Home Forums Horse and Musket Napoleonic Rules that offer historically accurate movement rates – are there any?

This topic contains 269 replies, has 23 voices, and was last updated by McLaddie McLaddie 3 years, 1 month ago.

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 270 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #7897
    Bandit
    Bandit
    Participant

    Do rules that offer historically accurate movement rates really exist?

    No, really. I’m curious.

    Here are those that I have handy:

    Corps d’armée – 16 yards per turn – no time scale
    General de Brigade – 120 yards per turn – no time scale
    Polemos General de Division – 225 yards per turn – no time scale

    Napoleon’s Eagles – 5,400 yards per hour (3.1MPH)

    Eagles and Emperors – 3,300 yards per hour (1.9MPH)
    Bruce Quarrie’s Rules – 3,100 yards per hour (1.7MPH)
    Battles for Empire – 2,700 yards per hour (1.5MPH)
    Legacy of Glory – 2,700 yards per hour (1.5MPH)
    Code Napoleon – 2,100 yards per hour (1.2MPH)

    Easy Napoleonic – 1,800 yards per hour (1MPH)
    Napoleon’s Battles – 1,600 yards per hour (0.9MPH)
    Le Feu Sacré – 1,200 yards per hour (0.7MPH)
    Napoleonic Command II – 900 yards per hour (0.5MPH)
    March Attack – 540 yards per hour (0.3MPH)
    Empire III – 288+ yards per hour (0.2MPH)

    All these given are for tactical movement across ‘open’ terrain, no grand tactical march formations are included, in many places I averaged the ‘line’ and ‘column’ rates rounding up.

    A ployed division of just about any nationality can be assumed to move approximately 2.5MPH.

    Now according to these various rule sets, their ‘open terrain’ movement rate for infantry ends up being anywhere from 0.2MPH up to 3.1MPH. Since 3.1MPH is the outlier, I through that out, split the two groupings and averaged them:

    1.6MPH Movement
    0.6MPH Movement

    The slower group makes basically no sense to me and I’d guess that they are mostly governed by a question of what the designer found practical. Empire III is also kinda a unique situation since it breaks up movement into so many specifics but I used the same criteria with it as everything else…

    The faster group seems plausible but with all the recent talk about movement rates I am curious if these are correct either.

    George Nafzinger’s Imperial Bayonets claims a typical movement rate for infantry might be something similar to 75 yards per minute. I’ve observed some rather in-depth discussions on the Empire Yahoo Group mailing list and this seems fairly plausible.

    75 yards per minute equals 4,500 yards per hour or 2.5MPH.

    So this led me to ponder:

    If 2.5MPH was the typical ployed on-road march rate for an infantry division and 2.5MPH was the same cadence speed expected for general use…

    and if the primary benefit of roads were 1) knowing where you were going and 2) not needing to dress your lines very often at all…

    then the main slowing factor for off-road movement would simply be the dressing of lines.

    Need to dress the lines is going to be primarily caused by enemy fire and embarrassing terrain.

    Leading to the question of how much influence on speed does dressing the lines have?

    McLaddie likes to point out that Soult marched his divisions up the Pratzen at a rate of something like 4,200 yards per hour (2.4MPH), i.e. 0 impact from line dressing.

    All my wargaming life I’ve thought that rules that used dice to determine how far you went were stupid. Now I’m wondering if – given they operate within a min-max range – they may make quite a bit of sense.

    Thoughts?

    #7900
    grizzlymc
    grizzlymc
    Participant

    I think that line dressing is going to be a significant factor on any terrain short of a drill square, the more so if you are in line than in column, and the more so if your troops are poorly drilled than well drilled.

     

    75 yards per minute is Nafziger’s pas acelere or the Brit ordinary pace.  Presumably Soult’s troops were sufficiently well drilled to ascend the heights at a speed that would have disorganised lesser men, the pas de route is about 15% slower.    This was considered to be quite a performance and would be an upper bound from A to B.

     

    WRG 1645-1845 has columns moving 150 paces in an 80 second turn, which looks pretty close, perhaops a tad fast even.

    You also have to look at how the rules are put together.  If the assumption is that the action in a turn takes 80 seconds and the Clauswitzian friction induced effect of that action is spread over half an hour (as is the case with WRG) then you obviously have a range of a factor of about 20 to work with.

     

    Fact is that there is an execution fudge in wargames rules which accounts for the fact that tabletop generals can see everything, react immediately and never forget or have their subordinates lose their sense of urgency or direction.  Taking WRG, if you have 4 infantry battalions on the table, your turns are probably 80 seconds; if you have 40 they represent half an hour.

     

    Maybe the pre req for this thread should be “Time and Distance in wargames”.

     

    • This reply was modified 3 years, 3 months ago by grizzlymc grizzlymc.
    #7905
    Bandit
    Bandit
    Participant

    You also have to look at how the rules are put together.  If the assumption is that the action in a turn takes 80 seconds and the Clauswitzian friction induced effect of that action is spread over half an hour (as is the case with WRG) then you obviously have a range of a factor of about 20 to work with.

    Maybe the pre req for this thread should be “Time and Distance in wargames”.

    That’s a fair point.

    I tried to normalize these as much as I could but you are correct that by doing so I wipe out any “friction” factors like activities that risk disorder or terrain that slows movement per the rules.

    What I can tell you from this cross-section of rules it is largely impossible for these friction factors to occur except in the case of enemy interference or rough terrain.

    #7906
    grizzlymc
    grizzlymc
    Participant

    Or artificially slow movement.

     

    So, we move a division 300 paces in an hour, we are abstracting the time for the courier to let the corps commander see what we can see and the other courier to go to the divisional commander …….

     

    Then the divisional commander moves 300 paces in three minutes.

    #7911
    Bandit
    Bandit
    Participant

    Or artificially slow movement.

    Agreed.

    #7925
    Not Connard Sage
    Not Connard Sage
    Participant

    Or artificially slow movement. So, we move a division 300 paces in an hour, we are abstracting the time for the courier to let the corps commander see what we can see and the other courier to go to the divisional commander ……. Then the divisional commander moves 300 paces in three minutes.

     

    WARNING; contains heresy.

     

    Everything in a wargame is abstracted to some degree. One needs to accept it, rather than keep chasing realism. A ‘realistic’ wargame would be a boring affair.

    If one can’t suspend disbelief it’s probably time to find a hobby that requires less imagination.

     

    "I go online sometimes, but everyone's spelling is really bad. It's... depressing."

    #7927
    Cerdic
    Cerdic
    Participant

    I am a big fan of diaries, memoirs, letters etc written by people who actually took part in the Napoleonic Wars. One of the things that really stands out is the massive unpredictability in movement. This can be due to terrain, enemy action, orders getting delayed or misinterpreted, getting lost or going the wrong way, or for reasons unknown.

