Hello, gentlemen!
This thread is the place to discuss all aspects of the petite guerre and light troops in the game as well as in the real Seven Years War. Perhaps we could even come up with some ideas to improve this aspect of the game which - though not entirely neglected - to me seems to lie a bit in the offside. Of course we could also discuss the relation between "small war" and "major war" and if we really need a better representation of small war on the scale that the game is meant to portray. Naturally some game aspects might be interlinked with small war (especially supply and recognaissance), so we can't keep them out of the discussion.
I will try to contribute myself and write up one or two historical "case-studies"/examples. But perhaps we could start by telling each other how important small war is in our current games? How do you use light troops? How could they be used? And what are the main characteristics of light troops as compared to regular troops in this game?
-
JacquesDeLalaing
- Colonel
- Posts: 344
- Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 11:05 pm
- Location: Vienna (Austria)
Light troops and petite guerre - discuss!
[CENTER][color="#A52A2A"] S I L E S I A I N R U P T A[/color]
- a work-in-progress mod for Rise of Prussia - [/CENTER]
- a work-in-progress mod for Rise of Prussia - [/CENTER]
-
Die Zieten
- Sergeant
- Posts: 95
- Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2013 9:13 pm
I use them to take MC, act as a vanguard/rearguard, raid behind enemy lines, scouting and border patrol.
I suggested adding more towns and possibility to ransom so you would see more of the petty war.
They are great in the mountains, forests etc but i think they should be better at ambush in those terrains so that going in to the mountains with only regular troops would not come to mind so easy.
There should be more leaders only suited for commanding these troops so that they are used in that role only.
Maybe the recruitment of some of these units should not be from the conscripts but you could hire them as mercenaries, possibly also connect it to the amount of prisoners you have?
The only faction that had large amounts of these as standing formations was Austria?
Others seems to have raised a lot of them as the war started so they must have been important?
I suggested adding more towns and possibility to ransom so you would see more of the petty war.
They are great in the mountains, forests etc but i think they should be better at ambush in those terrains so that going in to the mountains with only regular troops would not come to mind so easy.
There should be more leaders only suited for commanding these troops so that they are used in that role only.
Maybe the recruitment of some of these units should not be from the conscripts but you could hire them as mercenaries, possibly also connect it to the amount of prisoners you have?
The only faction that had large amounts of these as standing formations was Austria?
Others seems to have raised a lot of them as the war started so they must have been important?
-
mariandavid
- Sergeant
- Posts: 76
- Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 12:05 am
-
JacquesDeLalaing
- Colonel
- Posts: 344
- Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 11:05 pm
- Location: Vienna (Austria)
Case study I: The attempts to supply besieged Kolberg, Fall 1761
My source for all the following is: Eberhard Kessel. Das Ende des Siebenjährigen Krieges 1760-1763. Torgau und Bunzelwitz, Schweidnitz und Freiberg. Herausgegeben von Thomas Lindner (Paderborn, München, Wien, Zürich 2007).
The starting situation in early October 1761 in Pommerania sees the prussian corps under Prince Friedrich Eugen of Württemberg, well entrenched around the port of Kolberg and the Persante-river. This prussian corps was besieged by a russian corps under Pyotr Rumyantsev. Since the besieged got reinforced by a corps under Dubislav von Platen (on September 30th), the russians had no hope to storm the entrenchments, and their own supply-situation was quite dire. On october 9th, the Russian fleet left Kolberg due to bad weather, and took all the heavy siege artillery with it. Nevertheless, Rumyantsev was ordered to keep up the siege at all costs. But the bigger strategical considerations don't need to bother us here. It is enough to say that at this point, both the prussians and russians wanted to hold on to Kolberg.
The prussians in Kolberg were in need of supply, and their situation got worse in the course of October. Between September 11th and October 11th, 716 prussian deserters reached the russian headquarter, and for the rest of the month, the desertion-rate of the besieged prussian forces was about 20-30 men per day. On October 15th, the prussian command sent out major Massow at the head of the Württemberg- and Plettenberg-dragoons to comandeer supplies in and around Greifenberg (one of the many outposts of the Württemberg-corps, a bit east of Kolberg), since the peacefull call on the local population to provide supplies had obviously not brought about the desired results. Moreover, early in November, Württemberg ordered all houses in Kolberg to be searched for food.
The prussian depot (apart from a few supplies in Gollnow) was Stettin, 135 km bee-line away from Kolberg. It was was held by the duke von Bevern. In Stettin, there was enough flour to provide all troops in Pommerania for 2 ½ months, rye for 3 months, straw for 2 months and 20 days, hay for 2 months, but oat for only 2 weeks. Kolberg desperately needed supplies from here. As always, finding enough wagons for the supply-train (ca. 3000 wagons were needed) was a problem, especially because the cossacks of the russian corps under Gustav Berg penetrated to the Oder and made it impossible to acquire wagons in Farther Pomerania. Nevertheless, the first flour-transport was ready to depart from Stettin on October 6th. (Obviously the bakery would be done in Kolberg)
The area between Kolberg and Stettin was threatened by russian raiding parties. Very close to Stettin, cossacks under Krasntoschokow harassed the Prussians, and the light corps under Gustav Berg (in Sargard) forayed north and threatened the communication between Kolberg and Stettin. On October 7th, expecting prussian supply trains, Rumyantsev sent out a rather big detachment under Apatschinin to Gervin.
So, it is quite intersting to note that several smaller detachements acted offside the main armies, in an area that would not represent much more than 1-2 regions in ROP. And we always have to remember that the following actions take place in a very small space, and that time was indeed a matter of hours, not days. We can imagine the area between Stettin and Kolberg as a no-mans-land. The supply train had to be well guarded. Bevern ordered major von Stosch, at the head of ca. 700 men to escort the ammunition-train from Stettin to Gollnow. Moreover, on October 7th, he sent out 2 squadrons and 2 free-companies across the river Oder to reconnoitre the area between Damm and Stargard. The Prussians in Kolberg still held a series of outposts east of Kolberg to keep up communication to Stettin, some of them were even reinforced with some trechworks. Until to October 10th, the besieged Prussians carefully streched out their fingers towards Gollnow, shifting small detachements to the villages on the road. To get an idea of the situation, take a look at the map below (I've not registered the movements). The four days between October 6th and October 10th saw lots of patrouilling and reconnoitering on both sides, and the Prussians established a small network of outposts on the main connection between Gollnow and Kolberg. The troops used for this task were hussars, dragoons, free-companies and also some regular infantry. The only noteworthy engagement was major Eberstein (+ 200 cavalry) reconnoitering towards Gervin, where russian movements had been reported. Eberstein managed to push back some cossacks but then bounced into the large detachment under Apatschinin, which forced him to draw back (with the loss of 11 prisoners and 5 wounded). His retreat was covered by a battaillon of IR Fink and a squadron of hussars from Neumühle (it's a bout 15 km beeline between Gervin and Neumühle). So, losses in this kind of small war were trifling.
The task of taking over the supply train in Gollnow fell to Major von Kleist with the infantry regiment Markgraf Heinrich and a cavalry detachment of 200 troopers. Kleist, originally positioned in Treptow, arrived in Gollnow midday on October 12th and took over the supply train from major Stosch, who immediatly marched back to Stettin. However, Kleist (meanwhile supported by 300 Werner hussars) didn't get very far. Gustav Berg, in charge of the russian detachment in Stargard, got notice of the prussian supply train on October 12th and sent out a serbian hussar-regiment plus two howitzers to Gollnow. On October 13th, before Kleist had had a chance to leave the town, these troops attacked the supply-train. Worried by the howitzer shells that went too close to the ammunition-wagons, Kleist ordered the ammunition wagons back into a wood. There, however, they got attacked by the russian cavalry. Even though the prussian infantry managed to drive them off in the end, the Russians had taken some horses with them, some wagoneers had fled, and some wagons were destroyed. Moreover, the Russians laid fire to the suburb of Gollnow and allegedly occupied the roads to Gülzow. So even though not a lot of supplies had been lost, there was no way to progress to Kolberg. Kleist retreated to Damm.
After some considerations, the Prussians decided to send a quite large detachment from Kolberg that should force its way to the supply train and bring it to Kolberg safely. This detachement was under the command of Platen and consisted of the majority of the cavalry that was left in Kolberg and 7 infantry battaillons, alltogether around 4000 strong. On October 17th, Platen (observed by Krastschonow) departed from Kolberg. At 14.00 the same day, he reached Treptow. On his way, a message reached him telling him that Apatschinin – the russian detachement – was advancing towards Greifenberg, i.e. would cut his way off. Platen immediatly ordered Coubière (who held Greifenberg) to withdraw to Treptow. Then Platen moved on, evading Greifenberg norrth via Stuchow and Schwanteshagen. Treptow was only guarded by the battaillon Braun and 50 hussars.
Indeed the decision to evade Greifenberg had been a good one. On October 17th, Rumyantsev had ordered Apatschinin and Berg to attack Greifenberg. On October 18th, when Apatschinin arrived at Greifenberg, he found the village empty. However, even though the Russians had failed to cut off Platen, they now successfully started to surround Treptow. Krasnotschokows cossacks cut the communication between Kolberg and Treptow. On October 20th, Rumyantsev ordered Apatschinin and Berg to attack Treptow.
Württemberg in Kolberg was aware of the threat to Treptow (which was only held by the above mentioned infantry bataillon and 50 hussars). On October 19th, a messenger sent to Treptow returned without having been able to deliver his message. Obviously he must have found all routes blocked by the russians? Württemberg sent a detachement to reinforce and rescue Treptow. At 19.00 on October 19th, general-major Knobloch departed from Kolberg with IR Knobloch, the Pomeischke dragoons and 100 Malachowsky hussars. He managed to get to Treptow without much resistance, only pushing away some russian cossacks and hussars who withdrew towards Greifenberg. Knobloch reached Treptow at 07.00 on October 20th. However, since he didn't see any immediate danger, he took quite a lot of time in Treptow and planned to start his way back to Kolberg only the next day. This proved to be fatal. Württemberg sent two orders to Knobloch (at 17:30 and at 19:00) that he should make his way back to Kolberg this very night. However, these orders only reached Knobloch at 07:00 on October 21st. Meanwhile, Apatschinin had reached Treptow. His attempts to cross the river Rega and destroy the city gate failed, but nevertheless, Knobloch was now trapped in Treptow. And what was even worse: even though Berg had been successfully distracted by Platen, 4 russian squadrons and 5 grenaider-companies were advancing from Greifenberg to Treptow, so that it could be attacked from two sides – Appatschinin from the eastern side of the Rega, the detachment from the western side.
Things started to get worse for the Prussians when the Russians started to completely cut off Kolberg. On October 21st, Neumühle got occupied by cossacks, who got reinforced by the Tobol-dragoons and 2 unicorns. Rumyantsev then stormed the outpost at Spie, taking 87 prisoners (17 of them wounded).
In this situation, the prussian command sent orders to Knobloch that he should force his way to unite with Platen. The way back to Kolberg was too dangerous for his small detachment, since the prussians outposts were already in the hands of the russians. But this order never reached Knobloch. On October 22nd, he declined Apatschinins request to surrender. So the russians started to fire their artillery at Treptow. In the afternoon of that day, the russian detachment from Greifenberg arrived. Knobloch held out until 25th October, when he finally surrendered. His entire commando (65 officers, 1445 men, 15 banners, 6 battaillon-guns, 1 howitzer + the members of the field hospital (they were supposed to be transportet back to Kolberg as well), 13 "surgeons" and 378 wounded/sick), was captured by Apatchinin.
