Rules that offer historically accurate movement rates – are there any?

[Bandit]

Patrice wrote:

Um, no. We like the movie.

It’s you and McLaddie who are talking about camera operation (and yes, it is your right to do so and to have some threads for it).

I guess that isn’t in any conflict with what I was saying*. Essentially I was complaining that people come into the thread and complain the thread is here. I mean, there is a ton of noise making up the 6 pages and most of that noise is regarding whether it is a valid subject to even discuss. That seems downright silly. Taken Jonathan Gingerich, he says in essence [paraphrased] “I just had to come in and tell everyone that this thread is a waste of time.” Well, for Jonathan perhaps it is, but if so, coming in here and posting that seems like it is he who is choosing to waste his time.

[McLaddie]

It’s you and McLaddie who are talking about camera operation (and yes, it is your right to do so and to have some threads for it).

 

Patrice:

It was a simple question: How far are infantry units able to move on average, both under artillery fire and outside that range.  There was the rate that troops practiced, the rate that generals saw ‘in general’ as that rate and then examples of how far they moved during actual battles.  In general, all the distances agree.  IF we are talking about camera operations , then it is a operation that Napoleonic generals talked about and a ‘operation’ they used.

Jonathan G.:

At Austerlitz, ALL the troops on both sides moved between 2 and 3 miles an hour into combat except for the Allied 3rd column. That was due to muddy terrain.

Once in combat, of course the units aren’t going to move as far. They have the enemy in front of them.  As Bandit pointed out, why have all units move half speed because units don’t move much during combat.  And again, to design a game, one question that has to be asked is ‘in general’ how long did combat last?  That is more to the point. If they are in combat, the time isn’t being used to move.  Clausewitz, in his tactical study divided combat into two phases, “Destructive” and “Decisive”  Destructive combat was fire combat, and the defender wants that type of combat to last as long as possible. He wrote that Decisive combat lasted no time at all. That was the bayonet and sword where bayonets never crossed, but one side left before any contact.

Most any question a wargamer can ask about historical combat is something Napoleonic officers asked and wrote about to0.  If I am going to build a historical wargame of Napoleonic warfare, wouldn’t you want to consider their generalizations and what they saw as important?

 

 

[Jonathan Gingerich]

As Bandit pointed out, why have all units move half speed because units don’t move much during combat. 

That’s just not true.  Units move at full speed for half the turn.  It’s simple.  It’s crude.  It can cause gross distortions in the more mobile battles.  You don’t have to like it.  But you can’t honestly claim rules writers don’t understand historically accurate movement rates.  If you do, you get a snippy thread with a ton of noise that is a waste of everyone’s time.

If you acknowledge it from the start, maybe, maybe you get a meaningful discussion of the pros, cons, and alternatives.  It is a fascinating subject and some of the posts in these two centuries are informative.

Most any question a wargamer can ask about historical combat is something Napoleonic officers asked and wrote about too.  If I am going to build a historical wargame of Napoleonic warfare, wouldn’t you want to consider their generalizations and what they saw as important?

Easy to say.  But Noseworthy and Nafziger tried to collect just this, and a lot of it is sketchy or unconvincing.

[McLaddie]

That’s just not true.  Units move at full speed for half the turn.  It’s simple.  It’s crude.  It can cause gross distortions in the more mobile battles.  You don’t have to like it.  But you can’t honestly claim rules writers don’t understand historically accurate movement rates.  If you do, you get a snippy thread with a ton of noise that is a waste of everyone’s time.

Jonathan:

Uh, how is moving at full speed for half a turn different than moving half speed in a full turn?   I haven’t said anything about what rules writers do or don’t understand of  history. In most cases, I have no real idea, so couldn’t comment on it in any case.  It does seem that referencing historical evidence is considered ‘button counting.’  What I have commented on are the reasons rules writers themselves give for the shorter movement rates, including the movement being shorter because of the time taken in the combat phase and table’s physical limitations.  They are all game design-related issues, not historical.

A number of the current game solutions are simple,  crude, and cause gross distortions in any maneuver battle.  The two questions we have been attempting to discuss are 1. what were the general movement capabilities of infantry units [hadn’t even gotten to the other two arms] and 2. is there a way to portray movement without the distortion.

We really haven’t gotten to the second question because we’ve been fielding a number of  objections to this discussion:  it’s  a waste of time, it doesn’t matter, can’t be done, it’s an old worn out approach, it’s button counting, we are ignorant of game design, we are being arrogant thinking we can do something ‘better’, aren’t seeing the big picture, etc. etc.   The bottom line being:  don’t bother, it can’t be done.

I certainly agree that there are serious game design challenges to using historical movement. It seems actually discussing them draws a lot of opposition to the effort.

Easy to say.  But Noseworthy and Nafziger tried to collect just this, and a lot of it is sketchy or unconvincing.