    As Connard says, this needs to be abstracted.

    I have come to the conclusion that throwing a dice for movement is actually a good idea. It certainly makes for an interesting game because you cannot predict how long it will take troops to get somewhere. Both sides racing to occupy that village? With variable move rates, even if you are further away it is still worth giving it a go!

    I have found average dice very useful for this. The spread of results is enough to simulate the uncertainty without being so wide that it gets frustrating!

    #7936
    Patrice
    Patrice
    Participant

    The movements on the table cannot be truly accurate because your game table will never be as large as a real battlefield. The spacetime of the game cannot be proportional to reality.

    http://www.argad-bzh.fr/argad/en.html
    http://argad.forumculture.net/

    #7960
    Bandit
    Bandit
    Participant

    WARNING; contains heresy.

    Everything in a wargame is abstracted to some degree. One needs to accept it, rather than keep chasing realism. A ‘realistic’ wargame would be a boring affair.

    If one can’t suspend disbelief it’s probably time to find a hobby that requires less imagination.

    1) I don’t think anyone disputes this.
    2) Abstraction ≠ infinite inaccuracy, such is a matter of degree and focal point.

    The movements on the table cannot be truly accurate because your game table will never be as large as a real battlefield. The spacetime of the game cannot be proportional to reality.

    This I’m not sure I agree with but maybe I’m not following you. Are you indicating that I can’t predict relatively accurate movement course and speed from say MN to CA on a highway map? Or can you clarify?

    #7962
    grizzlymc
    grizzlymc
    Participant

    So, the answer is yes and no.

    #7969
    Patrice
    Patrice
    Participant

    Patrice wrote:
    The movements on the table cannot be truly accurate because your game table will never be as large as a real battlefield. The spacetime of the game cannot be proportional to reality.

    This I’m not sure I agree with but maybe I’m not following you. Are you indicating that I can’t predict relatively accurate movement course and speed from say MN to CA on a highway map? Or can you clarify?

    You can predict movements and speed, approximately, on an highway map.But (in my opinion) you cannot get actual proportionality on the game table.

    When my players question this, I like to answer that “the reality we want to simulate is, historically – or fantastically -, objectively absolute and subjectively relative, but our perception of the game is subjectively absolute and objectively relative, so the spacetime of the game cannot be proportional to reality!” (and yes I know it’s gibberish but it always gives me more time to play while they try to understand what it means  )

     

    http://www.argad-bzh.fr/argad/en.html
    http://argad.forumculture.net/

    #7970
    McLaddie
    McLaddie
    Participant

    I am a big fan of diaries, memoirs, letters etc written by people who actually took part in the Napoleonic Wars. One of the things that really stands out is the massive unpredictability in movement. This can be due to terrain, enemy action, orders getting delayed or misinterpreted, getting lost or going the wrong way, or for reasons unknown.

    I would question that ‘massive unpredictability’ in movement.  Are you reading about those unexpected and odd events because their unexpectedness made them memorable, or actually something that happened on a ‘massive’ scale all the time?

    Well, the two questions are:

    1. How often do those ‘unknown’ reasons occur and why.  Terrain and enemy action is accounted for on the table by terrain and the opposing player.  How often are orders  misinterpreted and lost etc.   Rolling dice for movement is a fun mechanic.  The question would be whether that has any relationship with the actual vagaries of movement. With die rolls and random events, we have to ask ‘how often?’ to provide anything like the actual chance of unpredictable events occurring.

    2. Given all that, what is the average or expected movement rate?  Officers not only wrote about that constantly, but worked very hard to make such movement rates constant and predictable. [Most training is an effort to mitigate the effects of disorder and chance in moving large numbers of men in combat, while the enemy is making efforts to increase disorder]  At Austerlitz, the Allied third column was reported as very slow getting into position to attack, having to traverse muddy ground and stopping at least twice to repair the trails being followed.  The still did 2.5 miles in 90 minutes.  That is still 44 yards a minute, 880 yards in 20 minutes.  Remember that most rules have terrain and disorder causing halved movement on top of  short movement rates.

    What we see when we follow the movement of troops on the battlefield is that they average between 66-75 yards per minute when moving, which is what Napoleonic officers identify as ‘average’, 44 yards per minute as being ‘very slow’ and caused by identifiable reasons.

    Wargames consistently have units moving slower by as much as 2/3 not from any ‘averaging’ of movement rates, but for table top issues.

    1. If you let units move as fast as they did historically, you’d have units scooting all over the table.  In one scale hour infantry could cross 6 feet of table with 50 or 75 yards to the inch.

    2. If infantry moved that fast, crossing the length of artillery ranges in 20 minutes or less, how do you administer artillery affects?

    3. cavalry just whizzes across the table. A mounted courier could go from one end of a 10 foot table to the other and back again in a 20 minute turn at 50 to 75 inches to the yard. At a walk, horses can traverse a mile in 6-8 minutes, at a trot in 3 to 4.

    These are certainly real game design issues.  The ways in which this is handled with most game rules are:

    1. Really short movement rates:  For example, Regimental Fire & Fury has troops only able to move 300 to 450 yards in 10 to 15 minutes or half the normal rate. This is often justified as an average, but what is done when really examined is average the movement for all troops, even though most are sitting still in reserve or on the battleline during a good portion of the time… mostly on purpose and not from some issue with order transmission or ‘hurry up and wait’ situations.

    2. Scenario setup that have troops set up very close. All most all of RF&F scenarios have at least some opposing troops set up within one movement of each other, or 300 yards, reducing the more obvious effects of slow movement.  Slow movement really shows up with battles involving a good deal of maneuvering. Snappy Nappy for instance, provides an Austerlitz scenario with the rules, but movement is so slow, all units are at least an hour behind the actual movement rates accomplished during the battle.  The issues of Artillery ranges and effects were noted by the designer.  That is one reason congested, straight-in battles like Waterloo, Borodino and Dresden work better than battle scenarios of the 1796-7 Italian campaign, Austerlitz etc.

    3. Jimmy the scenario maps.  There are a number of examples of scale distances being skewed and shortened. One reason some scenario maps have no scale.

    4. Game scale is simply ignored.  If you don’t know where you are, you are never slow in getting there.  Of course, that isn’t really true because units still have frontages, spatial relationships, all of which can be calculated, particularly when

    5. Variable movement rates.  In Piquet, the average movement rate expected with typical card draws is as Bandit notes above.  IF all the stars align and the cards are favorable, infantry might move a maximum of 2o00 yards in 30 minutes.  Long odds, but then the short movement rates are justified under the umbrella of battlefield chaos, which is fine if that were the odds of such movement, but it isn’t, even with all the chaos of battle.