I'll cut it off here. I think that these short episodes can give us a good idea of what the day to day operations during the Seven Years War looked like. It was a contest of reconnaissance and a fighting for outposts and communication lines. You could easily base whole games around such small scenarios (with turns representing half-days, smaller regions (1 village = 1 region
) etc. etc.), without the need to research all OOBs and produce immense maps with thousands of regions. The troops engaged with these tasks were small detachments of light troops (often 50-200 hussars/dragoons and the like), somtimes supported by some regular infantry. But the transition from such small raiding and reconnaissance-parties to the dispatch of larger detachments (Apatschinin, Platen) was quite fluid.
In my next post, I'm planning to take a look on how light troops work in ROP and compare that to the historical role of light troops, probably in two steps: 1) reconnaissance, 2) small war.
Maps:
Overview Kolberg-Stettin
Positions on October 10th (the russian main army under Buturlin would be to the south)
The region in ROP
My source for all the following is: Eberhard Kessel. Das Ende des Siebenjährigen Krieges 1760-1763. Torgau und Bunzelwitz, Schweidnitz und Freiberg. Herausgegeben von Thomas Lindner (Paderborn, München, Wien, Zürich 2007).
The starting situation in early October 1761 in Pommerania sees the prussian corps under Prince Friedrich Eugen of Württemberg, well entrenched around the port of Kolberg and the Persante-river. This prussian corps was besieged by a russian corps under Pyotr Rumyantsev. Since the besieged got reinforced by a corps under Dubislav von Platen (on September 30th), the russians had no hope to storm the entrenchments, and their own supply-situation was quite dire. On october 9th, the Russian fleet left Kolberg due to bad weather, and took all the heavy siege artillery with it. Nevertheless, Rumyantsev was ordered to keep up the siege at all costs. But the bigger strategical considerations don't need to bother us here. It is enough to say that at this point, both the prussians and russians wanted to hold on to Kolberg.
The prussians in Kolberg were in need of supply, and their situation got worse in the course of October. Between September 11th and October 11th, 716 prussian deserters reached the russian headquarter, and for the rest of the month, the desertion-rate of the besieged prussian forces was about 20-30 men per day. On October 15th, the prussian command sent out major Massow at the head of the Württemberg- and Plettenberg-dragoons to comandeer supplies in and around Greifenberg (one of the many outposts of the Württemberg-corps, a bit east of Kolberg), since the peacefull call on the local population to provide supplies had obviously not brought about the desired results. Moreover, early in November, Württemberg ordered all houses in Kolberg to be searched for food.
The prussian depot (apart from a few supplies in Gollnow) was Stettin, 135 km bee-line away from Kolberg. It was was held by the duke von Bevern. In Stettin, there was enough flour to provide all troops in Pommerania for 2 ½ months, rye for 3 months, straw for 2 months and 20 days, hay for 2 months, but oat for only 2 weeks. Kolberg desperately needed supplies from here. As always, finding enough wagons for the supply-train (ca. 3000 wagons were needed) was a problem, especially because the cossacks of the russian corps under Gustav Berg penetrated to the Oder and made it impossible to acquire wagons in Farther Pomerania. Nevertheless, the first flour-transport was ready to depart from Stettin on October 6th. (Obviously the bakery would be done in Kolberg)
The area between Kolberg and Stettin was threatened by russian raiding parties. Very close to Stettin, cossacks under Krasntoschokow harassed the Prussians, and the light corps under Gustav Berg (in Sargard) forayed north and threatened the communication between Kolberg and Stettin. On October 7th, expecting prussian supply trains, Rumyantsev sent out a rather big detachment under Apatschinin to Gervin.
So, it is quite intersting to note that several smaller detachements acted offside the main armies, in an area that would not represent much more than 1-2 regions in ROP. And we always have to remember that the following actions take place in a very small space, and that time was indeed a matter of hours, not days. We can imagine the area between Stettin and Kolberg as a no-mans-land. The supply train had to be well guarded. Bevern ordered major von Stosch, at the head of ca. 700 men to escort the ammunition-train from Stettin to Gollnow. Moreover, on October 7th, he sent out 2 squadrons and 2 free-companies across the river Oder to reconnoitre the area between Damm and Stargard. The Prussians in Kolberg still held a series of outposts east of Kolberg to keep up communication to Stettin, some of them were even reinforced with some trechworks. Until to October 10th, the besieged Prussians carefully streched out their fingers towards Gollnow, shifting small detachements to the villages on the road. To get an idea of the situation, take a look at the map below (I've not registered the movements). The four days between October 6th and October 10th saw lots of patrouilling and reconnoitering on both sides, and the Prussians established a small network of outposts on the main connection between Gollnow and Kolberg. The troops used for this task were hussars, dragoons, free-companies and also some regular infantry. The only noteworthy engagement was major Eberstein (+ 200 cavalry) reconnoitering towards Gervin, where russian movements had been reported. Eberstein managed to push back some cossacks but then bounced into the large detachment under Apatschinin, which forced him to draw back (with the loss of 11 prisoners and 5 wounded). His retreat was covered by a battaillon of IR Fink and a squadron of hussars from Neumühle (it's a bout 15 km beeline between Gervin and Neumühle). So, losses in this kind of small war were trifling.
The task of taking over the supply train in Gollnow fell to Major von Kleist with the infantry regiment Markgraf Heinrich and a cavalry detachment of 200 troopers. Kleist, originally positioned in Treptow, arrived in Gollnow midday on October 12th and took over the supply train from major Stosch, who immediatly marched back to Stettin. However, Kleist (meanwhile supported by 300 Werner hussars) didn't get very far. Gustav Berg, in charge of the russian detachment in Stargard, got notice of the prussian supply train on October 12th and sent out a serbian hussar-regiment plus two howitzers to Gollnow. On October 13th, before Kleist had had a chance to leave the town, these troops attacked the supply-train. Worried by the howitzer shells that went too close to the ammunition-wagons, Kleist ordered the ammunition wagons back into a wood. There, however, they got attacked by the russian cavalry. Even though the prussian infantry managed to drive them off in the end, the Russians had taken some horses with them, some wagoneers had fled, and some wagons were destroyed. Moreover, the Russians laid fire to the suburb of Gollnow and allegedly occupied the roads to Gülzow. So even though not a lot of supplies had been lost, there was no way to progress to Kolberg. Kleist retreated to Damm.
After some considerations, the Prussians decided to send a quite large detachment from Kolberg that should force its way to the supply train and bring it to Kolberg safely. This detachement was under the command of Platen and consisted of the majority of the cavalry that was left in Kolberg and 7 infantry battaillons, alltogether around 4000 strong. On October 17th, Platen (observed by Krastschonow) departed from Kolberg. At 14.00 the same day, he reached Treptow. On his way, a message reached him telling him that Apatschinin – the russian detachement – was advancing towards Greifenberg, i.e. would cut his way off. Platen immediatly ordered Coubière (who held Greifenberg) to withdraw to Treptow. Then Platen moved on, evading Greifenberg norrth via Stuchow and Schwanteshagen. Treptow was only guarded by the battaillon Braun and 50 hussars.
Indeed the decision to evade Greifenberg had been a good one. On October 17th, Rumyantsev had ordered Apatschinin and Berg to attack Greifenberg. On October 18th, when Apatschinin arrived at Greifenberg, he found the village empty. However, even though the Russians had failed to cut off Platen, they now successfully started to surround Treptow. Krasnotschokows cossacks cut the communication between Kolberg and Treptow. On October 20th, Rumyantsev ordered Apatschinin and Berg to attack Treptow.
Württemberg in Kolberg was aware of the threat to Treptow (which was only held by the above mentioned infantry bataillon and 50 hussars). On October 19th, a messenger sent to Treptow returned without having been able to deliver his message. Obviously he must have found all routes blocked by the russians? Württemberg sent a detachement to reinforce and rescue Treptow. At 19.00 on October 19th, general-major Knobloch departed from Kolberg with IR Knobloch, the Pomeischke dragoons and 100 Malachowsky hussars. He managed to get to Treptow without much resistance, only pushing away some russian cossacks and hussars who withdrew towards Greifenberg. Knobloch reached Treptow at 07.00 on October 20th. However, since he didn't see any immediate danger, he took quite a lot of time in Treptow and planned to start his way back to Kolberg only the next day. This proved to be fatal. Württemberg sent two orders to Knobloch (at 17:30 and at 19:00) that he should make his way back to Kolberg this very night. However, these orders only reached Knobloch at 07:00 on October 21st. Meanwhile, Apatschinin had reached Treptow. His attempts to cross the river Rega and destroy the city gate failed, but nevertheless, Knobloch was now trapped in Treptow. And what was even worse: even though Berg had been successfully distracted by Platen, 4 russian squadrons and 5 grenaider-companies were advancing from Greifenberg to Treptow, so that it could be attacked from two sides – Appatschinin from the eastern side of the Rega, the detachment from the western side.
Things started to get worse for the Prussians when the Russians started to completely cut off Kolberg. On October 21st, Neumühle got occupied by cossacks, who got reinforced by the Tobol-dragoons and 2 unicorns. Rumyantsev then stormed the outpost at Spie, taking 87 prisoners (17 of them wounded).
In this situation, the prussian command sent orders to Knobloch that he should force his way to unite with Platen. The way back to Kolberg was too dangerous for his small detachment, since the prussians outposts were already in the hands of the russians. But this order never reached Knobloch. On October 22nd, he declined Apatschinins request to surrender. So the russians started to fire their artillery at Treptow. In the afternoon of that day, the russian detachment from Greifenberg arrived. Knobloch held out until 25th October, when he finally surrendered. His entire commando (65 officers, 1445 men, 15 banners, 6 battaillon-guns, 1 howitzer + the members of the field hospital (they were supposed to be transportet back to Kolberg as well), 13 "surgeons" and 378 wounded/sick), was captured by Apatchinin.
I'll cut it off here. I think that these short episodes can give us a good idea of what the day to day operations during the Seven Years War looked like. It was a contest of reconnaissance and a fighting for outposts and communication lines. You could easily base whole games around such small scenarios (with turns representing half-days, smaller regions (1 village = 1 region
) etc. etc.), without the need to research all OOBs and produce immense maps with thousands of regions. The troops engaged with these tasks were small detachments of light troops (often 50-200 hussars/dragoons and the like), somtimes supported by some regular infantry. But the transition from such small raiding and reconnaissance-parties to the dispatch of larger detachments (Apatschinin, Platen) was quite fluid.
In my next post, I'm planning to take a look on how light troops work in ROP and compare that to the historical role of light troops, probably in two steps: 1) reconnaissance, 2) small war.
Maps:
Overview Kolberg-Stettin
Positions on October 10th (the russian main army under Buturlin would be to the south)
The region in ROP
[CENTER][color="#A52A2A"] S I L E S I A I N R U P T A[/color]
- a work-in-progress mod for Rise of Prussia - [/CENTER]
- a work-in-progress mod for Rise of Prussia - [/CENTER]
-
JacquesDeLalaing
- Colonel
- Posts: 344
- Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 11:05 pm
- Location: Vienna (Austria)
Reconnaissance I: Theory in ROP
First I will explain the basics how reconnaissance works in ROP. This is pretty much manual-knowledge, with some additional information and remarks.