Yes, it is easy to say, but the actual work is easier now too.  When both men wrote in the 1980s and early 90s, they didn’t have access to the vast amount of primary sources available on line that we all do now.  Brent is rewriting his 1600-1800 book.  He has been amazed by the amount of new material available. My friend and I sent him over 5000 primary source books in PDF on a flash drive. Of course, in many ways, Brent and George weren’t asking the same questions, including the questions asked here.  So, what kind of evidence and how much would be unsketchy and convincing?  That is an important question here. It is one reason you have the question answered three or more ways: practiced rate, military men’s expectations, and the evidence from actual battles.

McLaddie

 

[Bandit]

Jonathan Gingerich wrote:

Units move at full speed for half the turn.

But why do all units on the battlefield do this. I can provide a very long list of games where units designated as being “in combat” or “engaged” move at the same rate as those “outside combat” or “unengaged”. What I was asking, what McLaddie was asking, was why does everyone move slow because someone is moving slow? That is a *very common* game design mechanic.

Jonathan Gingerich wrote:

You don’t have to like it.  But you can’t honestly claim rules writers don’t understand historically accurate movement rates.  If you do, you get a snippy thread with a ton of noise that is a waste of everyone’s time.

If you acknowledge it from the start, maybe, maybe you get a meaningful discussion of the pros, cons, and alternatives.

But I didn’t claim that rule writers didn’t understand historical movement rates. I asked why they didn’t appear to be represented in rules. And I got a snipping thread right from the start. Fact is, a bunch of people just want to be snippy and it has nothing to do with how I asked the question.

Blaming me for not including a line in my original post that said something like, “Rule designers to-date are obviously not either idiots or oblivious to this so let’s have a meaningful discussion about why,” is just an excuse for people who wanted to object to the thread. No one should have to put down a bunch of qualifiers in an attempt to justify how everyone’s opinion to-date is respected just to be respected themselves. I have not, anywhere in this thread, ridiculed someone else’s rules but I’ve had it done to me – both to my posts in specific and my opinion in general.

Jonathan Gingerich wrote:

But Noseworthy and Nafziger tried to collect just this, and a lot of it is sketchy or unconvincing.

I haven’t read Noseworthy, so I limit my response to Nafzinger – George’s work focuses on doctrine and training. McLaddie and I have been focusing on large troop movements on battlefields – these are not very similar sample groups.

Secondly, as I’ve said several times and no one has yet to reply to, we aren’t saying, “It should be X,” we are saying, “If X is found to be accurate, are there problems using that movement rate in a game design and what are those?”

So far I’ve gotten two responses to those:

1) Defensive units need opportunities to react.
2) Table size.

The first can be addressed through the integration of combat and movement mechanics and many games already do it in one form or another as has been discussed here.

The second doesn’t seem to be that much of an issue since, as McLaddie has pointed out, there are games that already have “fast” movement rates and they seem like functional games.

So what is the problem?

[Bandit]

McLaddie wrote:

We really haven’t gotten to the second question because we’ve been fielding a number of  objections to this discussion:  it’s  a waste of time, it doesn’t matter, can’t be done, it’s an old worn out approach, it’s button counting, we are ignorant of game design, we are being arrogant thinking we can do something ‘better’, aren’t seeing the big picture, etc. etc.   The bottom line being:  don’t bother, it can’t be done.

Exactly, and I’ve gotta ask – what the heck is the positive result you guys (referring to anyone and everyone whose done thing in this thread) think will come of disparaging it?

[Not Connard Sage]

Bandit wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>McLaddie wrote:</div>
We really haven’t gotten to the second question because we’ve been fielding a number of objections to this discussion: it’s a waste of time, it doesn’t matter, can’t be done, it’s an old worn out approach, it’s button counting, we are ignorant of game design, we are being arrogant thinking we can do something ‘better’, aren’t seeing the big picture, etc. etc. The bottom line being: don’t bother, it can’t be done.

Exactly, and I’ve gotta ask – what the heck is the positive result you guys (referring to anyone and everyone whose done thing in this thread) think will come of disparaging it?

 

Sigh.

 

And what is yours and McLaddie’s eureka moment then chap? You’re fond of disparaging us disparagers so you must have a fundamental solution that has escaped every wargames designer from H G Wells onwards.

Let us plebs see it. I for one am breathless with anticipation of this quantum leap in wargames rules. Put up or shut the f*** up.

 

We’re waiting.

Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.

[Mike]

Watch the language please.

[Bandit]

Bandit wrote:

Exactly, and I’ve gotta ask – what the heck is the positive result you guys (referring to anyone and everyone whose done thing in this thread) think will come of disparaging it?

Not Connard Sage wrote:

And what is yours and McLaddie’s eureka moment then chap? You’re fond of disparaging us disparagers so you must have a fundamental solution that has escaped every wargames designer from H G Wells onwards.

Let us plebs see it. I for one am breathless with anticipation of this quantum leap in wargames rules. Put up or shut the f*** up.

We’re waiting.

