM and are making your comments just as a matter of covering up how poor the AI is in that game and the fact that it got by the playtesters and so I checked and.... gee wiz... I guess that explains it!!

As far as batallions are concerned.... I again checked the OOBs for HPS EAW Campaign 1776 and... no batallion structure included at all. Brigade, Regiment, Company. Also, in HnM as well as HPW, the regiments are NAMED.... while any batallions.... just are enumerated.

So, sounds to me like the batallions were just a grouping of companies from which regiments.... were built.

As far as the PWM AI is concerned... in Mollwitz I beat the Austrians 71-4. When the battle was ended I had lost 4% of my force while the AI... had lost 71% of his force.... this because the fool AI turned it's entire center to face it's left leaving it wide open to flank attacks.

Then... I brought up PrinzHeinrich's Landshut scenario... converted to PWM as I had done and.... the first thing the fool AI did as the Austrians was to limber up it's artillery and march it right up to my Prussian front line where it was subseuently slaughtered.

And..... along with anvl, there you are listed on the PWM playtester list.

So, let me remind you as well as to how bad I beat the AI in Mollwitz.

71-4!!!

DiT

P.S. Otherwise.... I am wasting my time making comments on the circus that is going on here. I will thus do myself and everyone else a favor and NOT post here any more (yeah, should have kept to that as I stated before).... and instead just watch this disastor from a distance.

[Tim Coakley]

DiT,
your message has been read. Most disagree with your overall assessment even if you have made some vaild observations.

For all the other posters,
please do not respond to DiT to fuel a flame war. He has stated he will no longer be posting, so please leave it at that.

Regards,
Tim