Detection value
In order to lift the Fog of War in a region, you need to have a detection value in that region. The higher your detection value, the more information you will get about the enemy. There are three sources of detection-values:
1) Friendly troops: If you've got a unit in the region, your detection value will be equal to the unit's detection value. A units' detection value is always determined by the element with the highest detection value in that unit. An element of line infantry, for example, usually comes with a detection value of 3, whereas light cavalry usually has a detection value of 4.
2) Loyalty: You will get a detection value of 2 in any region that is loyal to you (loyalty of 51% or higher)
3) Military control: You will get a detection value of 2 in any region that is controlled by you (military control of 51% or higher)
The detection-values generated by these three sources are not cumulative. You always use the source that provides the best detection value.
Finally, it is important to notice that detection values spread out to directly adjacent regions. In any region that borders a region in which you generate a detection value, you will also have a detection value (-1). For example, if some hussars patrol in region A (detection value 4), you'll get a detection value of 3 (4-1) in adjacent region B. This applies to all three sources of detection values. However, this detection value will not spread out any further. You only get detection in regions directly adjacent to regions in which you generate detection via one of the sources mentioned above.
You can always check your detection values by hovering your mouse over a region and bringing up the region-tooltip.
Some examples of detection-values (1st silesian war scenario):
line infantry 3
freicorps 4
husars 4
dragoons 3
cuirassiers 3
NOTE: You can give the AI some detection-bonus in the options menu. I wonder if that spreads AI's detection over more regions, or increases the quality of detection in regions where the AI already has some detection?
Hide-value
Obviously some troops are harder to spot than others. Every stack (not element or unit) has a hide-value. The hide-value of each stack is equal to the element with the worst hide-value in the stack. For example, if there is an element of artillery in your stack (hide value 1), then your whole stack gets a hide-value of 1.
However, certain modifications are applied:
A) Big stacks (definition?) receive a malus of -1.
B) Small stacks (definition?) OR (not cumulative!) passive stacks (green command-posture) receive a bonus of +1. The exact definition of "small stack" is unknown to me. It seems to be some kind of combination of command points that the stack requires and the amount of units that is part of the stack. You better try it out live in the game and check how your hide-value changes.
C) A stack that consists entirely of leader-units receives a bonus of +1.
D) Weather and terrain modifiers: +1 in the following situations: clear (in very harsh weather), hills (regardless of weather), woods (in very harsh weather), wooded hills (regardless of weather), forest (regardless of weather), mountains (regardless of weather) [data according to the ROP-terrain files; I only listed the more common terrain types here]
NOTE: If a stack is positioned in a region that contains a structure (city, fort) – regardless if friendly or hostile – its hide-value is automatically set to 1 if its command-posture is NOT passive.
NOTE: If you play around to test hide-values, make sure you click somewhere else in between, as the information on the hide-value of a stack does not update itself "live".
Some examples of hide-values (1st silesian war scenario):
line infantry 1
freicorps 2
husars 2
dragoons 2
cuirassiers 2
Information
The quality of information that you get depends on the comparison of your detection-value in the region with the hide-values of the enemy stacks in that region. However, you only ever get detailed information on one hostile stack in the region. I guess the game picks the most powerfull one. Information on additional stacks in the region will be less detailed (and according to their hide-value, I hope!). It is shown under the category "also here:" at the bottom of the toopltip.
detection < hide
If the hide-value of the enemy stack is higher than your detection value in the region, the stack will not be displayed on your map.
detection = hide
The enemy stack is shown on your map. The tooltip will tell you low quality information. You will be shown the rank of the leaders, but not their names (but you could recognise the stack-leader by his portrait!). You will be informed about the troop classes that the stack contains. Troop classes in combination with asterisks indicate brigades (the class is the most prevalent within the brigade? Or just the first unit in the brigade?). Leader-entries indicate individual leaders who do not command brigades – they're just contributing their command points. You are not informed about the detection-value of the hostile stack.
E.g.
Prussian Force (Juterborg)
Led by Major General **
Regular **
Leader **
Regular *
Regular *
Regular*
Cavalry
Regular
Regular
Artillery
Supply
Supply
Hide Value: 1
As you can see, forming brigades can be used to reduce the amount of information the enemy gets, as he cannot know how many units a brigade contains. It might be only one, but it can be up to four. The "also here:"-remark is quite useless. Therefore, having two stacks in the same region is a good way to deny information.
detection = hide+1
The enemy stack is shown on your map. The tooltip will show you medium quality information. It will show you the names and rank of the leaders and the names of the units that are part of the stack. If the stack contains brigades, you will only be shown the name of the brigadier and (in brackets) the name of one unit within the brigade. You are also informed about the detection-value of the hostile stack.
The "also here"-remark will show you the number of units of an additional stack.
E.g.
Fouqué' Force (Görlitz)
Led by Brigadier Heinrich de la Motte Fouqué
Heinrich de la Motte Fouqué (I./Schenckendorff IR 42)
Joachim von Treschkow (I./Tresckow IR 32)
Herincith von Kurssell (I./Von Kreytzen IR 40)
Johann von Lestwitz (I./Von Schultze IR 29)
Christian von Kalsow (I./Von Kalsow IR 43)
Östernreich
Burgsdorff
S.K. Nachschub I
Detect vs. Land: 3
Detect vs. Sea: 2
Hide Value: 1
Also here:
Fouqué Force (8 units)
At this level, forming brigades is still a usefull tool to reduce the amount of information the enemy gets. I'd also like to point out that sometimes, the names of units are quite confusing. For example, you need to know that Östenreich is actually a combined grenadier-battallion. The uninformed player would be better off with a "regular" entry. The "also here" remark lacks information. For example, I could mistake a stack of 8 supply units as a stack of 8 full brigades. Therefore, having two stacks in the same region is a good way to deny information.
detection = hide+2
The enemy stack is shown on your map. The tooltip will show you high quality information. In addition to the information above, it will show you the exact combat strength of the units/brigades that are part of the stack.
The "also here"-remark will show you number of units and combat strength of additional stacks.
E.g.
Gessler' Column (Dresden)
Led by Major General Friedrich Leopold Gessler
Friedrich Leopold Gessler (wartenberg Husaren) ** (204/204)
Karl von Katte (Weimar Husaren) ** (46/46)
Han von Winterfeldt (I. Markgraf Fridrich von Bayreuth) * (171/171)
Ludwig von Örtzen (Öertzen Dragoner) * (152/152)
Kyau Kürassiers (47/51)
Blanchensee Dragoner (32/34)
Detect vs Land: 4
Detect vs Sea: 2
Hide Value: 1
Also here:
Wedell' Column (2 units), Pwr: 233
detection=hide+3
(Yes, it's perfectly possible to have a hidden husar unit - with its detection rating of 4 - positioned in a region with enemy presence)
The enemy stack is shown on your map. In addition to the information above, the tooltip will show you the ratings (strategic-off-dev) of all leaders in the stack. Moreover, you will be informed, how many command points the force needs and how many it receives.
E.g.
Posadowski' Force (Brieg), Prussia (At war with your nation)
Led by Brigadier Karl von Posadowski
Required Command: 16
Provided Command: 8 (23% Penalty)
Karl von Posadowski (Posadowski's Brigade) * (6-2-2) (221/221)
Heinrich de la Motte Fouqué (Fouqué's Brigade) * (4-1-1) (284/284)
Ewald von Kleist (Kleist's Brigade) * (3-1-1) (153/153)
CHristoph von Kalckstein (Kalckstein's Brigade) * * (4-0-0) (257/257)
R.K. Nachschub II
Detect vs Land: 3
Detect vs Sea: 2
Hide Value: 1
---------------------------------------
It's also worth to mention that you can get a vague idea of the supply-status of enemy forces by turning on the supply-map-filter (green-yellow-red little dots will show up).
Coming up next will be "Reconnaissance II: Praxis in ROP", but it will take me more time. Questions to be asked: How important and how risky is reconnaissance in ROP? And how important are light troops in order to gather information? Again, I will unfortunately have to identify relatively long turn intervalls (still, even with 15-day-turns) as a rather big problem when it comes to light troops and reconnaissance.
First I will explain the basics how reconnaissance works in ROP. This is pretty much manual-knowledge, with some additional information and remarks.
Detection value
In order to lift the Fog of War in a region, you need to have a detection value in that region. The higher your detection value, the more information you will get about the enemy. There are three sources of detection-values:
1) Friendly troops: If you've got a unit in the region, your detection value will be equal to the unit's detection value. A units' detection value is always determined by the element with the highest detection value in that unit. An element of line infantry, for example, usually comes with a detection value of 3, whereas light cavalry usually has a detection value of 4.
2) Loyalty: You will get a detection value of 2 in any region that is loyal to you (loyalty of 51% or higher)
3) Military control: You will get a detection value of 2 in any region that is controlled by you (military control of 51% or higher)
The detection-values generated by these three sources are not cumulative. You always use the source that provides the best detection value.
Finally, it is important to notice that detection values spread out to directly adjacent regions. In any region that borders a region in which you generate a detection value, you will also have a detection value (-1). For example, if some hussars patrol in region A (detection value 4), you'll get a detection value of 3 (4-1) in adjacent region B. This applies to all three sources of detection values. However, this detection value will not spread out any further. You only get detection in regions directly adjacent to regions in which you generate detection via one of the sources mentioned above.
You can always check your detection values by hovering your mouse over a region and bringing up the region-tooltip.
Some examples of detection-values (1st silesian war scenario):
line infantry 3
freicorps 4
husars 4
dragoons 3
cuirassiers 3
NOTE: You can give the AI some detection-bonus in the options menu. I wonder if that spreads AI's detection over more regions, or increases the quality of detection in regions where the AI already has some detection?
Hide-value
Obviously some troops are harder to spot than others. Every stack (not element or unit) has a hide-value. The hide-value of each stack is equal to the element with the worst hide-value in the stack. For example, if there is an element of artillery in your stack (hide value 1), then your whole stack gets a hide-value of 1.
However, certain modifications are applied:
A) Big stacks (definition?) receive a malus of -1.
B) Small stacks (definition?) OR (not cumulative!) passive stacks (green command-posture) receive a bonus of +1. The exact definition of "small stack" is unknown to me. It seems to be some kind of combination of command points that the stack requires and the amount of units that is part of the stack. You better try it out live in the game and check how your hide-value changes.
C) A stack that consists entirely of leader-units receives a bonus of +1.
D) Weather and terrain modifiers: +1 in the following situations: clear (in very harsh weather), hills (regardless of weather), woods (in very harsh weather), wooded hills (regardless of weather), forest (regardless of weather), mountains (regardless of weather) [data according to the ROP-terrain files; I only listed the more common terrain types here]
NOTE: If a stack is positioned in a region that contains a structure (city, fort) – regardless if friendly or hostile – its hide-value is automatically set to 1 if its command-posture is NOT passive.
NOTE: If you play around to test hide-values, make sure you click somewhere else in between, as the information on the hide-value of a stack does not update itself "live".