If that was a response to my question, then what I understand is your goal is for me to leave or go silent in participating. I don’t see anything positive in that philosophy, I don’t even wish it of you and you’ve only said unkind things to me to-date.

[Mike]

People on TWW are free to talk about any gaming topic in a way that is respectful.
If anyone feels that a topic is in itself of no value, then people are free to ignore such topics.

Let people talk about things gaming related without being disrespectful of their wish to do so.
Telling people that their desire to talk about gaming matters is of no value is not respectful. (no matter how pointless it may seem to others)

If someone feels a topic is of no value, let those that feel it is of value talk about it uninterrupted and in peace.
If people are left in peace to discuss their chosen topic, they are more likely to reach a conclusion than if they feel obliged to spend their on-line time replying to people telling them they are wasting their time.

TWW is here to encourage gaming conversation and co-operation.

[Whirlwind]

Bandit wrote:

Secondly, as I’ve said several times and no one has yet to reply to, we aren’t saying, “It should be X,” we are saying, “If X is found to be accurate, are there problems using that movement rate in a game design and what are those?” So far I’ve gotten two responses to those: 1) Defensive units need opportunities to react. 2) Table size. The first can be addressed through the integration of combat and movement mechanics and many games already do it in one form or another as has been discussed here. The second doesn’t seem to be that much of an issue since, as McLaddie has pointed out, there are games that already have “fast” movement rates and they seem like functional games. So what is the problem?

Well, one game with realistic movement rates was pointed out – Kriegspiel.  But if the objections raised are no objections because several rules have dealt with them successfully, then why not just adjust the movement rate to the historical one and have done?

 

 

[Jonathan Gingerich]

I will say good day as I have no desire to turn a 200 post waste of time into a 250 post waste of time.  I have plenty of interest in the topic, but it’s not my niche and I don’t have that much substance to add.

I will leave you with a thought.  No one has stopped you from trying to provide your own answers to your many questions.  “You are wasting your time” is a sincere and respectful suggestion that the difficulties in trying to design a satisfactory gaming experience from a bottom up approach will be overwhelming.  If you don’t agree, well, get on with it.  Wallowing in imagined injury benefits no one.

[Sam Mustafa]

but to reiterate something McLaddie asked earlier in the thread [Paraphrased]: Sure, the unit that moves into a firefight spends part of its time moving and part of its time fighting and part of its time running away, etc… But what about the guy who does nothing but move all turn and is no where near the enemy. Why does he move at the same sluggish rate as does the fighting unit? Why does *everyone* slow down because one unit is doing more than moving?

 

No, I wrote that, not McLaddie.  And at the time, when I wrote it, you found a page or so of logical problems with it and shot it down.

Now that you’ve erroneously recalled that McLaddie wrote it, you’re quoting it as a useful insight.

For the original quote in context, and why you thought it was nonsense at the time, see Page 3, Post 13-09-14, 22:50.

This is why people get exasperated;  not because they object to honest questions, but rather because they eventually deduce that the questions aren’t real questions and are in fact just an excuse to sustain an endless argument on any and every conceivable side of an issue.

[repiqueone]

Amen, Sam.

 

 

[Bandit]

Jonathan Gingerich wrote:

No one has stopped you from trying to provide your own answers to your many questions.  “You are wasting your time” is a sincere and respectful suggestion that the difficulties in trying to design a satisfactory gaming experience from a bottom up approach will be overwhelming.  If you don’t agree, well, get on with it.  Wallowing in imagined injury benefits no one.

This is ridiculous.

Sam Mustafa wrote:

No, I wrote that, not McLaddie.  And at the time, when I wrote it, you found a page or so of logical problems with it and shot it down.

Now that you’ve erroneously recalled that McLaddie wrote it, you’re quoting it as a useful insight.

For the original quote in context, and why you thought it was nonsense at the time, see Page 3, Post 13-09-14, 22:50.

I was referring to McLaddie’s post #8034: http://www.thewargameswebsite.com/forums/topic/rules-that-offer-historically-accurate-movement-rates-are-there-any/#post-8034

McLaddie wrote:

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.

Which is on page #2.

Sam Mustafa wrote:

This is why people get exasperated;  not because they object to honest questions, but rather because they eventually deduce that the questions aren’t real questions and are in fact just an excuse to sustain an endless argument on any and every conceivable side of an issue.

I think I’ve stayed rather on-topic outside of replying to people who keep telling me my thread is worthless. If you think it is so worthless, stop replying to it.

repiqueone wrote:

Amen, Sam.

Mike, Look here is the issue ,and it has nothing to do with freedom to spreak up or any wish to deny someone his chance to state his views. It is simply that for 10-15 years McLaddie and whatever sucker he can lure into joining him, has opined, offered his pronouncements, and critiqued a whole range of established designers who have ACTUALLY WRITTEN SOMETHING that can be read, tested, and examined for its mechanics, history, and entertainment value. He has followed a number of us to every forum and ALWAYS offers up the same bullshit based on his reading of the secret texts and stating how his insights indicate this is the way to design a game or not. He is the wargame equaivalent of a stalker. When challenged he alludes to his many designs and NEVER offers where one may find this sterling example of design that demonstrates his ideas. Several established designers eventually give up and move on, but Bill Hagerty just follows them wherever they go.