    How far units usually were able to move during Napoleonic battles and why they didn’t are fairly well known.  It was of great concern for the military men of the time, so it written about often.  It is just a matter of how to portray that on the table top in an interesting game. [Obviously, easier said than done.]

     

    • This reply was modified 3 years, 3 months ago by McLaddie McLaddie.
    • This reply was modified 3 years, 3 months ago by McLaddie McLaddie.
    • This reply was modified 3 years, 3 months ago by McLaddie McLaddie.
    #7972
    McLaddie
    McLaddie
    Participant

    “the reality we want to simulate is, historically – or fantastically -, objectively absolute and subjectively relative, but our perception of the game is subjectively absolute and objectively relative, so the spacetime of the game cannot be proportional to reality!” (and yes I know it’s gibberish but it always gives me more time to play while they try to understand what it means.

     

    I can appreciate and support the reason for the Thought Block, but it is still gibberish.    I have to travel a lot for business, so I have come to know within a couple of minutes how long it will take me to get to the airport from home, how far it is from the Phoenix Airport to the Arizona Department of Education, etc.  I can also tell you how often and the reasons why I was kept from keeping those times.  I kept that kind of accounting because it was important to know in my work.  Military men did it for the same reasons.

    I knew how much extra time to add to travel times to ensure I arrived when I needed to, regardless of chance events, accidents, unusual traffic etc.  Was I 100% successful? No, but most all of the time, certainly enough of the time to make working out such movement rates useful and generally predictable.   It might have subjectively felt like time dragged getting to the airport on schedule, or that traffic was slow or ‘rush hour’ was early etc. etc. , but I still got to the airport within the time I had objectively determined.   I can also say that sometimes, the oddest things could happen. I was once stuck in bumper-to-bumper traffic for an hour on the 405 in Los Angeles at 12 am on a Sunday morning.  Go figure. But I note that because it was an extreme event and would laugh if someone made that event the reason for a 50-50 chance of getting to an airport on time.

    The question for a wargame designer  is ‘how often’ such chance events occur to screw up movement and why.

    • This reply was modified 3 years, 3 months ago by McLaddie McLaddie.
    • This reply was modified 3 years, 3 months ago by McLaddie McLaddie.
    #7979
    Bandit
    Bandit
    Participant

    When my players question this, I like to answer that “the reality we want to simulate is, historically – or fantastically -, objectively absolute and subjectively relative, but our perception of the game is subjectively absolute and objectively relative, so the spacetime of the game cannot be proportional to reality!” (and yes I know it’s gibberish but it always gives me more time to play while they try to understand what it means  )

    Sure, but I’m actually asking what you really do mean by all that?

    MN to CA is about 2,200 miles and can be traveled via the I-80 route in 2-3 days by car by a single driver. That is a large variance of a whole day. It can be accounted for based on how long you want to drive for and how closely you follow the speed limit. Presuming that you are willing to drive long hours (first day 13-14 hours with minimal stops) but stay within 10MPH of the speed limit then you can do it in 2 days, driving 6-8 hours you can do it in 3 days. These also requires that you hit a minimum number of delays due to traffic, accidents and construction. Reasonable defined as so few as the trip still completes in the time described without varying the speed more than described.

    That isn’t hard to compute and I don’t think it is much different than march rates. I’ve read period accounts of a division taking up approximately 2.5-3 miles of a road and traveling at approximately 2.5-3MPH. That was written as a general expectation, not exceptional either high or low. Now, in December of 1806 Soult is supposed to march on Golymin I think it was and fails, he hardly gets out of the town he is camped in because the mud is so bad that he moves only a handful of miles the whole day. Just like I could leave MN and hit a huge backup on the highway due to a tanker truck crash and be unable exist to an alternative route. The result would be my 2-3 day estimate (whichever I’d planned for) would be shot.

    That’s fine, both events are totally plausible. Now the question is, how commonly did they occur and is that relative likelihood of occurrence represented in-game?

    I largely concur with Bill (McLaddie) that even the “slow” historical movements appear to be radically faster than a lot of what is allowed on the tabletop.

    My problem in the past with using dice for movement is that you get such skewed results. If we are rolling 2D6 then most of the time I’ll move 6-8″ but sometimes I’ll move 2-3″. Does that make sense as a minimum? Say the ground scale is 1″ = 75 yards and the time scale is 20 minutes, those both lend to easy math.

    Does it ever make sense that in 20 minutes a battalion could only progress 150-225 yards? I am going to stipulate that this is not under fire or in the presence of the enemy because if we are dicing for movement then this could occur both when those conditions are present and when they are not. The movement should make some sense in both cases.

    My present thinking about rolling dice for movement is:

    Can dicing for movement be a good solution provided there is a minimum movement allowed? If we tighten the range by adding some base movement does that help us any?

    For instance: 3″ +2D6 will normally give about 9-11″ of movement. The adjusted minimum will be 5″ and the adjusted maximum will be 15″. Then we ask our question again: Does this jive with historical events? Is it reasonable that troops will sometimes only move 375 to 450 yards in 20 minutes and is the likelihood of that occurring mirrored by the roughly 8% chance of it occurring with 2D6?

    If this is not correct…

    Are there other factors that should adjust this minimum?

    The first ones that come to mind are troop quality (training & discipline) and local commander skill.
    –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
    Here’s the thing: simulation isn’t about being absolute and it definitely requires lots of abstraction, it is fine if someone wants to say that they don’t feel such questions as these have any relevance because “it is only a game” but someday should a guy want to use BattleMechs with pulse lasers in the WW2 game you’re about to play, don’t begrudge him – it is, after all, only a game… 😉

    #7980
    Not Connard Sage
    Not Connard Sage
    Participant

    Try this simple experiment:

     

    Find a ploughed field, take at least 11 of your mates (more would be better) and form a line, or column, in the field. For added realism, starve yourselves for 12 hours beforehand, and spend a largely sleepless night in the rain. If a couple of you could manage to contract dysentery as well that would be splendid.

    March across the field, in step at whatever march rate you think is ‘correct’, without losing formation. If one of you has a drum and can actually drum in time this may help. You can be the sergeant if you like, and beat any slackers with the shaft of your half-pike.

    Now position a few more of your mates in front of you, and get them to shoot at you. Real bullets, none of that nancy paintball stuff. Close the files as your mates drop – you may need to slow or halt, still under fire, to achieve this.

    If you try the above in a field full of standing crops, the obliging landowner may shoot at you too.

     

     

     

    I’d be fascinated to hear the results

     

     

    "I go online sometimes, but everyone's spelling is really bad. It's... depressing."

    #7981
    Bandit
    Bandit
    Participant

    Try this simple experiment:
     
    Find a ploughed field, take at least 11 of your mates (more would be better) and form a line, or column, in the field. For added realism, starve yourselves for 12 hours beforehand, and spend a largely sleepless night in the rain. If a couple of you could manage to contract dysentery as well that would be splendid.