Some examples of hide-values (1st silesian war scenario):
line infantry 1
freicorps 2
husars 2
dragoons 2
cuirassiers 2
Information
The quality of information that you get depends on the comparison of your detection-value in the region with the hide-values of the enemy stacks in that region. However, you only ever get detailed information on one hostile stack in the region. I guess the game picks the most powerfull one. Information on additional stacks in the region will be less detailed (and according to their hide-value, I hope!). It is shown under the category "also here:" at the bottom of the toopltip.
detection < hide
If the hide-value of the enemy stack is higher than your detection value in the region, the stack will not be displayed on your map.
detection = hide
The enemy stack is shown on your map. The tooltip will tell you low quality information. You will be shown the rank of the leaders, but not their names (but you could recognise the stack-leader by his portrait!). You will be informed about the troop classes that the stack contains. Troop classes in combination with asterisks indicate brigades (the class is the most prevalent within the brigade? Or just the first unit in the brigade?). Leader-entries indicate individual leaders who do not command brigades – they're just contributing their command points. You are not informed about the detection-value of the hostile stack.
E.g.
Prussian Force (Juterborg)
Led by Major General **
Regular **
Leader **
Regular *
Regular *
Regular*
Cavalry
Regular
Regular
Artillery
Supply
Supply
Hide Value: 1
As you can see, forming brigades can be used to reduce the amount of information the enemy gets, as he cannot know how many units a brigade contains. It might be only one, but it can be up to four. The "also here:"-remark is quite useless. Therefore, having two stacks in the same region is a good way to deny information.
detection = hide+1
The enemy stack is shown on your map. The tooltip will show you medium quality information. It will show you the names and rank of the leaders and the names of the units that are part of the stack. If the stack contains brigades, you will only be shown the name of the brigadier and (in brackets) the name of one unit within the brigade. You are also informed about the detection-value of the hostile stack.
The "also here"-remark will show you the number of units of an additional stack.
E.g.
Fouqué' Force (Görlitz)
Led by Brigadier Heinrich de la Motte Fouqué
Heinrich de la Motte Fouqué (I./Schenckendorff IR 42)
Joachim von Treschkow (I./Tresckow IR 32)
Herincith von Kurssell (I./Von Kreytzen IR 40)
Johann von Lestwitz (I./Von Schultze IR 29)
Christian von Kalsow (I./Von Kalsow IR 43)
Östernreich
Burgsdorff
S.K. Nachschub I
Detect vs. Land: 3
Detect vs. Sea: 2
Hide Value: 1
Also here:
Fouqué Force (8 units)
At this level, forming brigades is still a usefull tool to reduce the amount of information the enemy gets. I'd also like to point out that sometimes, the names of units are quite confusing. For example, you need to know that Östenreich is actually a combined grenadier-battallion. The uninformed player would be better off with a "regular" entry. The "also here" remark lacks information. For example, I could mistake a stack of 8 supply units as a stack of 8 full brigades. Therefore, having two stacks in the same region is a good way to deny information.
detection = hide+2
The enemy stack is shown on your map. The tooltip will show you high quality information. In addition to the information above, it will show you the exact combat strength of the units/brigades that are part of the stack.
The "also here"-remark will show you number of units and combat strength of additional stacks.
E.g.
Gessler' Column (Dresden)
Led by Major General Friedrich Leopold Gessler
Friedrich Leopold Gessler (wartenberg Husaren) ** (204/204)
Karl von Katte (Weimar Husaren) ** (46/46)
Han von Winterfeldt (I. Markgraf Fridrich von Bayreuth) * (171/171)
Ludwig von Örtzen (Öertzen Dragoner) * (152/152)
Kyau Kürassiers (47/51)
Blanchensee Dragoner (32/34)
Detect vs Land: 4
Detect vs Sea: 2
Hide Value: 1
Also here:
Wedell' Column (2 units), Pwr: 233
detection=hide+3
(Yes, it's perfectly possible to have a hidden husar unit - with its detection rating of 4 - positioned in a region with enemy presence)
The enemy stack is shown on your map. In addition to the information above, the tooltip will show you the ratings (strategic-off-dev) of all leaders in the stack. Moreover, you will be informed, how many command points the force needs and how many it receives.
E.g.
Posadowski' Force (Brieg), Prussia (At war with your nation)
Led by Brigadier Karl von Posadowski
Required Command: 16
Provided Command: 8 (23% Penalty)
Karl von Posadowski (Posadowski's Brigade) * (6-2-2) (221/221)
Heinrich de la Motte Fouqué (Fouqué's Brigade) * (4-1-1) (284/284)
Ewald von Kleist (Kleist's Brigade) * (3-1-1) (153/153)
CHristoph von Kalckstein (Kalckstein's Brigade) * * (4-0-0) (257/257)
R.K. Nachschub II
Detect vs Land: 3
Detect vs Sea: 2
Hide Value: 1
---------------------------------------
It's also worth to mention that you can get a vague idea of the supply-status of enemy forces by turning on the supply-map-filter (green-yellow-red little dots will show up).
Coming up next will be "Reconnaissance II: Praxis in ROP", but it will take me more time. Questions to be asked: How important and how risky is reconnaissance in ROP? And how important are light troops in order to gather information? Again, I will unfortunately have to identify relatively long turn intervalls (still, even with 15-day-turns) as a rather big problem when it comes to light troops and reconnaissance.
[CENTER][color="#A52A2A"] S I L E S I A I N R U P T A[/color]
- a work-in-progress mod for Rise of Prussia - [/CENTER]
- a work-in-progress mod for Rise of Prussia - [/CENTER]
-
JacquesDeLalaing
- Colonel
- Posts: 344
- Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 11:05 pm
- Location: Vienna (Austria)
RECONNAISSANCE II: PRAXIS IN ROP (part 1)
The system described above is very very good in my opinion. But, unfortunately, it is hardly ever used/considered in depth– for several reasons, the most important of which would be the long turn-intervalls (15 days in ROP).
Space/time/reaction-balance
It's all quite obvious, really. Reconnaissance should be a means to give you an edge in reaction time. If you know faster where your enemy is, where he's moving to, and how strong he is, you should be able to evade or, under favourable conditions, attack ("ambush", so to speak). In the case-study above, you can find examples how both sides received information on enemy movements and acted accordingly. However, with turn intervalls of 15 days, reaction is not possible, regardless of the efforts you put into reconnaissance. The space that stacks can cover in 15 days is immense (infantry stacks can move 5 (!) regions in a matter of this time on roads in clear weather). And this huge "reach" per turn has tremendous consequences on gameplay. If an enemy stack can move 5 regions without me getting any chance to react, reconnaissance is pretty obsolete. The movement of enemy stacks will be totally unpredictable. Knowing the position of a stack doesn't help me at all because it can still move almost anywhere (thinking in tactical relevance) in a matter of a single turn. Everyone can try it out. Just think through the movement options (in 15 days) of all the enemy stacks you see. You'll end up with a situation in which you have no chance to predict what the situation will look like in 15 days. The game is very unpredictable, which mitigates your ability to plan. If the enemy moves as you've expected, it's usually pure luck, not the (relative) certainties of your reconnaissance-efforts.
Let me unfold some implications of this problem. You better never split up your forces at all because a quick strike at one force can be carried out sooner than you can react. Even if the enemy is still very far away (500km and more in terms of reality!), splitting up is not a good idea at all. Needless to say that this is a quite absurd situation. Also, you can't leave objectives unoccupied for a single turn if there are enemy units within 6+ regions' distance (don't forget about cavalry speed!). Moreover, faster advances and movement in general are extremely risky under these conditions because you can never be sure to end your move in a region where there is no enemy. You need to be lucky, not competent. In order to make competent decisions, you'd need information and probabilities. The long turn intervalls prevent manoevers of the kind that were very well carried out in reality, and they therefore reduce overall operational flexibility and depth of gameplay. Reconnaissance, the prime factor for carrying out these sorts of operations, has but a very small role in this game. The current calibration of time/space/reaction intervalls makes the movement of your enemies unpredictable to such a degree that you will never be able to carry out some more sophisticated manoevres (for which you'd need good reconnaissance). If we had shorter turn intervalls, you could actually observe and react to the movement of your opponent. Right now, you only get to know how he moved once he is already there (if you check the replay of the turn).
The problem of unpredictability in ROP is reduced by the quite clear and obligatory axes of operation. You usually have but one direction to move, and this is the direction of the road. But for predicting that the enemy will come along this street, I don't really need reconnaissance. With smaller regions and shorter turn intervalls, however, reconnaissance would be of great importance. In this respect, it's my personal opinion that the scale of the game's setting is a bit too big. In most cases, there is but one road/route to take, and every second or third region along that road has a city. This does not generate a setting in which reconnaissance (and manoevering, which directly depends on it) is very important. It does lead to rather unsatisfying engagements of giant stacks that move along predictable paths. Giant stacks are obligatory, because splitting up is 1) not required because there is no room for the enemy to circumvent you anyway (due to big regions); and 2) overwhelming enemy forces can approach incredibly fast without you having the chance to react/reunite (due to long turn-intervalls).
Another factor to reduce unpredictability is the cohesion loss due to movement. Theoretically, units that make use of their incredible movement allowance per turn should be quite low on cohesion once they arrive. However, I don't think that this mechanism is strong enough. Most players don't even seem to notice it, and I also usually forget about it at some stage of the game. Perhaps its because you're moving over roads most of the time, and the cohesion loss on roads is negligible. What is more: shorter turn intervalls would actually make players consider cohesion a bit more. Because of the long turn-intervalls and the resulting uncertainty, I usually stick to relatively short movements, that hardly ever need the full 15 days. Therefore, my cohesion is almost always very high. I never really feel the urge to consider cohesion at all. Since longer movements are too risky, I end up with short movements, which, in turn, tendentially renders the cohesion-concept obsolete.
A similar aspect that suffers from the current space/time/reaction-balance is the speed of light troops. You hardly ever need it. Whenever I send my husars forward to gather information, they end up with plenty of unspent movement-allowance. However, I have to admit that this actually serves a purpose because every day a unit stays in a region, it will increase military control. However, this would work just as well with shorter turn intervalls, without making speed obsolete in different situations. Due to long turn-intervalls, there is almost never a situation in which quick information/speed really matters. Most of the time, you will either – unluckily- bounce into that giant monster hostile stack with your hussars or – luckily- not. There is a certain suspense if you bounce into it (will it manage to evade combat or be killed?), which is a bit problemtical per se, but the whole thing could actually be much more exciting. Instead of randomly bouncing into the enemy, I'd rather like to have the chance to react before I do that, and thereby giving the opponent the chance to react as well. For example, instead of being informed that his monster stack has annihilated my entire hussar-regiment, my opponent could see that there are some hussars directly in front of him, and react by sending out his own hussars after me. This could result in a kind of pursuit in which speed and cohesion really matters. And perhaps I could send out (force march, just to be sure that they're ready in time) a small detachment to receive my retreating hussars/drive off the enemy hussars (who would have time to react to my rescue-detachment as well, or at least a high chance to evade if they happen to bounce into them). This experience would be so much deeper and more satisfying and would actually make use of all the great mechanisms that the game provides!