He is invested in writing long meaningless and rambling observations that he thinks make him look informed and insightful, but NEVER lead to any measurable result, published rules, books, or conclusions. He apparently has more time than any of us to write his epistles, and after a decade or so, he becomes that bore that shows up at a good party and causes everyone to excuse themselves and leave as quickly as they can.

Sam is also correct that he can be found, over the years, to take whatever position that keeps a thread going. (Good God! This one is at 213!)

I can name a half dozen designers who would love to discuss design issues, history, and how one crafts rules that simply will not discuss anything on a thread that Bill H. shows up on. This thread is a perfect example of why.

Message 2 to Bandit could have simply been,” The distance moved is completely at the discretion of the designer if it fits the design construct of the game.” It sure as hell has nothing to do with winnowing out meaningless data from period tomes and beating it senseless with a heavy mallet!

If Analsim shows up then the Rabbithole Twins are united again! The bad news is that it is on your forum!

Wow. Talk about the opposite of what Mike wants this venue to be about.

Bill didn’t follow you or Sam to this thread, Bill posted in this thread before either of you did. He also hasn’t ripped on anyone else’s rules in this thread. What I actually get out of this is that you and Sam really dislike Bill and that dominates everything you post in this thread.

Mike said be nice and if you’re not interested in someone’s posts ignore them and move onto threads that do interest you. I don’t know what your problem is that causes you to take such personal offense or post such hateful sentiments but geez man, none of what you have referred to as justification has occurred in this thread. Leave it at the door.

[repiqueone]

AS luck would have it, Bandit, I thought about my posting BEFORE you reposted it (Check the times)and took it down in the interest of not feeding the squirrels,  But, since you have done me the honor of reposting it, I know of nothing in that post that is not true and has not been for a long, long time.

 

[Angel Barracks]

If people object to Bandit starting a post about something, as they think it is pointless, don’t reply to it.
If it is indeed pointless what is the point in replying?
If it turns out it is drivel, good for Bandit, he is allowed to post drivel, as long as it is gaming drivel.
If it turns out other people actually like what he says and join in the conversation then good, that is what TWW is for.

I started a thread a few years back about initiative modifiers and terrain, and nearly every response was that my idea was pointless and why would I even bother.
In the end I stopped trying to discuss the mechanic as people mostly kept repeating the idea was of no value, had they offered some insight as to how the mechanics were flawed that would have been ok, that would have been helpful.
But saying that the mechanic was flawed before I even had chance to develop it made for a very negative experience.
So much so in fact, that the mob mentality around ganging up and belittling my idea drove me away from that site.

Some people will never see eye to eye about things, they may think the other person deluded for thinking as they do.
Just be polite about it.

People have the right to talk about gaming topics on TWW without being harassed or insulted.
All people.

[Patrice]

Angel Barracks wrote:

I started a thread a few years back about initiative modifiers and terrain, and nearly every response was that my idea was pointless

May I suggest that it is not what is happening here.

There would probably not be many problems if this thread was about:

1) genuinely discussing movement rates in wargames.

But it is not.

It is about:

2) all? Napoleonic wargame rules being grossly inaccurate because they don’t meet a very precise view of movement rates.

This is what the title implies, and it has been written in some of the posts. It’s not surprising that many people feel unhappy (and even insulted) about this, and raise objections. But then they are told that they disrupt the thread.

 

 

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

[Mike]

Patrice wrote:

But then they are told that they disrupt the thread.

Not Connard Sage wrote:

Put up or shut the f*** up.

This is not acceptable and is not constructive and is disruptive.

[McLaddie]

No, I wrote that, not McLaddie.  And at the time, when I wrote it, you found a page or so of logical problems with it and shot it down.

Now that you’ve erroneously recalled that McLaddie wrote it, you’re quoting it as a useful insight.

For the original quote in context, and why you thought it was nonsense at the time, see Page 3, Post 13-09-14, 22:50.

This is why people get exasperated;  not because they object to honest questions, but rather because they eventually deduce that the questions aren’t real questions and are in fact just an excuse to sustain an endless argument on any and every conceivable side of an issue.

Actually Sam, you wrote this:

* Although if the truth be told, even the guys who do all that research and math and think that they’ve figured out a system by which they’ve got their miniatures marching at an historically-accurate rate per turn… still pile on the fudge when it comes to things like advancing after combat, or falling back after combat, or changing formation when the enemy attacks, and so on.

Take for example, two battalions, A and B.  Battalion A marches across the field, nowhere near the enemy, and is done.  Battalion B marches the same distance across the field, attacks the enemy, presumably fights him for a while, and then falls back from that combat.