    March across the field, in step at whatever march rate you think is ‘correct’, without losing formation. If one of you has a drum and can actually drum in time this may help. You can be the sergeant if you like, and beat any slackers with the shaft of your half-pike.

    Now position a few more of your mates in front of you, and get them to shoot at you. Real bullets, none of that nancy paintball stuff. Close the files as your mates drop – you may need to halt, still under fire, to achieve this.

    If you try the above in a field full of standing crops, the obliging landowner may shoot at you too.

    I’d be fascinated to hear the results

    No idea how fast I could do it. The guys who did do it in the early 1800s claim they’d traverse the field at a rate of about 75 yards per minute on average…

    So with that in mind – what’s your point?

    #7986
    Not Connard Sage
    Not Connard Sage
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Not Connard Sage wrote:</div>
    Try this simple experiment: Find a ploughed field, take at least 11 of your mates (more would be better) and form a line, or column, in the field. For added realism, starve yourselves for 12 hours beforehand, and spend a largely sleepless night in the rain. If a couple of you could manage to contract dysentery as well that would be splendid. March across the field, in step at whatever march rate you think is ‘correct’, without losing formation. If one of you has a drum and can actually drum in time this may help. You can be the sergeant if you like, and beat any slackers with the shaft of your half-pike. Now position a few more of your mates in front of you, and get them to shoot at you. Real bullets, none of that nancy paintball stuff. Close the files as your mates drop – you may need to halt, still under fire, to achieve this. If you try the above in a field full of standing crops, the obliging landowner may shoot at you too. I’d be fascinated to hear the results

    No idea how fast I could do it. The guys who did do it in the early 1800s claim they’d traverse the field at a rate of about 75 yards per minute on average… So with that in mind – what’s your point?

     

    Claim, or could?

    Because reality often differs from the claim. Who was timing these chaps, and with what?

    As Grizz said above, quick march at 100 yards a minute is easily doable on the parade ground. A ploughed field, or one with standing crops, is a different matter if you don’t want to get to your objective as part of a knackered, disorganised mob.

     

    "I go online sometimes, but everyone's spelling is really bad. It's... depressing."

    #7987
    Bandit
    Bandit
    Participant

    Claim, or could?

    Because reality often differs from the claim. Who was timing these chaps, and with what?

    As Grizz said above, quick march at 100 yards a minute is easily doable on the parade ground. A ploughed field, or one with standing crops, is a different matter if you don’t want to get to your objective as part of a knackered, disorganised mob.

    So your actual question is one of evidence validity? It would be so much easier if ya just said so :-p

    Do you have sources stating the average movement rate was different than 75 yards per minute or are you presuming it is incorrect based on logical conclusion?

    I’ll be forthright that my arrival at that speed is predominately through either averaging the rates reported by others and by scaling rates up and down, i.e. someone reports X distance was covered over Y time and I’d normalize it down to yards per minute and MPH.

    • This reply was modified 3 years, 3 months ago by Bandit Bandit. Reason: added last line
    #7989
    Not Connard Sage
    Not Connard Sage
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Not Connard Sage wrote:</div>
    Claim, or could? Because reality often differs from the claim. Who was timing these chaps, and with what? As Grizz said above, quick march at 100 yards a minute is easily doable on the parade ground. A ploughed field, or one with standing crops, is a different matter if you don’t want to get to your objective as part of a knackered, disorganised mob.

    ‘ So your actual question is one of evidence validity? It would be so much easier if ya just said so :-p Do you have sources stating the average movement rate was different than 75 yards per minute or are you presuming it is incorrect based on logical conclusion?

     

    Ah! Now you are asking me to provide proof that invalidates your source (Nafziger? So secondary at best), which for all we know was cherry picked to support your assertion?

    I’m not falling for that one.

     

    I’m in the other corner with Grizz and Patrice.

    "I go online sometimes, but everyone's spelling is really bad. It's... depressing."

    #7990
    Bandit
    Bandit
    Participant

    Ah! Now you are asking me to provide proof that invalidates your source (Nafziger? So secondary at best)…

    Yes, one of the sources is Nafzinger who purports to have translated the rates from their original text without alteration.
    Another is some random Austrian commander who I can’t presently recall and am not disposed to easily retrieve the name of.
    Another is Davout’s reports (Journal of the III Corps d’armée) during 1805, 1806 and 1807.

    Bill (McLaddie) has quoted Dundas and Scharnhorst in the past during parallel discussions to arrive at this average as well.

    I’m not asking you to disprove my selected evidence, I’m asking if you have other evidence that should be considered, not challenging you to prove anything.

    …which for all we know was cherry picked to support your assertion?

    I’m not falling for that one.

    Yeah, it wasn’t a trap… still isn’t.

    What’s the deal with all the presumption of negative intent? I ask you to give some background on how you’re generating objections and you say I may be cherry picking evidence, geeze man, let’s just have an open conversation without the presumption of evil.

    #8001
    McLaddie
    McLaddie
    Participant

    Whether I and my mates could cross a ploughed field in full military regalia at 75 yards per minute on a Sunday afternoon is a far different question than whether a group of men who had practiced it, lived it on a daily basis could do it.

    If the military men at the time gave those estimates [to other military men as to what they could expect] and then when checking the actual movement of various units during battle and come close to the very same distances, whether you or I could do it across country really doesn’t matter.

     

    #8005
    Patrice
    Patrice
    Participant

    Here’s the thing: simulation isn’t about being absolute and it definitely requires lots of abstraction, it is fine if someone wants to say that they don’t feel such questions as these have any relevance because “it is only a game” but someday should a guy want to use BattleMechs with pulse lasers in the WW2 game you’re about to play, don’t begrudge him – it is, after all, only a game… ;-)

    OK. I’m not saying that it has no relevance. We probably are not talking about the same thing. You and McLaddie seem to want very precise detail about units speed. My point is that it’s only one factor amongst other factors in the simulation, that we have a gaming table smaller than a battlefield (this means that you cannot show on the table the moves the units have done since the early morning etc) and with many other unknown factors too, so: if the overall feeling of the game feels right, I am not bothered by the exact speed of units. Not because it has no relevance, but because we want an overall feeling.