I fully understand that I might have some personal troubles with the scale of the game. The problem, however, is, that this thread is about light troops and small war. I fear that with the current scale of the game, there's hardly any important place for it, which is a pity, since this scale of warfare would be highly tactical and interesting. And moreover: what's left apart from small war? Big battles. And these are very much a matter of automatic calculation in AGEODs games. I think that there really is a need to focus on the scale where interesting operations took place. And the game-engine would have all the means to provide an awesome experience. However, the time/space/reaction balance is not set accordingly. More movement options (=regions) coupled with shorter reaction/turn-intervalls would make this game complete. (And of course I don't know anything about AI-issues, but I'd turn into a very happy multi-player! Moreover, wouldn't less unpredictability actually make the job easier for the AI?). I'd actually love if we were also given some reasons to split up our troops because we'd need to stop hostile light troops/support our own light troops in order to keep our own movements hidden, while discovering the opponents' movement.
Ideally, players should not be surprised because they've been unlucky/guessed wrong, but because they've been outmanoevred (a certain combination of luck, speed, anticipation, splitting up or concentrating force, and information). Right now, this is hardly ever the case. I also understand that it would mean a slight shift of the game-focus. In general, it would give players more options, decisions and a bit more transparency. There would be less "WTF"-moments, and less need for meticolous battle-report-interpretation. For example, you'd be less likely to be beaten because your withdrawal-test has failed, but because you didn't manage to escape fast enough on the operational scale. Maybe the enemy caught you in a forced march, maybe he cut off your retreat path by sending a flying detachment around your flank, maybe he had better/faster troops (matter of cohesion) etc. etc. Or maybe you've been beaten because you didn't put enough efforts in reconnaissance, so that you didn't unite your split-up forces in time? The "strategic rating" would be turned from a leader-ability-value to a variable of actual player-skill - at least tendentially. If you want to succeed with the prussians, you'd have to be as skilled as Frederick on the operational scale, not rely on a leader unit with a high ratings.
I know it's not realistic to expect a reduction of turn-intervalls for this game. But maybe some parts of my critic are helpfull and will be considered in future games (especially a ROP II - some happy day! )
In the next post, I will discuss some less far-reaching aspects and ideas related to reconnaissance. I will also explain why I've made some modifications (mainly regarding combat posture/ROE-changes) that (imho) increase tactical options quite a lot and make light units much more usefull.
The system described above is very very good in my opinion. But, unfortunately, it is hardly ever used/considered in depth– for several reasons, the most important of which would be the long turn-intervalls (15 days in ROP).
Space/time/reaction-balance
It's all quite obvious, really. Reconnaissance should be a means to give you an edge in reaction time. If you know faster where your enemy is, where he's moving to, and how strong he is, you should be able to evade or, under favourable conditions, attack ("ambush", so to speak). In the case-study above, you can find examples how both sides received information on enemy movements and acted accordingly. However, with turn intervalls of 15 days, reaction is not possible, regardless of the efforts you put into reconnaissance. The space that stacks can cover in 15 days is immense (infantry stacks can move 5 (!) regions in a matter of this time on roads in clear weather). And this huge "reach" per turn has tremendous consequences on gameplay. If an enemy stack can move 5 regions without me getting any chance to react, reconnaissance is pretty obsolete. The movement of enemy stacks will be totally unpredictable. Knowing the position of a stack doesn't help me at all because it can still move almost anywhere (thinking in tactical relevance) in a matter of a single turn. Everyone can try it out. Just think through the movement options (in 15 days) of all the enemy stacks you see. You'll end up with a situation in which you have no chance to predict what the situation will look like in 15 days. The game is very unpredictable, which mitigates your ability to plan. If the enemy moves as you've expected, it's usually pure luck, not the (relative) certainties of your reconnaissance-efforts.
Let me unfold some implications of this problem. You better never split up your forces at all because a quick strike at one force can be carried out sooner than you can react. Even if the enemy is still very far away (500km and more in terms of reality!), splitting up is not a good idea at all. Needless to say that this is a quite absurd situation. Also, you can't leave objectives unoccupied for a single turn if there are enemy units within 6+ regions' distance (don't forget about cavalry speed!). Moreover, faster advances and movement in general are extremely risky under these conditions because you can never be sure to end your move in a region where there is no enemy. You need to be lucky, not competent. In order to make competent decisions, you'd need information and probabilities. The long turn intervalls prevent manoevers of the kind that were very well carried out in reality, and they therefore reduce overall operational flexibility and depth of gameplay. Reconnaissance, the prime factor for carrying out these sorts of operations, has but a very small role in this game. The current calibration of time/space/reaction intervalls makes the movement of your enemies unpredictable to such a degree that you will never be able to carry out some more sophisticated manoevres (for which you'd need good reconnaissance). If we had shorter turn intervalls, you could actually observe and react to the movement of your opponent. Right now, you only get to know how he moved once he is already there (if you check the replay of the turn).
The problem of unpredictability in ROP is reduced by the quite clear and obligatory axes of operation. You usually have but one direction to move, and this is the direction of the road. But for predicting that the enemy will come along this street, I don't really need reconnaissance. With smaller regions and shorter turn intervalls, however, reconnaissance would be of great importance. In this respect, it's my personal opinion that the scale of the game's setting is a bit too big. In most cases, there is but one road/route to take, and every second or third region along that road has a city. This does not generate a setting in which reconnaissance (and manoevering, which directly depends on it) is very important. It does lead to rather unsatisfying engagements of giant stacks that move along predictable paths. Giant stacks are obligatory, because splitting up is 1) not required because there is no room for the enemy to circumvent you anyway (due to big regions); and 2) overwhelming enemy forces can approach incredibly fast without you having the chance to react/reunite (due to long turn-intervalls).
Another factor to reduce unpredictability is the cohesion loss due to movement. Theoretically, units that make use of their incredible movement allowance per turn should be quite low on cohesion once they arrive. However, I don't think that this mechanism is strong enough. Most players don't even seem to notice it, and I also usually forget about it at some stage of the game. Perhaps its because you're moving over roads most of the time, and the cohesion loss on roads is negligible. What is more: shorter turn intervalls would actually make players consider cohesion a bit more. Because of the long turn-intervalls and the resulting uncertainty, I usually stick to relatively short movements, that hardly ever need the full 15 days. Therefore, my cohesion is almost always very high. I never really feel the urge to consider cohesion at all. Since longer movements are too risky, I end up with short movements, which, in turn, tendentially renders the cohesion-concept obsolete.
A similar aspect that suffers from the current space/time/reaction-balance is the speed of light troops. You hardly ever need it. Whenever I send my husars forward to gather information, they end up with plenty of unspent movement-allowance. However, I have to admit that this actually serves a purpose because every day a unit stays in a region, it will increase military control. However, this would work just as well with shorter turn intervalls, without making speed obsolete in different situations. Due to long turn-intervalls, there is almost never a situation in which quick information/speed really matters. Most of the time, you will either – unluckily- bounce into that giant monster hostile stack with your hussars or – luckily- not. There is a certain suspense if you bounce into it (will it manage to evade combat or be killed?), which is a bit problemtical per se, but the whole thing could actually be much more exciting. Instead of randomly bouncing into the enemy, I'd rather like to have the chance to react before I do that, and thereby giving the opponent the chance to react as well. For example, instead of being informed that his monster stack has annihilated my entire hussar-regiment, my opponent could see that there are some hussars directly in front of him, and react by sending out his own hussars after me. This could result in a kind of pursuit in which speed and cohesion really matters. And perhaps I could send out (force march, just to be sure that they're ready in time) a small detachment to receive my retreating hussars/drive off the enemy hussars (who would have time to react to my rescue-detachment as well, or at least a high chance to evade if they happen to bounce into them). This experience would be so much deeper and more satisfying and would actually make use of all the great mechanisms that the game provides!
I fully understand that I might have some personal troubles with the scale of the game. The problem, however, is, that this thread is about light troops and small war. I fear that with the current scale of the game, there's hardly any important place for it, which is a pity, since this scale of warfare would be highly tactical and interesting. And moreover: what's left apart from small war? Big battles. And these are very much a matter of automatic calculation in AGEODs games. I think that there really is a need to focus on the scale where interesting operations took place. And the game-engine would have all the means to provide an awesome experience. However, the time/space/reaction balance is not set accordingly. More movement options (=regions) coupled with shorter reaction/turn-intervalls would make this game complete. (And of course I don't know anything about AI-issues, but I'd turn into a very happy multi-player! Moreover, wouldn't less unpredictability actually make the job easier for the AI?). I'd actually love if we were also given some reasons to split up our troops because we'd need to stop hostile light troops/support our own light troops in order to keep our own movements hidden, while discovering the opponents' movement.
Ideally, players should not be surprised because they've been unlucky/guessed wrong, but because they've been outmanoevred (a certain combination of luck, speed, anticipation, splitting up or concentrating force, and information). Right now, this is hardly ever the case. I also understand that it would mean a slight shift of the game-focus. In general, it would give players more options, decisions and a bit more transparency. There would be less "WTF"-moments, and less need for meticolous battle-report-interpretation. For example, you'd be less likely to be beaten because your withdrawal-test has failed, but because you didn't manage to escape fast enough on the operational scale. Maybe the enemy caught you in a forced march, maybe he cut off your retreat path by sending a flying detachment around your flank, maybe he had better/faster troops (matter of cohesion) etc. etc. Or maybe you've been beaten because you didn't put enough efforts in reconnaissance, so that you didn't unite your split-up forces in time?
The "strategic rating" would be turned from a leader-ability-value to a variable of actual player-skill - at least tendentially. If you want to succeed with the prussians, you'd have to be as skilled as Frederick on the operational scale, not rely on a leader unit with a high ratings.
I know it's not realistic to expect a reduction of turn-intervalls for this game. But maybe some parts of my critic are helpfull and will be considered in future games (especially a ROP II - some happy day!
)
In the next post, I will discuss some less far-reaching aspects and ideas related to reconnaissance. I will also explain why I've made some modifications (mainly regarding combat posture/ROE-changes) that (imho) increase tactical options quite a lot and make light units much more usefull.
[CENTER][color="#A52A2A"] S I L E S I A I N R U P T A[/color]
- a work-in-progress mod for Rise of Prussia - [/CENTER]
- a work-in-progress mod for Rise of Prussia - [/CENTER]
-
JacquesDeLalaing
- Colonel
- Posts: 344
- Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 11:05 pm
- Location: Vienna (Austria)
Some questions concerning game mechanics:
1) Evade fight
In my current game a question turned up which seems to be quite important for light troops: How does the "evade-combat!"-order actually work, apart from making your units destroy all supplies that they encounter? I know it is supposed to make a stack evade all enemy troops except for those in its target region. I often see some messages like "Husars XY failed to engage XY (chance of success XY %)" in my log. I guess that this is related to evade-combat orders? So how are these chances per stack actually calculated?
As we can currently not judge our chances, some manoevers are too risky. For example, I was toying with the idea to try to slip through a region with heavy prussian presence with 1 hussar regiment + 1 artillery. Why? I wanted to block the river Oder further to the north with my artillery to finally cut the prussians off from supply. I guess it should be impossible, but I'd like to know how the chances to evade are actually calculated.
I'm so happy with the new smaller scenarios! Now I'm plunging into this game!
2) Withdrawal decisions and success?
These are quite basic questions as well.
How does a C-i-C decide whether he wants to withdraw? It must be somehow based on a comparison of power, obviously, modified by the command-posture/rule of engagement (the exact modifiers can be found in the game Logic file). Right now I'v drastically increased the likelihood to retreat for certain combat postures so as to make light troops able to operate independently without having a absurd high chance to get annihilated. I'm very happy to have husars that you can't really pin down. I've had lots of nice encounters with hostile hussars, resulting in very low casualties, as it should be.