If they had the same movement rate, and that movement rate was based upon what their historical counterparts could have done in X-number of minutes, then how did B manage to find all that extra time to do so many more things?  What was A doing all that time, just standing and watching?

 

I other words, I have asked why designers choose that mechanic and what it represents.  Sam presented the situation as an example of ‘even those guys who do all the research…still pile up the fudge.”  In other words, the situation is presented as an example of why it’s pointless to do all that research or bother with the question..

One is a question of options and game design reasons behind it, the other proof that the question is pointless. Me, I’m asking why such a wide-spread game convention is necessary in the first place, and what might work in the procedure’s place.  Sam presents it as an example of why there is no reason to bother with the question.

And that is just as exasperating. We are asking game design questions and folks come and insist that it’s pointless.   When we respond, dealing with the issues raised, are then faulted for not getting to our questions.

 

 

[McLaddie]

And what is yours and McLaddie’s eureka moment then chap? You’re fond of disparaging us disparagers so you must have a fundamental solution that has escaped every wargames designer from H G Wells onwards.

Well, aside of the hyberpole concerning every designer since H G Wells, we have never said we had the answers, and are being disparaged for asking the questions.

[Samantha]

I can see that this thread is getting frustrating for people and I have a suggestion.

Is it worth leaving this thread for now as people are feeling that it is being pulled off topic and starting a new ‘back to basics’ thread on Historically Accurate Movement Rates?

All opinions are welcome on The Wargames Website but sometimes it is best to cut and run on a topic when passions run high and there is a risk that the expression of opinion becomes seen as a personal sleight.

There has been some interesting discussion on here but also some instances of personal attack (sometimes disguised and sometimes not so much.) I think a healthy approach may be to step away from the conversation for a short while, have some time to contemplate things outside the topic, and then try again later?

Of course you can ignore my suggestions but it is worth a try!

 

 

Never put a sock in a toaster.

[Bandit]

Samantha wrote:

Is it worth leaving this thread for now as people are feeling that it is being pulled off topic and starting a new ‘back to basics’ thread on Historically Accurate Movement Rates?

I’m happy to, I’ll put it in the Game Design forum (which didn’t exist when I started this thread).

Maybe lock / close this thread so that it doesn’t take on a life of its own after attempting to move productive conversation elsewhere?

[repiqueone]

Editor Sam,

I  don’t see any need for moving or locking this topic, as from several emails I have received, I suspect that several posters will not be back on this thread.  It can proceed to its typical endpoint without further “disruption”.  If you’d like to see the desert that can be created by certain commentators, I suggest you go to the VLB forum on Yahoo!  It is largely post free since 2013.

I suspect Bandit(Analsim?) will continue his quest without further comment on its purposes.

I wish you and your forum all the best and the best of luck.  It’s purpose is laudable and it is well moderated.  It would be refreshing if it did provide a good sounding board for designers, publishers, and developers of rule sets.

[Bandit]

repiqueone wrote:

I suspect Bandit(Analsim?) will continue his quest without further comment on its purposes.

I don’t know if ‘analsim’ is the reference to another user name or a derogatory remark. I’ll presume it is the former to which I can tell you, the only username I’ve used on any wargaming forum or mailing list is ‘bandit’ or on mailing lists the e-mail address from which I’ve subscribed which has never been anything even remotely similar to ‘analsim’.

I’m really disappointed that you see questioning the way things have been done as a form of very cruel criticism. For my part, that is not, nor has it been my intent. I wish you and others would just take what I write at face value rather than adding any meaning to it, during the course of this thread it has had a negative result.

[Jonathan Gingerich]

Bandit,

I see nothing in Repiqueone’s postings that suggests he considers your musings “very cruel criticism”.  Why don’t you present your position and let Repiqueone speak for himself?  I’m still pretty hazy on what point you have been trying to make.  We don’t need The Miniatures Page – part deux.

I’m sure Mike and Sam will figure it out sooner or later…;-)

 

JG

[1 yorks]

Well we are 220 + posts in and I am none the wiser. From my point of view I can accept non historical,  firing in one phase,  charging in another and to top it all morale after all that, oh and fit in a bit of movement. A few well published game designers have put forward there design philosophy which I mostly agree with. I actually use some of them. I pose the question are any rules truly historical or are they mainly a flavour of each period based on historical fact. If historical move rates are desired  then where dose it stop for accuracy do we count every bullet I don’t recall any rules that allow for slower rates of fire as time goes on or fouling of muskets etc. As some one has said I am really looking forward today this mystical set of rules that mcladdie and bandit seem to be writing.

[Bandit]

1 yorks wrote:

As some one has said I am really looking forward today this mystical set of rules that mcladdie and bandit seem to be writing.

Why is it mystical to ask why units don’t move as fast on the tabletop as they do in history books?

1 yorks wrote:

If historical move rates are desired  then where dose it stop for accuracy do we count every bullet I don’t recall any rules that allow for slower rates of fire as time goes on or fouling of muskets etc.