    That’s why in my previous post I mentioned my long and pompous sentence about the game spacetime being “absolute” from a player’s point of view but “relative” for the soldiers taking part in it in reality, etc, there is some sense in it (although voluntarily ridiculous and perhaps not well translated)

    But I’m not trying to prevent you from discussing units speed; just saying that for me it’s a factor amongst others and it should not be given too much importance.

    http://www.argad-bzh.fr/argad/en.html
    http://argad.forumculture.net/

    #8009
    Not Connard Sage
    Not Connard Sage
    Participant

    OK. I’m not saying that it has no relevance. We probably are not talking about the same thing. You and McLaddie seem to want very precise detail about units speed. My point is that it’s only one factor amongst other factors in the simulation, that we have a gaming table smaller than a battlefield (this means that you cannot show on the table the moves the units have done since the early morning etc) and with many other unknown factors too, so: if the overall feeling of the game feels right, I am not bothered by the exact speed of units. Not because it has no relevance, but because we want an overall feeling. That’s why in my previous post I mentioned my long and pompous sentence about the game spacetime being “absolute” from a player’s point of view but “relative” for the soldiers taking part in it in reality, etc, there is some sense in it (although voluntarily ridiculous and perhaps not well translated) But I’m not trying to prevent you from discussing units speed; just saying that for me it’s a factor amongst others and it should not be given too much importance.

     

    What he said.

    Too much navel gazing is counter-productive.

    Want to know if your movement rates work? Incorporate them into a set of rules, publish rules, see what happens when Joe Wargamer gets his grubby mitts on them..

     

     

     

    "I go online sometimes, but everyone's spelling is really bad. It's... depressing."

    #8010
    Bandit
    Bandit
    Participant

    You and McLaddie seem to want very precise detail about units speed.

    I don’t think we’re trying to be that precise really though I believe that is how we’re being perceived. We’re talking about averages over given periods of time. The question I’m asking is essentially, how can we arrive at a similar rate of movement as to what is purported to have occurred? Not the same, not exact, just relative to the other elements, similar.

    I’m willing to make some rather large presumptions and guesses but I think that an event should be *able* to occur as it did historically.

    My point is that it’s only one factor amongst other factors in the simulation, that we have a gaming table smaller than a battlefield (this means that you cannot show on the table the moves the units have done since the early morning etc)…

    I still don’t get the “battlefield is smaller” part. The figures are smaller than real men too, so are the trees. This is a question of proportionality which can be influenced and *to a degree* controlled through the rules.

    What bugs me is if we’re gonna play Picket’s Charge but the three Confederate divisions crossed the field of approach in 20 minutes and it takes us (in our chosen rule set, whatever that is) “4 hours” of represented time – then that makes no sense to me. If we are trying to do something that resembles a historical series of events then the rules we use to govern it should allow for the potential of events playing out as they did…

    It’d be like a BattleMech fighting an SS-division…

    Want to know if your movement rates work? Incorporate them into a set of rules, publish rules, see what happens when Joe Wargamer gets his grubby mitts on them..

    I don’t know how that would answer my question. It seems like a “put up or shut up” challenge but it offers no measurable criteria for my question to be answered, nor any relatable relevance to the conversation in this thread.

    Our exchanges feel akin to us sitting around in a bar drinking and talking and I say…

    Me: “Ya know I wonder why so many bars have X policy, in light of Y information I am aware of, X seems like a strange policy to have, is anyone here able to make sense of it?”

    And then you yell across the room at me…

    NCS: “Yeah well go start your own bar and see how it goes without X policy!”

    Causing me to mutter…

    Me: “Uhm, OK, that was weird, why is some guy challenging me to open a bar just because I wanted someone to tell me why so many bars have a similar policy of X in light of Y information?”

    What’s the deal Not Connard Sage? What’s with all the oblique criticism and challenges? You’re choosing to take part in the discussion and I’m cool with that, so since you’re choosing to participate why are you saying so many things that would seem aimed at stifling or begrudging it? Am I upsetting your chi by seeking to discuss this stuff or what?

    • This reply was modified 3 years, 3 months ago by Bandit Bandit. Reason: added a quote, removed a bunch of rambling, added the lower ~1/3
    #8011
    Not Connard Sage
    Not Connard Sage
    Participant

     

    I don’t know how that would answer my question. Can you elaborate on how it does?

     

    It doesn’t.

    I find all this would- be scientific enquiry over a pastime rather pretentious, hence my flippancy.

    Sorry.

     

     

     

    "I go online sometimes, but everyone's spelling is really bad. It's... depressing."

    #8016
    Bandit
    Bandit
    Participant

    It doesn’t.

    I find all this would- be scientific enquiry over a pastime rather pretentious, hence my flippancy.

    Look it’s totally cool that you don’t care about what I’m “researching”, I haven’t got any gripe with that. But just because I’m interested enough to discuss it on an online message board does not make it pretentious, heck, anything but, this is a pretty low level venue to give anything ‘unnecessarily elevated importance’…

    All I’m asking is that if you’ve got things to say that pertain to the conversation, that’s awesome and I’d love to hear em, and they can be from whatever perspective: abstract, pragmatic, scientifically exacting…

    But stuff that makes me feel like you’re shouting, “this is dumb, why do you even talk about it?!?!” is kinda demoralizing ya know. I don’t know what threads you may start in the future but I hope no one does that to ya cause it sucks. What is important to you doesn’t have to be important to me, or vice versa. Just say’n no one should crap all over something on the basis of ‘it ain’t my thing’.

    I like to think that the people who designed games put a lot of thought into them and a lot of work. There is a real pressure to claim that XYZ mechanic is backed up by ABC historical evidence but a lot of times I think that is a smoke screen because no one wants to just say, “Yeah, I don’t know, it sounded plausible and it worked when meshed with the other mechanics so we kept it,” – and that isn’t an invalid answer either, just shows a different focus was followed.

    Sorry.

    It’s cool, no worries, we each got our own priorities and interests.

    #8019
    Not Connard Sage
    Not Connard Sage
    Participant

    I don’t know what threads you may start in the future but I hope no one does that to ya cause it sucks.

     

    In my professional life it might, though I’d probably care enough to defend my position. On a hobby site?

    Nah. Nothing I’m likely to post here is that important. I’m in this hobby for fun.

     

    And the hot women.

    "I go online sometimes, but everyone's spelling is really bad. It's... depressing."

    #8020
    Mike
    Mike
    Keymaster

    Look it’s totally cool that you don’t care about what I’m “researching”, I haven’t got any gripe with that. But just because I’m interested enough to discuss it on an online message board does not make it pretentious, heck, anything but, this is a pretty low level venue to give anything ‘unnecessarily elevated importance’…

    All I’m asking is that if you’ve got things to say that pertain to the conversation, that’s awesome and I’d love to hear em, and they can be from whatever perspective: abstract, pragmatic, scientifically exacting…

    But stuff that makes me feel like you’re shouting, “this is dumb, why do you even talk about it?!?!” is kinda demoralizing ya know

    I had this on another forum when I proposed an idea around initiative and terrain.
    I very much wanted ideas on how to make this into something concrete to game with, ie some rules suggestions.
    IIRC only one person had some suggestions, the rest of the comments were akin to “it is silly, if you are doing that you are missing the point, I would not play a game like that” etc.
    To those that thought it was all those things but never said so, you have my thanks.
    To those that simply wanted to call my ideas dumb and shut me up, it worked, I left the forum and it took over a year before I came back.
    Negativity when asking for help is rarely welcomed by those asking for help.