How are attempts to withdraw-chances calculated?
1) Evade fight
In my current game a question turned up which seems to be quite important for light troops: How does the "evade-combat!"-order actually work, apart from making your units destroy all supplies that they encounter? I know it is supposed to make a stack evade all enemy troops except for those in its target region. I often see some messages like "Husars XY failed to engage XY (chance of success XY %)" in my log. I guess that this is related to evade-combat orders? So how are these chances per stack actually calculated?
As we can currently not judge our chances, some manoevers are too risky. For example, I was toying with the idea to try to slip through a region with heavy prussian presence with 1 hussar regiment + 1 artillery. Why? I wanted to block the river Oder further to the north with my artillery to finally cut the prussians off from supply. I guess it should be impossible, but I'd like to know how the chances to evade are actually calculated.
I'm so happy with the new smaller scenarios! Now I'm plunging into this game!
2) Withdrawal decisions and success?
These are quite basic questions as well.
How does a C-i-C decide whether he wants to withdraw? It must be somehow based on a comparison of power, obviously, modified by the command-posture/rule of engagement (the exact modifiers can be found in the game Logic file). Right now I'v drastically increased the likelihood to retreat for certain combat postures so as to make light troops able to operate independently without having a absurd high chance to get annihilated. I'm very happy to have husars that you can't really pin down. I've had lots of nice encounters with hostile hussars, resulting in very low casualties, as it should be.
How are attempts to withdraw-chances calculated?
[CENTER][color="#A52A2A"] S I L E S I A I N R U P T A[/color]
- a work-in-progress mod for Rise of Prussia - [/CENTER]
- a work-in-progress mod for Rise of Prussia - [/CENTER]
-
loki100
- AGEod Guard of Honor
- Posts: 2401
- Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 4:15 pm
- Location: Caithness
- Contact: Website Twitter
JacquesDeLalaing wrote:Some questions concerning game mechanics:
How does a C-i-C decide whether he wants to withdraw? It must be somehow based on a comparison of power, obviously, modified by the command-posture/rule of engagement (the exact modifiers can be found in the game Logic file). Right now I'v drastically increased the likelihood to retreat for certain combat postures so as to make light troops able to operate independently without having a absurd high chance to get annihilated. I'm very happy to have husars that you can't really pin down. I've had lots of nice encounters with hostile hussars, resulting in very low casualties, as it should be.
How are attempts to withdraw-chances calculated?
One thing I've noticed, but this is observation not analysis of the code, is if you adopt defend at all costs then you will get into a fight. In both RoP and PoN I've had small forces completely wiped out by the sort of large force they would nornally withdraw before as I'd made that choice. So its clear there is a core bit of behaviour that allows a stack (normally) to judge the chance not so much of losing but of being wiped out and htat will trigger a withdraw attempt.
AJE The Hero, The Traitor and The Barbarian
PoN Manufacturing Italy; A clear bright sun
RoP The Mightiest Empires Fall
WIA Burning down the Houses; Wars in America; The Tea Wars
PoN Manufacturing Italy; A clear bright sun
RoP The Mightiest Empires Fall
WIA Burning down the Houses; Wars in America; The Tea Wars
-
JacquesDeLalaing
- Colonel
- Posts: 344
- Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 11:05 pm
- Location: Vienna (Austria)
loki100 wrote:One thing I've noticed, but this is observation not analysis of the code, is if you adopt defend at all costs then you will get into a fight. In both RoP and PoN I've had small forces completely wiped out by the sort of large force they would nornally withdraw before as I'd made that choice. So its clear there is a core bit of behaviour that allows a stack (normally) to judge the chance not so much of losing but of being wiped out and htat will trigger a withdraw attempt.
That's no real surprise. The command-postures/ROE effects (except for passive posture) are well known (see here).
The "defend at all costs"-posture will set your C-in-C's retreat will to 0% for all rounds.
@ Narwhal: I'm eagerly waiting for this guide on calculations of both, determination of "retreat will" (per faction involved) and "retreat-success" (per stack involved)?
[CENTER][color="#A52A2A"] S I L E S I A I N R U P T A[/color]
- a work-in-progress mod for Rise of Prussia - [/CENTER]
- a work-in-progress mod for Rise of Prussia - [/CENTER]
-
JacquesDeLalaing
- Colonel
- Posts: 344
- Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 11:05 pm
- Location: Vienna (Austria)
Apart from the questions in post #7, I also wonder if it makes sense to split up forces within a region if you want to interdict hostile forces passing through. In other words: are tests to engage (evading) enemies carried out per faction in a region, or per stack? If the second is true, then it would make sense to have more stacks in a region, i.e. to split up your forces in order to have more chances/tests to intercept the enemy (assuming that the chance is independent of stack-size?). The funny thing is: I'd rather give big stacks a malus on interception. A supply-train trying to break through would not blunder into the main army of the enemy - it would chose a different path. So, in order to intercept movement, splitting up should be the way to go, with all the (realistic) consequences that it brings. Of course, you could say that it is all more abstract, and that an army in a region portrays a more abstract "presence". But then the effects are not realistic. Supply trains did try and sometimes manage to break through such presences, simply because an army could not cover regions (of the size of the game) to 100%.
Forcing big stacks to split up in order to intercept would make quite A LOT of sense imho, and fit very well to the real neccessities of detachement-warfare. In order to cover all the routes that pass through a region, you'd need to split up your forces. However, two problems arise:
1) If the evading enemy was engaged by one stack that succeeded its "test to engage", he would be engaged by all stacks in a region, not just by the stack that actually engaged him? That's rather bad because it does not represent how a supply train+escort tries to break through against a (single!) hostile enemy detachement.
2) If the region is attacked by a strong force, your split-troops are less effective (lack of leader boni, lack of commandpoints), and also will have a higher chance to be destroyed in detail (if some stacks manage to retreat, while others don't and are destroyed in consequence).
Can I have any clarification on the evade-mechanisms? Please, please, please! Since I've reduced supply-travel-distance per push (longer supply lines necessary!) and since I've decreased the internal supply-storage of units from 2 to 1 (with 2, you only notice the first effects of having moved away from supply sources after 45 days! - this reduction also limits the operation radius of husars and dragoons), I feel that small war and supply trains actually are as important as they should be. And evading is quite essential in this respect.
Forcing big stacks to split up in order to intercept would make quite A LOT of sense imho, and fit very well to the real neccessities of detachement-warfare. In order to cover all the routes that pass through a region, you'd need to split up your forces. However, two problems arise:
1) If the evading enemy was engaged by one stack that succeeded its "test to engage", he would be engaged by all stacks in a region, not just by the stack that actually engaged him? That's rather bad because it does not represent how a supply train+escort tries to break through against a (single!) hostile enemy detachement.
2) If the region is attacked by a strong force, your split-troops are less effective (lack of leader boni, lack of commandpoints), and also will have a higher chance to be destroyed in detail (if some stacks manage to retreat, while others don't and are destroyed in consequence).
Can I have any clarification on the evade-mechanisms? Please, please, please!
Since I've reduced supply-travel-distance per push (longer supply lines necessary!) and since I've decreased the internal supply-storage of units from 2 to 1 (with 2, you only notice the first effects of having moved away from supply sources after 45 days! - this reduction also limits the operation radius of husars and dragoons), I feel that small war and supply trains actually are as important as they should be. And evading is quite essential in this respect.[CENTER][color="#A52A2A"] S I L E S I A I N R U P T A[/color]
- a work-in-progress mod for Rise of Prussia - [/CENTER]
- a work-in-progress mod for Rise of Prussia - [/CENTER]
-
Die Zieten
- Sergeant
- Posts: 95
- Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2013 9:13 pm
JacquesDeLalaing wrote:Apart from the questions in post #7, I also wonder if it makes sense to split up forces within a region if you want to interdict hostile forces passing through. In other words: are tests to engage (evading) enemies carried out per faction in a region, or per stack? If the second is true, then it would make sense to have more stacks in a region, i.e. to split up your forces in order to have more chances/tests to intercept the enemy (assuming that the chance is independent of stack-size?). The funny thing is: I'd rather give big stacks a malus on interception. A supply-train trying to break through would not blunder into the main army of the enemy - it would chose a different path. So, in order to intercept movement, splitting up should be the way to go, with all the (realistic) consequences that it brings. Of course, you could say that it is all more abstract, and that an army in a region portrays a more abstract "presence". But then the effects are not realistic. Supply trains did try and sometimes manage to break through such presences, simply because an army could not cover regions (of the size of the game) to 100%.
Forcing big stacks to split up in order to intercept would make quite A LOT of sense imho, and fit very well to the real neccessities of detachement-warfare. In order to cover all the routes that pass through a region, you'd need to split up your forces. However, two problems arise:
1) If the evading enemy was engaged by one stack that succeeded its "test to engage", he would be engaged by all stacks in a region, not just by the stack that actually engaged him? That's rather bad because it does not represent how a supply train+escort tries to break through against a (single!) hostile enemy detachement.
2) If the region is attacked by a strong force, your split-troops are less effective (lack of leader boni, lack of commandpoints), and also will have a higher chance to be destroyed in detail (if some stacks manage to retreat, while others don't and are destroyed in consequence).
Can I have any clarification on the evade-mechanisms? Please, please, please!
You make very good points.
The solution is that those detachments should be small stacks composed partly of light troops and they dont commit suicide fighting with the enemy main force. And large armies should not generally move to engage enemy detacments. It should be possible by targeting the enemy stack by drack and drop but difficult to succeed. But the possibility of large stack moving to fight in support some small friendly detachment out of corps structure should be minimal. Is this not possible with tweaking the game?
There is allready the division within the game of small and large forces, just expanding that idea of two layers for different actions.
-
Die Zieten
- Sergeant
- Posts: 95
- Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2013 9:13 pm
-
JacquesDeLalaing
- Colonel
- Posts: 344
- Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 11:05 pm
- Location: Vienna (Austria)
Right now I am discovering this wonderfull game bit by bit. I'm currently experimenting around and tweaking all kind of parameters of the game - so far I find my mod an improvement, and the AI still reacts "okay" in the smaller scenarios. Short summary:
I tweaked a lot of command-postures/ROEs (much higher chances to retreat; especially prior to round 1 with "feint attacks" and "retreat if engaged" - this makes light forces independent),
I've reduced the internal supply storage of units from 2 to 1 (right now, you can move away 3 turns' movement from your supply line before you start to notice any consequnce!)
I'm still playing around with siege calculations,
I've decreased the distance that supply travels automatically (now you really have to make use of supply trains! My supply line when I was besieging Troppau with the Prussians in the 1741 scenario reached back to Glogau!),
I've completetly got rid of the "march to the sound of guns"-feature (let's be honest - corps that support each other across regions (100km and more) are a bit unrealistic),
I've given light troops a higher chance to live of the land (Forager ability, changed so that it only applies to the element, not the whole stack),
and now I'm looking into cohesion-calculations. Right now, light units loose cohesion faster than line troops. I'm toying with the idea to turn it around. Light troops should be able to act independently and have lower desertation-rates. But then I'd somehow restrict their movement-ability (internal supply of only 1 helps, but still...) and overall combat effectiveness (I can imagine to reduce light troops overall combat strength, but keep them more resistant versus cohesion loss).