This is an argument to obscurity. You just said that any attempt to make anything representative with any level of accuracy requires extreme accuracy in all things? That doesn’t make any sense.

The opposite would be someone claiming if historical movement rates are not important, why don’t you use battlecruisers in your Napoleonic games? Also, obviously non-sensical.

[Bandit]

Jonathan Gingerich wrote:

Why don’t you present your position and let Repiqueone speak for himself?  I’m still pretty hazy on what point you have been trying to make.

I was struck by how it is largely impossible in a wide variety of rule sets for troops to cover the same ground they did in the same time they did historically. My random but unscientific sampling seems to indicate they are commonly 15-60% slower than “history”.

That caused me to wonder why rule sets were designed the way they are regarding movement and if there were any inherent problems with faster movement rate.

If someone wrote a set of rules where units moved ~75 yards per minute on average during 20 minute turns, what needs to be addressed that can be ignored in rule sets with slower movement?

Are any problems caused by “fast / historical movement” actually insurmountable? Are any of them actually just perception problems that can be outright ignored?

[poniatowski]

This is why condensed turns do not make sense to me…. time is exaggerated to represent so much more than movement…

It is easily handled by having longer actual turns with more than one phase or pulse…. unengaged units can move more then engaged units…

Turns need ot be be more subdivided. if you keep to historical movement rates in combat, I htink we can all agree… a turn divided into shorter phases can more accurately represent the real worls.

By introducing multiple phases you can have a commander who is unengaged…. march… march… whiel someoen els emight march- deploy, whilst another engages the whoel turn with 2 fire phases..

Abstracting “out” real life, proven D=R*T.. seems absurd… time is time and must be accounted for… the abstratc of “averaging” what a unit can do in an ghour or half hour isn’t even practical….. because if one unit is engaged for an hour whilst another moves for a full hour will give 2 totally different situations.

Take your turn, divide it up into some “accepted” ratio of time…. and then have at the “action sequence”….

You must account for the speed at which unengaged troops can move and random activation although cool, can easily be incorporated as a “mechanism” based upon the leaders tactical ability: poor -2, fair -1, average 0, good +1, excellent +2…..

A unit that is fighting, running away, advancing, skirmishing, etc… will not cover the same ground as even a cautious commander who is advancing unengaged.

I understand the question clearly… I guess because my play style dictates how important maneuvering is (D=R*T) and I play grand scale games on a tactical/company level…. deployment and formation change is key during a battle…. not a dice mechanic that is set up to give historic outcomes…. any game that allows a French player to “mechanically” win or places th eodds in their favor because it wa shistorically so is not very historic at all… it is the troops and commanders and what they did and how they did it that wins the game.. not.. “Oh, he is French… they will win this”…. even the best of armies, even if poorly led will fail.

It is very important to include the different leader’s personalities.. I get that, that is why I have 2 ratings.. tactical and charisma…. the modifier range is big enough that if helps build historical outcomes…. or at least adds to it… their ratings affect how quickly they can act upon orders (which by the way.. does represent the time to pass th eorders to the ranks, dress the ranks, etc….).

I do not consider “predictable” movement rates ot be tired and old… it is, in fact, what the leaders depended upon when planning their battles…

The old guard does NOT always win…. especially in commanded by a bafoon.

What you are saying here it seems is that the games became too predictable… you know the stats, the rates, the charts, etc… well, that is what happens over time. Writing a new set of rules that is fun for you I have no problems with…. but don’t tread on folks who still enjoy it.

The question was very straight forward…. and I think answered…  so much can happen in so much time…. I just find it better to micro manage the time rather than to abstract it… so, why not just set all of the figures up and  each commander rolls a d10…. the French add +5, Russians subtract 1 and the Brits add 3…. high roll wins….. you can do all sorts of things to force a historical outcome….. and then say, hey, it works…. 9 out of ten times the French win this battle just like they did in history.. this game is awesome! Does that really mean the game is, in fact historical.. or even fun.. if it works for you that is fine…. but some of us have not given up on the D=R*T because ti was so very important in real life. We prefer mechanics that reflect that.

So, I guess, in conclusion, I woud say a turn that has multiple phases works better than an abstracted one because if the turn is indeed an hour… and it is broken down into say some time allotment that represent a good standard of unit that can be reflected historically… the phase must be at least long enough for a unit to deploy… so on average a 6-10 min turn…

I quote:

Movement phase:

XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX uses a different system for movement compared to other games. The tactics of the era have shown that infantry moved quickly to maneuver into the best field position they could before engaging the enemy. Once there however, they would typically form into line and initiate volley fire, usually at extreme ranges, which would eventually lead to one side or the other wavering or breaking, which would then ultimately lead to an advantage where the other side would charge and attempt to drive their enemy from the field. Cavalry was used to exploit growing weakness in the enemy’s line while protecting their own. During the movement phase, any unit that does not have a charge order cannot move any closer than x” to an enemy unit. When a charge order is issued, XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX, in an effort to re-create the tactics employed, uses a maximum charge range with a cary through value. Depending on the type of unit and their formation, a unit cannot start a charge unless it is in a legal charge formation and within it’s charge range or closer and has a charge order. The charge range represents the typical distance a unit would try to achieve before a charge was launched. Men and Horses have their limits and a charge of any length could leave the attackers winded and ineffective in melee. Yes, a man charging across a field can run farther, but at what cost to his units order or his endurance and ability to fight? An army is only as strong as it’s weakest link.