    #8021
    Mike
    Mike
    Keymaster

    In other words, Be Excellent To Each Other.
    Or I will get the baby out…

    #8027
    grizzlymc
    grizzlymc
    Participant

    Bandit

     

    I think you might be missing the time dilation thing.  It is not so much that a turn is half an hour or 80 seconds, it is that it takes time to bring a corps  across the ground.  Much more time than it does to pace it out with the pas acelere in your headphones.  Wargame movement rates are really there to stop armies rushing around the field like a choreographed mass.  So for an engaged unit, the time is probably 80 seconds, for one outside the scrum it is more like half an hour.

     

    I think it was advanced Wargames where Featherstone proposed that we should have couriers running around the table with orders.  I tried that with a couple of mates one weekend (it was pre girls and we didn’t have much money for booze) and no time dilation was needed.  Units got left behind, orders were received when they were no longer meaningful, the whole thing looked like the real thing.  But it took all bloody weekend for a modest sized battle and wasn’t interesting enough to remain repeatable.

     

    Let me give you another example of time dilation.  In that spreadsheet I put up a drop box link for there is a theoretical exercise where cavalry and infantry take casualties whilst approaching a gun battery.  Do this on the table and see how your various rules model an advance towards guns on open ground.  This will tell whether the rules are really getting casualties per metre right.  Now, put two lines of infantry up against each other and look at the attrition in Hughes’ firepower.  Given ammo expenditure the first volley was probably nearly twice as effective as later volleys, the first minute was probably three or more times as effective as later minutes (after time most rates of fire drop to about 1/2 minute) and yet the rules do not model this.  They don’t have to because the first turn of the firefight is short and later ones get longer.  The point is that bullets get traded till someone runs or charges or both.

     

    To properly top down create a simulation using the sort of analytical approach that Charles Grant uses in The Wargame requires that you bring minutae of detail, like reduced firepower over tiem, blown horses, cavalry charges dispersing over long distances, messages by courier.  The rules in The Wargame translate well to Napoleonics and give quite a good game, but for all the analysis they aren’t simulating things deterministically.

     

    You get a similar problem in WWII.  The armoured car moves at 80 kph,  the anti tank gun fires 800m, it has 36 seconds before the A/C runs over the crew.  Get out on a Normandy backroad in a 5 tonne truck and try that and you have the Sage’s muddy field.  I lament never having played Empire, because I think Empire tried to solve these problems by almost being a tabletop campaign, which is an approach that my gang debated much in our teens but decided was a lot of hard work.

    #8028
    grizzlymc
    grizzlymc
    Participant

    Another interesting excercise.  Get something like one of the Total War PC games.  Play a setpiece battle where you hit the pause button where you like, run around the paused field and generally behave as you do in a wargame.  Admire your tactical mastery, look in the mirror, do you not see a military genius in his prime?

     

    Now, play the same battle.  NO PAUSE BUTTON, have a leak before the game, only allow the camera to see what you can see, you want to order the mass of cavalry on your flank to charge his guns, ride over and do it.

    What you will find is that very few of your units will move at anything like a respectable pace because you are starting to get a crude feel for divisional C&C problems.

    It has occurred to me that Boney’s marshals are sometimes underrated.  To have a bunch of gilded chaps of immense authority who could be told “Get those chaps up there”, whose clout was such that an entire corps would just do what they were told, bunions or no, must have been quite valuable.  Maybe Soult cheated with his command pips.

    #8030
    Bandit
    Bandit
    Participant

    I think you might be missing the time dilation thing.  It is not so much that a turn is half an hour or 80 seconds, it is that it takes time to bring a corps  across the ground.  Much more time than it does to pace it out with the pas acelere in your headphones.  Wargame movement rates are really there to stop armies rushing around the field like a choreographed mass.  So for an engaged unit, the time is probably 80 seconds, for one outside the scrum it is more like half an hour.

    Could you expand on that some? I’m not sure if I really get it but I am interested. Reading the rest of your post, are you saying the movement rates are indicative of the “hurry up and wait” that is the transmission and resulting dissemination of orders then I guess I’d say it is a design choice as to whether to conflate those two things together or keep them separate. In many games order activation is just an instantaneous thing, if that is the case perhaps it makes sense to “make up for it” in movement rates. However, if order activation and the related delays are accounted for elsewhere, then you’d be doubling it up I’d think.

    Given ammo expenditure the first volley was probably nearly twice as effective as later volleys, the first minute was probably three or more times as effective as later minutes (after time most rates of fire drop to about 1/2 minute) and yet the rules do not model this.  They don’t have to because the first turn of the firefight is short and later ones get longer.  The point is that bullets get traded till someone runs or charges or both.

    Sure, sorta along the lines of the COS of VLB… the event went on however long it did until the situation changed…

    #8031
    McLaddie
    McLaddie
    Participant

    What you will find is that very few of your units will move at anything like a respectable pace because you are starting to get a crude feel for divisional C&C problems.

    How do you know that is a reasonable comparison???   If I wanted to recreate Total War with no pause button, the actions you describe would be what I used as my template.  If I want to model what the actual commanders had to deal with and how units moved, then I have to use their performance and their troops performance over time as the template. In either case, I have the parameters of performance set out for what I want to recreate.

    On the morning of Austerlitz, when Napoleon asked  Soult how long it would take for his two divisions in battle array to reach the Pratzen Heights 1400-1600 meters away, he answered “20 minutes.”  Napoleon didn’t say Soult was being wildly optimistic or that he was crazy because it was impossible to know how long it would take. [or answer I take it you have four pips of command so you can make it”, or that he was nuts because he hadn’t played Total War without a pause button–just to be supercilious] If Napoleon really thought that Total War without the pause button was actually close to what was to be expected, I doubt that he’d have bothered asking Soult that question. And the fact that Soult made it in twenty minutes suggests that players should be able to do something similar in a game.

    There is no doubt that SNAFUs occurred and they are a challenging [and fun] aspect of recreating battles on the table top.  Getting large groups of men to do anything efficiently takes planning and practice and things will go wrong, but moving on the battlefield, regardless of the chaos, was a Chinese drill only when discipline broke down and the army’s morale failed.

     

     

    • This reply was modified 3 years, 3 months ago by McLaddie McLaddie.
    #8034
    McLaddie
    McLaddie
    Participant

    Reading the rest of your post, are you saying the movement rates are indicative of the “hurry up and wait” that is the transmission and resulting dissemination of orders then I guess I’d say it is a design choice as to whether to conflate those two things together or keep them separate. In many games order activation is just an instantaneous thing, if that is the case perhaps it makes sense to “make up for it” in movement rates. However, if order activation and the related delays are accounted for elsewhere, then you’d be doubling it up I’d think.

    I find the ‘hurry up and wait’ justification difficult to translate to slow movement.  The transmission and dissemination of battlefield orders for a Napoleonic army followed a fairly uniform pattern. Vernor in his Text book for the French officers’ school describes the methods.

    An army before battle is issued orders, so by the time the battle is ready to begin, everyone has their orders. They have been disseminated.  It is one reason Napoleon could wander around the battlefield at Austerlitz for several hours without issuing any orders.  The Allied commanders could spend time unscrambling traffic jams caused by units following orders because they didn’t have to issue any more.

    At the Corps level, the commander only has two or three divisions to command, and only has to transmit orders when changing the original ones.  Dissemination of his orders would take about five minutes depending on how close he is to the divisions in question.  The divisional commander has only to issue a verbal command to the division’s regulating unit to move his troops in any way he thinks necessary.  Again, may be a five minute exercise total, if that.   So we are talking about a corps to brigade transmission of orders in an average of ten minutes or less every once in a while.  And while those orders were being transmitted, the brigades in question didn’t all of a sudden stop and say, I have a this feeling we have to stand still and wait for orders.  So, how does representing that basic transmission and dissemination translate into a uniformly slow movement rate for every unit on the board.  At best it takes away all commanders’ ability and job of being sure units are maneuvering efficiently.

    The problems about order transmission often occurred outside the area covered by a table top.  The French I Corps marching between Quartre Bras and Ligny on the 16th didn’t stand still for the afternoon, and D’Erlon’s problem was receiving two orders, not one.  He counter-marched and failed to show up at either battle.

    Now, does it make sense to limit the movement of every unit in both battles because the I Corps failed to march far enough to fight in either battle?  Certainly, it was a screw-up, the possibility of which can be, and maybe should be represented in a command level issue in a set of rules.  Slowing every single unit to half or less speed doesn’t strike me as representative of anything historical.

     

    #8044
    grizzlymc
    grizzlymc
    Participant

    Bandit

    I think that the concept of COS is the one of the great parts of VLb, and its fatal weakness.  Absent that holy grail, I think that the answer lies in what a turn really is.  If it is a fixed period in which a minute and a half of action happens then most of the rule sets you quote above will see Soult on the heights in half an hour or so.  My interpretation is that in general large bodies of men did not cover wide spaces at those sorts of rates.  However, if you buy into the X minute rather than the XX minute turn you can get movement rates out of the drill book and you can take the heights at a speed which is not far off reality.

    However, when you have finished your 8 hour day (these are government employees after all), there is a possibility that some of your troops will have moved 33km, which would set a near all time record for battlefield movement in the era.  If you can slow this down with C&C and you can adjust the lethality of the weaponry in your rule set you should be able to play Napoleonic battles by the clock.  Naturally that first if will require some debate as to the maneuverability of higher formations butt it can be sorted out.

    I am setting up some brigade to division sized rules for liberators wargaming and I allow two forms of accelerated movement, the mechanisms may be of use to you:

    Double movement: unit must be in column of route and out of charge range or small arms range of an enemy unit, if fired on by artillery unit takes double casualties, ends turn disordered.

    Route march: Unit must be in column of route and out of charge range or fire range of an enemy unit, movement is (D10 -1)* normal movement.  The entire route march must be ordered in advance and a turn without movement is compulsory the turn before the route march begins and the turn after the route march ends.  The route march may only be terminated by enemy action.

    In both cases if unit is surprised by enemy fire or charge, unit is shaken and takes double casualties.

    McLaddie

    I am not proposing that the Total War series is a simulation of Napoleonic command, merely that it gives most wargamers a great leap forward into understanding that when moving people around the countryside things are much harder than they may appear on the tabletop.  Moving stuff around the countryside is actually part of my job and when people are seeing it happen for the first time, or worse, running it for the first time, the first thing that they find is that the countryside is big and that they are small.

    Soult knew his trade, he knew that his men had had bugger all to do but drill and wear out the ladies of the night in the channel ports.  It is exactly the sort of answer you might give and if it took you 30 or 40 you would be unlikely to get too many brickbats.  What we do know is that his success, with his pip bonus for being Soult, and the advantages of well drilled men, was remarked upon.  How remarkable it was brings us back to the paradox of “are they writing about this because this is how things always happened, or are they writing about it because it is noteworthy”.

    There is a quote of the peer’s about bringing a body of men into Hyde park and getting them out again.  To me, this is the commonplace of moving Napoleonic formations in real time, but we each have to choose our sources.  If Grand Tactical was what I am doing at the moment, I would look for battles with a good map record and look at how long it really took to move around a battlefield, an analysis of flank marches would get you some good numbers.

    As I said above, many rules let you come close to this speed, you simply have to manage the 32km potential traverse of the troops in the course of the battle.

    The C&C problem reminds me of Grizzly’s N squared law for lunch.

    One person can get out of the office at lunch time with ease

    Two will have a short delay whilst one sorts out a bushfire

    Three will take 9 times as long to escape

    Ten will resemble the pastoral logistics of felines.

    • This reply was modified 3 years, 3 months ago by grizzlymc grizzlymc.
    #8057
    McLaddie
    McLaddie
    Participant

    My interpretation is that in general large bodies of men did not cover wide spaces at those sorts of rates.  However, if you buy into the X minute rather than the XX minute turn you can get movement rates out of the drill book and you can take the heights at a speed which is not far off reality.

    Grizzly:

    I guess my question is what are you interpreting.  What in general was the speed at which men covered wide spaces?  How do I learn that about Napoleonic battles?  By reading what was accomplished, what military men wrote about it, and what they thought was the movement rates in general.  You and I can debate the question until cows have no homes and will be unresolved.  All we know about it is what the boots on the ground said about it. That has to be our starting point.   I don’t buy into anything but what the evidence shows. We have at least three points of reference:  The practiced rates of movement, what military men said were the general rates of movement, and then what was actually accomplished on the battlefield in general.   If we are going to generalize about what are typical movement rates, whether X or variable, we have to say we are attempting to model what was the general in reality…as close as we can determine it.

    I am not proposing that the Total War series is a simulation of Napoleonic command, merely that it gives most wargamers a great leap forward into understanding that when moving people around the countryside things are much harder than they may appear on the tabletop.  Moving stuff around the countryside is actually part of my job and when people are seeing it happen for the first time, or worse, running it for the first time, the first thing that they find is that the countryside is big and that they are small.

    I know you weren’t, but you were suggesting that is was “a great leap forward in understanding.” Compared to what?  I certainly agree that it is difficult to move large groups of people around anywhere without practice. If it is harder to move people around the countryside than it appears to be on the tabletop, that is either on purpose, or a failure of the design… if that is what you are trying to represent.  I had to move people around as part of my job too, country and city, but neither your job nor mine was like a Napoleonic officer’s.  They had their own methods, their own expectations, challenges and purposes.  That is what we are trying to get close to with the rules, right?  The writings and reports of those men  have to be the basis of any leap forward in understanding, great or small.  Those sources are really the bulk of all we know about Napoleonic warfare, including movement, chance etc.  and those the foundation of any wargame meant to model Napoleonic warfare.

    There is a quote of the peer’s about bringing a body of men into Hyde park and getting them out again.  To me, this is the commonplace of moving Napoleonic formations in real time, but we each have to choose our sources.  If Grand Tactical was what I am doing at the moment, I would look for battles with a good map record and look at how long it really took to move around a battlefield, an analysis of flank marches would get you some good numbers.

    I would think that is the place to start… looking at battles and how long it took units to move around a battlefield.  I’ve done that with a number of battles. What numbers have you come up with?

    Best Regards,  McLaddie

     

     

    • This reply was modified 3 years, 3 months ago by McLaddie McLaddie.
    #8101
    ExtraCrispy
    ExtraCrispy
    Participant

    One factor in setting movement rates is practical and has nothing to do with “realism.” Simply put, movement rates are limited by table size. In a rule set with infantry movement at 2500 yards per hour (picking a number out of the air), a ground scale of 1″ = 50 yards and a 30 minute turn, one infantry unit will move 25″ per turn. Assuming each side advances if they start 50″ apart they will lock in melee turn one. You need a 10′ wide table to allow two turns of infantry movement. And don’t get me started on cavalry where the problem becomes infinitely worse. But let’s suppose you work in reverse. You want infantry to move 2500 yards per hour. Turns are 30 minutes. You want the armies to start three turns apart, and will set the ground scale accordingly. So armies need to be 7500 yards apart. If you have a 6′ wide table, and allow 6″ at either edge deployment space so that the armies are 60″ apart, you get a ground scale of 1″=125 yards. Note you have very little deployment depth, and you need a very wide table. Frankly a 6′ wide table is a challenge to reach the center of.

    I might throw in a plug here for “Grande Armee.” Ground scale is 1″ = 100 yards. There is no set time scale as each turn represents a “period of activity.” However, each turn is comprised of a variable number of move/fight phases (normally 3 or 4). Units are brigades and generally move 6″ + 1D6 (7-12″ per phase). If we assume they move 9.5″ per phase that gives us up to 38″ per turn. So if a turn is “roughly” an hour more or less, you have a reasonable approximation of historical movement rates.

    A primary reason for movement dice, at least for me, is to prevent the perfectly choreographed maneuvers we see so often on the table top that I’m convinced rarely, if ever, happened in reality. I’m sure you’ve seen them. The battery advances 4.5″ and unlimbers. This is just enough space – with 1mm to spare – for the Dragoons to pass behind them and work their way down the flank. Meanwhile the light infantry has just enough movement to occupy the space vacated by the cavalry…..

    In addition I think random movement with some min/max works very well. You know about how fast troops move, so can predict rough rates. But the dice allow for unforeseen events (a couple low sequential low rolls means your commander got confused by the roads, or thought he spotted an enemy where none were supposed to be, or didn’t see a friendly unit where he expected one, or….). Meanwhile a couple sequential high rolls show a fighting general with his blood up driving his troops.

    I use movement dice in almost all my rules, but always with a fixed + dice structure. In skirmish you can choose to roll one or two D6 but are -1 to your shooting for each die rolled. At Grand Tactical I go with 6″ + 1D6 most of the time….

    #8105
    Not Connard Sage
    Not Connard Sage
    Participant

    Ooooh you’ve done it now Mark, with your rationalising.

     

    Apres vous, le deluge

    "I go online sometimes, but everyone's spelling is really bad. It's... depressing."

    #8106
    Bandit
    Bandit
    Participant

    Ooooh you’ve done it now Mark, with your rationalizing.

    Apres vous, le deluge

    Done what? What Mark outlined is a perfectly practical concern to discuss.

    Were you over sensitized by some terribly traumatic experience that has led to you skirt the flanks of conversations you say don’t really matter whispering “fight, fight, fight!” in everyone’s ear rather than exposing yourself by participating in the discussion in a productive manner?

    Why are you just walking around with matches hoping to find something ignitable?

    I don’t know Grizzlymc but he seems pretty reasonable in my limited experience so far. I am already aware that McLaddie and ExtraCrispy are perfectly reasonable people and I’m actively seeking discussion over argument so if you thought this was the episode of Star Trek [TOS] where the random alien creature mashes up opponents so that it can feed and grow off their violent conflict… yeah this isn’t that episode.

    Sorry, the song is unlikely to be about you, but it can include you if you can put down the taunting stick and play nice with the rest of us kids.

    Stay loose man, stay loose.

    #8107
    Not Connard Sage
    Not Connard Sage
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Not Connard Sage wrote:</div>
    Ooooh you’ve done it now Mark, with your rationalizing. Apres vous, le deluge

    Done what? What Mark outlined is a perfectly practical concern to discuss. Were you over sensitized by some terribly traumatic experience that has led to you skirt the flanks of conversations you say don’t really matter whispering “fight, fight, fight!” in everyone’s ear rather than exposing yourself by participating in the discussion in a productive manner? Why are you just walking around with matches hoping to find something ignitable? I don’t know Grizzlymc but he seems pretty reasonable in my limited experience so far. I am already aware that McLaddie and ExtraCrispy are perfectly reasonable people and I’m actively seeking discussion over argument so if you thought this was the episode of Star Trek [TOS] where the random alien creature mashes up opponents so that it can feed and grow off their violent conflict… yeah this isn’t that episode. Sorry, the song is unlikely to be about you, but it can include you if you can put down the taunting stick and play nice with the rest of us kids. Stay loose man, stay loose.

     

    Exactly. He has made the perfectly obvious point that no matter how many real life statistics you gather, translating to them to a set of tabletop rules always, without exception, demands a fudge/rationalisation/whatever you wish to call it.

     

    He made the point exceptionally well too,  so there’s no point you getting bent out of shape over a) my agreeing with him, and b) my posting style. Which, if you were to read wot i rote carefully, and not see it as a personal attack on you, contains much of what Mark wrote. Only with more circumlocution and obliqueness…

    I’m not fighting, I’m just not taking any of this very seriously. It’s not that important, but while these threads exist, and I’m a member here, I will participate. You may ignore me, or engage me. Your prerogative.

    Take your own advice, man. Stay loose.

    "I go online sometimes, but everyone's spelling is really bad. It's... depressing."

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 270 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.