On topic: I still fear that a single large stack might still have at least an equal chance to intercept evading enemies compared to multiple (smaller) stacks. If this is the case, the whole idea of "splitting up forces within a region in order to block a region" would be obsolete. I really hope we can get some answer on this question (how does evade work?).
Let's first think about situations in which you'd actually like to move through a region with strong enemy presence/or block movement. (Beforehand, it is neccessary to mention that in order to have even a chance to move through the region, we have to assume that you have full military control in your destination-region.) The main reason why you'd like to move through an enemy force is to cut off its supply line (while of course risking the supply line of your own detachement in the course). This might then lead to your opponent trying to break through your detachement with his supply train, and other follow-up actions. A second scenario: I've found myself toying with the idea to move through strong enemy presence with a field artillery unit (+escort) in order to block river-supply for my enemy (crossing the river would have taken ages). And then there is a third scenario, that was quite common historically (see siege of Kolberg described above, but there were very similar scenarios throughout the war; e.g. Frederick breaking off the siege of Olmütz because his supply train didn't get through the austrian positions): a supply train trying to break through to help the besieged (or, as in the second case, the besieged besiegers ). In all these cases, evading mechanics are of the essence.
I've found that my alterations to combat-postures and ROEs (drastically increasing the retreat-will and retreat-chance, even prior to round 1) help a lot to make smaller detachements viable. There are hardly any of those unrealistic suicide-situations anymore ("Your unit of hussars has been annihilated by Fredericks 40,000-man-army." WTF? These are hussars! Shouldn't they be able to think for themselves, acting independently according to the situation?). Increasing the retreat-will and the retreat-chances prior to round 1 is essential for small troops. If they have to be in battle for 1 round, they're dead.
But then I think that our aim here is quite complex. I've come up with two problems that might arise when we're thinking of splitting up troops more often:
1) A large enemy force enters the region to attack your split-up forces. (You can't really predict it due to turn intervalls of 15 days - so concentrating your force once you see the enemy approaching is not a real option). Of course your split-up forces will have their combat-effectiveness reduced. And this okay in my opinion. The big problem, however, would be the staggered retreat of your stacks. One part of your stacks might retreat, leaving another one behind to be badly mauled. Here a change of command-posture and ROE helps as well (hardly any force doesn't manage to succeed with its retreat-roll with my current settings). The problem, however, is that the combat-posture of ALL stacks in a region is determined by the combat-posture of the C-in-C. So, if you plan to engage with your main force, while you want your smaller detachements to evade, you will have troubles. It's the C-in-C (and his combat-posture) and only the C-in-C in the region who decides when the faction (i.e. all stacks) start to withdraw. Individual stacks (i.e. your small detachements) can not try to withdraw earlier and individually - their combat-posture is overruled by the C-in-C, who is leading your main army and "thinking" accordingly. I've often experienced total destructions of individual light units because they've got pushed back into a region where other friendly forces were positioned and were then caught by the enemy because my C-in-C applied his own combat-posture to my poor light troops. Therefore, it could help a lot if retreat-decisions were based on individual stacks and their individual combat-postures, rather than on a whole faction (the C-in-C-combat-posture in a region). Unfortunately, we'd need more information on how different stacks with different command-postures in the very same region engage in combat before we could make further conclusions.
2) If you try to break through enemy presence in a region with a smaller detachement, you have to fight not only the hostile detachement that has "discovered" you/cut off your way, but all hostile stacks of the region if you fail to evade. For this problem there is a quite simple solution: higher retreat-will and higher retreat chances. If we assume that your detachement is engaged in combat, the officer in command of detachement (well actually, your C-in-C in the region) will first compare his own power to the power of the hostile forces and will thereby determine if he wants to retreat. So, when met with overwhelming forces, your detachement would simply retreat to the region where it had started, thereby probably loosing some more cohesion. Not the best solution, but better than its total destruction. Ideally, we'd have the detachement only fight the detachement that has discovered your attempt, with more forces slowly trickling in during the combat (based on the strategic ratings of the commanders? - a kind of "smallwar" march to the sounds of the guns). Then your detachement would still have the chance to break through, if it managed to defeat the enemy quickly enough.
I tweaked a lot of command-postures/ROEs (much higher chances to retreat; especially prior to round 1 with "feint attacks" and "retreat if engaged" - this makes light forces independent),
I've reduced the internal supply storage of units from 2 to 1 (right now, you can move away 3 turns' movement from your supply line before you start to notice any consequnce!)
I'm still playing around with siege calculations,
I've decreased the distance that supply travels automatically (now you really have to make use of supply trains! My supply line when I was besieging Troppau with the Prussians in the 1741 scenario reached back to Glogau!),
I've completetly got rid of the "march to the sound of guns"-feature (let's be honest - corps that support each other across regions (100km and more) are a bit unrealistic),
I've given light troops a higher chance to live of the land (Forager ability, changed so that it only applies to the element, not the whole stack),
and now I'm looking into cohesion-calculations. Right now, light units loose cohesion faster than line troops. I'm toying with the idea to turn it around. Light troops should be able to act independently and have lower desertation-rates. But then I'd somehow restrict their movement-ability (internal supply of only 1 helps, but still...) and overall combat effectiveness (I can imagine to reduce light troops overall combat strength, but keep them more resistant versus cohesion loss).
On topic: I still fear that a single large stack might still have at least an equal chance to intercept evading enemies compared to multiple (smaller) stacks. If this is the case, the whole idea of "splitting up forces within a region in order to block a region" would be obsolete. I really hope we can get some answer on this question (how does evade work?).
Let's first think about situations in which you'd actually like to move through a region with strong enemy presence/or block movement. (Beforehand, it is neccessary to mention that in order to have even a chance to move through the region, we have to assume that you have full military control in your destination-region.) The main reason why you'd like to move through an enemy force is to cut off its supply line (while of course risking the supply line of your own detachement in the course). This might then lead to your opponent trying to break through your detachement with his supply train, and other follow-up actions. A second scenario: I've found myself toying with the idea to move through strong enemy presence with a field artillery unit (+escort) in order to block river-supply for my enemy (crossing the river would have taken ages). And then there is a third scenario, that was quite common historically (see siege of Kolberg described above, but there were very similar scenarios throughout the war; e.g. Frederick breaking off the siege of Olmütz because his supply train didn't get through the austrian positions): a supply train trying to break through to help the besieged (or, as in the second case, the besieged besiegers
). In all these cases, evading mechanics are of the essence.
I've found that my alterations to combat-postures and ROEs (drastically increasing the retreat-will and retreat-chance, even prior to round 1) help a lot to make smaller detachements viable. There are hardly any of those unrealistic suicide-situations anymore ("Your unit of hussars has been annihilated by Fredericks 40,000-man-army." WTF? These are hussars! Shouldn't they be able to think for themselves, acting independently according to the situation?). Increasing the retreat-will and the retreat-chances prior to round 1 is essential for small troops. If they have to be in battle for 1 round, they're dead.
But then I think that our aim here is quite complex. I've come up with two problems that might arise when we're thinking of splitting up troops more often:
1) A large enemy force enters the region to attack your split-up forces. (You can't really predict it due to turn intervalls of 15 days - so concentrating your force once you see the enemy approaching is not a real option). Of course your split-up forces will have their combat-effectiveness reduced. And this okay in my opinion. The big problem, however, would be the staggered retreat of your stacks. One part of your stacks might retreat, leaving another one behind to be badly mauled. Here a change of command-posture and ROE helps as well (hardly any force doesn't manage to succeed with its retreat-roll with my current settings). The problem, however, is that the combat-posture of ALL stacks in a region is determined by the combat-posture of the C-in-C. So, if you plan to engage with your main force, while you want your smaller detachements to evade, you will have troubles. It's the C-in-C (and his combat-posture) and only the C-in-C in the region who decides when the faction (i.e. all stacks) start to withdraw. Individual stacks (i.e. your small detachements) can not try to withdraw earlier and individually - their combat-posture is overruled by the C-in-C, who is leading your main army and "thinking" accordingly. I've often experienced total destructions of individual light units because they've got pushed back into a region where other friendly forces were positioned and were then caught by the enemy because my C-in-C applied his own combat-posture to my poor light troops. Therefore, it could help a lot if retreat-decisions were based on individual stacks and their individual combat-postures, rather than on a whole faction (the C-in-C-combat-posture in a region). Unfortunately, we'd need more information on how different stacks with different command-postures in the very same region engage in combat before we could make further conclusions.
2) If you try to break through enemy presence in a region with a smaller detachement, you have to fight not only the hostile detachement that has "discovered" you/cut off your way, but all hostile stacks of the region if you fail to evade. For this problem there is a quite simple solution: higher retreat-will and higher retreat chances. If we assume that your detachement is engaged in combat, the officer in command of detachement (well actually, your C-in-C in the region) will first compare his own power to the power of the hostile forces and will thereby determine if he wants to retreat. So, when met with overwhelming forces, your detachement would simply retreat to the region where it had started, thereby probably loosing some more cohesion. Not the best solution, but better than its total destruction. Ideally, we'd have the detachement only fight the detachement that has discovered your attempt, with more forces slowly trickling in during the combat (based on the strategic ratings of the commanders?
- a kind of "smallwar" march to the sounds of the guns). Then your detachement would still have the chance to break through, if it managed to defeat the enemy quickly enough.[CENTER][color="#A52A2A"] S I L E S I A I N R U P T A[/color]
- a work-in-progress mod for Rise of Prussia - [/CENTER]
- a work-in-progress mod for Rise of Prussia - [/CENTER]
-
Die Zieten
- Sergeant
- Posts: 95
- Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2013 9:13 pm
I agree that MTSG is overpowered but did you consider making it more difficult? Like making a check on days you need to travel, roads, weather conditions?
If you totally eliminate it you will see even more massed stacks on the move.
What about limiting the amount of Corps per Army to 2-3? I think a 3 region front is the max an army should cover, how do you feel?
If you totally eliminate it you will see even more massed stacks on the move.
What about limiting the amount of Corps per Army to 2-3? I think a 3 region front is the max an army should cover, how do you feel?
-
JacquesDeLalaing
- Colonel
- Posts: 344
- Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 11:05 pm
- Location: Vienna (Austria)
I personally don't see any need at all for fronts of more than one region. But of course I've not wasted any thoughts on balancing. I plan to produce an AAR once I've found all my personal settings to see how it turns out.
In fact we're actually discussing how to implement fronts that are "smaller" than than a single region by making it viable to split up troops within a single region! While we are discussing how to reduce the scale and scope of abstraction in order to portray the interesting operational level (the level at which light troops were actually usefull), MTSG is a meta-feature - it's very abstract. Given the still relatively long turn-intervalls of 14 days, I can see that it has some appeal. The longer the turn-intervalls, the more do we need some kind of artificial intelligence that reacts to the emergent situations. But I think I'm better off without it. It just feels very random (while at the same time it is absolutely decisive in its consequences), uncontrolable and tends to take away space for smallwar. I don't like it if battles are so dependent on a single MTSG roll. A certain randomness is needed and good, but that's just a bit too much for me. If we had even shorter turn-intervalls, we could kick MTSG without any remorse.