 

 

 

[McLaddie]

I  don’t see any need for moving or locking this topic, as from several emails I have received, I suspect that several posters will not be back on this thread.  It can proceed to its typical endpoint without further “disruption”.  If you’d like to see the desert that can be created by certain commentators, I suggest you go to the VLB forum on Yahoo!  It is largely post free since 2013.

 

Bob:

I don’t either, but whatever Mike and Sam thinks is needed is fine with me.

One has to ask, Bob. If that desert is what you see as an end point for this discussion, why didn’t you simply didn’t let it go?  There had been no mention of you or Sam M. or your games when you came to ‘the desert’ and started throwing up sand.  Sam left TMP after disliking my answer to a direct question on a thread I’d started…  So why is he here again on this thread? I have no problem with c0-existence here, or on the TMP.

That isn’t to say you can’t or shouldn’t be here.  I just wonder why are you here?

Of course, you could actually talk about game design and answer some questions I have already asked about your claims made on the thread:

1. What do you mean when you characterize the games you and Sam design as uniquely a  ‘Narrative Game’ when all wargames are narrative in construction and play experience? [i.e.  a progression of events and decisions with a beginning and end, creating a story of battle?]

2.  How do you avoid the ‘archaic’ D=T*R  formula for your designs and for the players?  That is, how do you avoid determining how far a unit can move in a turn when designing a game [variable or not]  and how do you keep the players from being concerned about how far they can move in a turn, calculating that dreaded D=T*R, even if it is a probability?

3. How are your new, less archaic games better [thank God] and more ‘narrative’ than those designed twenty or thirty years ago like Napoleon’s Last Battles or Fire & Fury?

McLaddie

PS: That is a rather snarky thing to say about VLB, particularly since it’s designer passed away.  The activity on the VLB Yahoo group’s first four years 2001-2004 compares rather well [and with a larger membership than yours] to the first four years of the Repique yahoo group.  That is saying something when George’s  game was never commercially published.

 

[McLaddie]

A real tension in a battle was the army’s efforts to train troops to predictability, so that commanders could actually plan, estimate and determine what could be done.  Obviously,  fortune and the enemy worked against that predictability.  This is why training was so important.  Napoleonic general knew this, worked to mitigate the elements of chance and have methods for countering events caused by chance.

And just as obviously, they were successful sometimes and sometimes not.  In designing a Napoleonic game there has to be that tension between predictability and chance, even in movement.  Different games handle that differently, from rolling for activation to rolling for movement distances.  Any game attempting to model battle would have that predictability/chance there.

The first question to ask when games are built on the probability of something happening is to ask  ‘in general’ / on average / usually how far did troops move?  Only then can you see what a ‘realistic’ variable would be in determining the chance that a unit would do better or worse.

[Jonathan Gingerich]

One has to ask, Bob. If that desert is what you see as an end point for this discussion, why didn’t you simply didn’t let it go?

Oh the irony!

[Bandit]

Jonathan Gingerich wrote:

One has to ask, Bob. If that desert is what you see as an end point for this discussion, why didn’t you simply didn’t let it go?
Oh the irony!

That isn’t really an example of irony. Also, since Bill has put forward ideas while Bob has primarily said the conversation was 1) worthless 2) doomed to remain such – it makes sense that Bill would continue to post in the thread, he obviously believes the topic of conversation is useful, it makes less sense that Bob would continue to post because he has consistently said he does not think the topic has value.

[rob shackleton]

Could we start again with this and could those ‘experts’ who are not really interested go off and do something else. Please God this aint TMP!

[poniatowski]

Hey, I am trying to input thoughts, add to the original question,etc…. stay on topic.

It seems some folks are more interested in opening old wounds or grudges???

McLaddie does hit one are nicely…. there are 2 areas I have issues with (struggled with myself).

1. activation to move rolls add a very nice element of FOW… can you really count on those troops to do what you want? it depends upon how well trained they are and how well led. (modifiers will set the pace there, easily done)…

2. rolls to see how far a unit will move…. another idea I like…. it represents the confusion in the ranks.. dressing ranks, closing gaps, etc…

Both of these, however great ideas, I did not use in my system because I thought they were “copywrited” mechanics so to speak. I have a draft of my rules that uses both, but yes… they are great mechanics that really pull together all we know about the era.  For starters… leaders are very important… I cannot emphasize that enough, but you guys know that. Leaders can be both great inspirations to their troops and great tactical minds on the field…. or they can be the opposite in both or one or whatever… The point is…. combining the troops class: conscript, vereran, elite and the commander’s abilities… both as a modifiers respectively… you can take a d10 roll add in the mods and there you have the units chance to “activate”… whether it be to withdraw, move, etc… then easily enough, you have rolls to see how far they move and have in there mods based upon not the troop type, but proximity to battle…. engaged, unengaged….

It is hard enough to get troops to do anything in the field onc ethey have been engaged and then to motivate them on top of that to do something else…. easily put into polished dice rolls that can actively reflect history, add fog of war, etc….

And all of this is directly related to D=R*T… in the turn, the leader can unsuccessfully motivate (activate) his troops the first phase andf then do it in the second phase… leading to a movement which is only half of what they coudl have gotten to start and then you have to dice for distance…

It all works rather well and accounts for all necessary issues that might arise….  and, more importantly, comes off very historic as the chances are directly related to training and leadership…

Will those conscripts withraw in an orderly manner or break and flee…..?

[willz]

Wow? I have just read these posts, seems a bit high brow for me.  All I do is roll me dice, hope for the best and enjoy my hobby.  I personally don’t want to much realism in my games as I use them too escape the druggy of every day life.  Its a great hobby, enjoy it, praise it, share it but try not to disrespect it or each other.

[rob shackleton]

By the way what is this mysterious ‘D=R*T’ – it is not a Napoleonic term I am familiar with

[McLaddie]

By the way what is this mysterious ‘D=R*T’ – it is not a Napoleonic term I am familiar with.

It’s a term Bob Jones brought to the discussion.  It is Distance equals Rate of speed X  Time.   It is basically how far can something go in ‘X’ amount of time.  So, in this discussion I was saying that Napoleonic officers estimated a line of battalions under fire could move R*T=D  or [75 yards per minute]R over [twenty minutes]T equals [1500 yards]D.  Bandit and I noted that most all 19th Century wargames have units moving at half that speed. Designers have given a number of game design related reasons for this, but it is odd that it seems to be a pretty standard convention, rather than a ‘fungible’ concept as Bob J. suggested.

Wow? I have just read these posts, seems a bit high brow for me.  All I do is roll me dice, hope for the best and enjoy my hobby.  I personally don’t want to much realism in my games as I use them to escape the druggy of every day life.  Its a great hobby, enjoy it, praise it, share it but try not to disrespect it or each other.

Well, that’s the difference between simply playing a wargame for fun and a discussion of how to design one.  Generally, those discussions are fun too, and lots of wargamers indulge in them, if only to create scenarios and new mechanics for published wargames. However, lots of gamers create their own wargames as part of the hobby–for fun.  There is no requirement to want or need realism in our games. I play wargames that are anything but coherent representations of history and war, with zero ‘realism’, but they are fun games.

However, IF and when I want to design a game that recreates military history –whether a little bit or a lot–you have to ask what history is being used as the model or template and how to represent it in game mechanics.  That was sort of where this was going until some posters wanted to insist that the questions were pointless.

If you are seriously attempting to ‘game’ history, a designer even has to ask what the differences are between ‘a little bit’ of realism and a whole lot–or what ‘realism’ means for that matter. While those are actually nitty-gritty questions about practical game design, it certainly can sound ‘highbrow’.

McLaddie

[McLaddie]

1. activation to move rolls add a very nice element of FOW… can you really count on those troops to do what you want? it depends upon how well trained they are and how well led. (modifiers will set the pace there, easily done)…

2. rolls to see how far a unit will move…. another idea I like…. it represents the confusion in the ranks.. dressing ranks, closing gaps, etc…

P:

1. I guess my response to the activation rolls is “How often did ‘non-activation’ occur?”  A lot or very seldom?  And if it did depend on how well troops were trained, what was the difference in behaviors between poorly and well-trained troops.  In other words, what’s the evidence for this and if we are going to have a die roll for activation, what was the historical probability of activation?

2. Here again, how long did dressing the ranks take? Passing obstacles, closing gaps?  How often was it done, and even if it was, did if slow down movement?  I gave the example of a well-documented movement of the Confederate divisioins during Pickett’s Charge.  They moved 1400-1600 yards in twenty minutes.  They were under heavy artillery fire the entire way, dressed by division twice, crossed two fence lines and at one point wheeled inward targeting the ‘clump of trees’,  condensing the formations.  They still moved at @ 75 yards per minute. Leith’s division at Salamanca at one point had to split to move around a village and also stopped to dress lines by division [not company or battalion or brigade]. The division still achieved 75 yards per minute in the advance.  So, the question has to be, how much time could be lost by such procedures? In general, did it cost time at all?  [Napoleonic troops were even trained to dress lines on the move, though they didn’t in those two examples.]

That isn’t to say activation and variable movement aren’t possible game mechanics. I’m simply asking what history they represent.  The question is both an event and frequency of event issue here.

Mcladdie

[Author]

Posts