But then again the interesting operational scale I'm trying to discuss here is only implementable if the overall settings are of reasonable size. This is why I've always been pleading for smaller scenarios, and why I'm so happy with ROP gold. You can't go into any detail if you have to command 6 armies at once. The closer we get to the "smaller" operational level, the more we will be sufficiently occupied by the tasks and decisions that a general has to make, not by the decisions that some god-like abstract mastermind, controling the war-efforts of all factions at once, has to make.
In fact we're actually discussing how to implement fronts that are "smaller" than than a single region by making it viable to split up troops within a single region! While we are discussing how to reduce the scale and scope of abstraction in order to portray the interesting operational level (the level at which light troops were actually usefull), MTSG is a meta-feature - it's very abstract. Given the still relatively long turn-intervalls of 14 days, I can see that it has some appeal. The longer the turn-intervalls, the more do we need some kind of artificial intelligence that reacts to the emergent situations. But I think I'm better off without it. It just feels very random (while at the same time it is absolutely decisive in its consequences), uncontrolable and tends to take away space for smallwar. I don't like it if battles are so dependent on a single MTSG roll. A certain randomness is needed and good, but that's just a bit too much for me. If we had even shorter turn-intervalls, we could kick MTSG without any remorse.
But then again the interesting operational scale I'm trying to discuss here is only implementable if the overall settings are of reasonable size. This is why I've always been pleading for smaller scenarios, and why I'm so happy with ROP gold. You can't go into any detail if you have to command 6 armies at once. The closer we get to the "smaller" operational level, the more we will be sufficiently occupied by the tasks and decisions that a general has to make, not by the decisions that some god-like abstract mastermind, controling the war-efforts of all factions at once, has to make.
[CENTER][color="#A52A2A"] S I L E S I A I N R U P T A[/color]
- a work-in-progress mod for Rise of Prussia - [/CENTER]
- a work-in-progress mod for Rise of Prussia - [/CENTER]
-
Die Zieten
- Sergeant
- Posts: 95
- Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2013 9:13 pm
I see you point but as you said the 15 day turns make it difficult.
If the MTSG only works in places that have the right conditions, like suitable roads, are you still against it?
The conditions being a few days march distance, i would only see this as realistic and fun.
This would mostly limit MTSG to regions with major roads.
There is still the delay based on skill of the generals to consider.
And if Corps per Army is two you dont have fronts but can still manouvere.
You dont see the other layer of combat i suggested possible with the engine?
Independent detachments worth max 4CP trying to evade all larger formations than themself no matter their ROE?
In clear terrain and no adjacent friendly regions they should be captured fairly easy but not fight to the last man.
If the MTSG only works in places that have the right conditions, like suitable roads, are you still against it?
The conditions being a few days march distance, i would only see this as realistic and fun.
This would mostly limit MTSG to regions with major roads.
There is still the delay based on skill of the generals to consider.
And if Corps per Army is two you dont have fronts but can still manouvere.
You dont see the other layer of combat i suggested possible with the engine?
Independent detachments worth max 4CP trying to evade all larger formations than themself no matter their ROE?
In clear terrain and no adjacent friendly regions they should be captured fairly easy but not fight to the last man.
-
JacquesDeLalaing
- Colonel
- Posts: 344
- Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 11:05 pm
- Location: Vienna (Austria)
My question is: What purpose does MTSG serve? And what is it supposed to represent?
I can only see it as an attempt to compensate the effects of too long turn-intervalls. If on day 2 of a turn one "corps" notices that it will be attacked, it sends information to another "corps", requesting it to come and help. So it only compensates the loss of reaction-option that the player suffers because of the long turn intervalls. Marching to the sound of the guns does not represent anything else for it does not give any boni in battle. It does not represent a flanking movement by a napoleonic corps – for this, it would need to have positive effects in battle resolution, or an increased rate of pursuit casualties, or more frontage points for the flanker. All this is better abstracted into the ratings of the involved commanders. MTSG does not give tactical advantages in battle. Instead, the battle is processed as if the two armies were stationary in the same region (okay, one army might be delayed or not show up at all).
What I also find funny is that the supporting corps moves back to its original region after the battle. Are there any historical examples for this? But if it stayed in the region of the battle, the player would feel an even worse loss of control.
And you can't really keep the AI from taking over control over your forces. What if I don't want a corps to come for help? I could find myself forced to move the corps leader to another region, to prevent him taking his units to fight in the adjacent region. You could find yourself forced to "work" to circumvent this mechanic - which feels kind of weird.
So, it is but a compensation for a lack of reaction, it doesn't portray anything historical, and it triggers even when you don't want it to trigger.
Moreover, and this is my biggest concern even though I can't express it very well, MTSG of blurs positioning. Instead of having a power of 1000 in region A and 1000 in region B, you'll end up with a (potentially very high) chance of having 2000 power in region A AND 2000 power in region B. The same force tendentially occupies twice the space. You can multiply your power by spreading your forces (of course in return for a certain risk). But what does it mean if you can more easily spread your main army without loosing fighting power? I guess it will be more difficult to get behind you and cut you off. The ROP map features many chokepoints, where you only get a 1-region-corridor of clear terrain. So there will be less space left for manoevering. I don't like that. It takes away opportunities for detachement-warfare. If an army occupies so much space with its full power, there is no space for small war left. In fact, for more interesting game-play, I'd even say we could need a reduction of coorporation between stacks positioned in the very same region.
Also, a corps can theoretically participate in two battles in a single turn, acting over a territory of 3 regions (or more, with more battles).
If we had turns of 1 week, everything would be fine without MTSG. And perhaps it is better to think about getting rid of the negative consequences that getting rid of MTSG would bring. What situations is MTSG supposed to interdict/prevent? A single army could force its way through an army that has its corps spread up over 2-3 regions. In my mod, a smaller army would not be anihilated, it would simply retreat (most likely prior to battle, so no pursuit casualties), so the effects of this situation would be a bit less severe. And the enemy would be in a good position to be cut off from his supplies in such a situation.
------
As I'm occupying myself with many game concepts at once, and since these all interact and are not strictly limited to "light troops", I'll open up a mod-thread in the ROP-modding corner soon. In particular, you can't talk about light troops without talking about supply. Everyone is welcomed to participate and discuss the proposed changes in my upcoming mod-thread, of course! I'm very happy with the "scorched earth" and "reconnaissance-party"-regional decisions that I've just really discovered now. But of course you could argue that we shouldn't even need these decisions. The "reconaissance-party" fills a problem generated by too long turn intervalls and/or the lack of a "wait for X days command" (in order to give light troops time to generate military control in several regions instead of just the "target-region"). And the scorched earth fills the problem generated by the supply-system-design (local supply is pretty obsolete, supply in general is too forgiving).
I can only see it as an attempt to compensate the effects of too long turn-intervalls. If on day 2 of a turn one "corps" notices that it will be attacked, it sends information to another "corps", requesting it to come and help. So it only compensates the loss of reaction-option that the player suffers because of the long turn intervalls. Marching to the sound of the guns does not represent anything else for it does not give any boni in battle. It does not represent a flanking movement by a napoleonic corps – for this, it would need to have positive effects in battle resolution, or an increased rate of pursuit casualties, or more frontage points for the flanker. All this is better abstracted into the ratings of the involved commanders. MTSG does not give tactical advantages in battle. Instead, the battle is processed as if the two armies were stationary in the same region (okay, one army might be delayed or not show up at all).
What I also find funny is that the supporting corps moves back to its original region after the battle. Are there any historical examples for this? But if it stayed in the region of the battle, the player would feel an even worse loss of control.
And you can't really keep the AI from taking over control over your forces. What if I don't want a corps to come for help? I could find myself forced to move the corps leader to another region, to prevent him taking his units to fight in the adjacent region. You could find yourself forced to "work" to circumvent this mechanic - which feels kind of weird.
So, it is but a compensation for a lack of reaction, it doesn't portray anything historical, and it triggers even when you don't want it to trigger.
Moreover, and this is my biggest concern even though I can't express it very well, MTSG of blurs positioning. Instead of having a power of 1000 in region A and 1000 in region B, you'll end up with a (potentially very high) chance of having 2000 power in region A AND 2000 power in region B. The same force tendentially occupies twice the space. You can multiply your power by spreading your forces (of course in return for a certain risk). But what does it mean if you can more easily spread your main army without loosing fighting power? I guess it will be more difficult to get behind you and cut you off. The ROP map features many chokepoints, where you only get a 1-region-corridor of clear terrain. So there will be less space left for manoevering. I don't like that. It takes away opportunities for detachement-warfare. If an army occupies so much space with its full power, there is no space for small war left. In fact, for more interesting game-play, I'd even say we could need a reduction of coorporation between stacks positioned in the very same region.
Also, a corps can theoretically participate in two battles in a single turn, acting over a territory of 3 regions (or more, with more battles).
If we had turns of 1 week, everything would be fine without MTSG. And perhaps it is better to think about getting rid of the negative consequences that getting rid of MTSG would bring. What situations is MTSG supposed to interdict/prevent? A single army could force its way through an army that has its corps spread up over 2-3 regions. In my mod, a smaller army would not be anihilated, it would simply retreat (most likely prior to battle, so no pursuit casualties), so the effects of this situation would be a bit less severe. And the enemy would be in a good position to be cut off from his supplies in such a situation.
------
As I'm occupying myself with many game concepts at once, and since these all interact and are not strictly limited to "light troops", I'll open up a mod-thread in the ROP-modding corner soon. In particular, you can't talk about light troops without talking about supply. Everyone is welcomed to participate and discuss the proposed changes in my upcoming mod-thread, of course!
I'm very happy with the "scorched earth" and "reconnaissance-party"-regional decisions that I've just really discovered now. But of course you could argue that we shouldn't even need these decisions. The "reconaissance-party" fills a problem generated by too long turn intervalls and/or the lack of a "wait for X days command" (in order to give light troops time to generate military control in several regions instead of just the "target-region"). And the scorched earth fills the problem generated by the supply-system-design (local supply is pretty obsolete, supply in general is too forgiving).[CENTER][color="#A52A2A"] S I L E S I A I N R U P T A[/color]
- a work-in-progress mod for Rise of Prussia - [/CENTER]
- a work-in-progress mod for Rise of Prussia - [/CENTER]
-
Ebbingford
- Posts: 6162
- Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 5:22 pm
- Location: England
I've always argued against the MTSG feature in this game, it just didn't happen. I played a PBEM game against Squarian where we limited the MTSG so that it only occurred if the forces were in the same region. It seemed to feel and play like it was a lot more historically accurate. I don't know if the chances of MTSG can be made lower as well. It would probably be better to have the chance of it occurring set as very low, but not impossible, but only for armies and corps in the same region.
I have also thought that perhaps the whole corps system needs doing away with. You just have armies under a 3*, with a limit to how many armies each nation can have, any other forces act as independent commands.
I have also thought that perhaps the whole corps system needs doing away with. You just have armies under a 3*, with a limit to how many armies each nation can have, any other forces act as independent commands.
"Umbrellas will not be opened in the presence of the enemy." Duke of Wellington before the Battle of Waterloo, 1815.
"Top hats will not be worn in the Eighth Army" Field-Marshal Viscount Montgomery of Alamein K.G.
"Top hats will not be worn in the Eighth Army" Field-Marshal Viscount Montgomery of Alamein K.G.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest