Army size limits

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Army size limits

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Crown of Glory: Emperor's Edition >> Army size limits

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Army size limits - 3/10/2009 11:41:42 AM

Jim D Burns

Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline

Why on earth are the army sizes limited to x units based on terrain? Given these artificial limits, Borodino would be impossible to fight, and forget Leipzig...

Please remove these artificial limits. I can see delaying reinforcement entry times significantly in rough terrain provinces, but shaving your maximum army size allowed on map down to 17, 15, 12 or whatever size is just plain not historically accurate. It�s a gimmick and should not be a part of an historical wargame.

Perhaps adding an option to use the limits or not upon scenario launch would be better, in case anyone wants it in for some reason.

Jim

P.S. Oh yeah, and please, please quadruple (at a minimum) the size of the naval battle maps.

_____________________________

Post #: 1

RE: Army size limits - 3/10/2009 6:00:45 PM

Russian Guard

Posts: 1251
Joined: 10/14/2005
Status: offline

I respectfully disagree Jim, if you calculate these numbers its very easy to have a Borodino-size battle, and much larger in fact. Agreed Leipzig would be tough to match, but Leipzig was actually several large engagements fought over several days.

Example:

Base limit = 22
Random 0 to +3
+1 Defender
Reinforcements (usually a Division or two over the Battle limit)

In open terrain (such as Borodino) this would equate to a possible 26+ Divisions, or 220,000+ troops for one side (assuming some Artillery in there) - much larger than either side at Borodino.

I'm in agreement with you on increasing the size of Naval maps, although not as big as you suggest ;-)

< Message edited by Russian Guard -- 3/10/2009 6:01:09 PM >

(in reply to Jim D Burns)

Post #: 2

RE: Army size limits - 3/10/2009 7:20:33 PM

Jim D Burns

Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Russian Guard

I respectfully disagree Jim, if you calculate these numbers its very easy to have a Borodino-size battle, and much larger in fact. Agreed Leipzig would be tough to match, but Leipzig was actually several large engagements fought over several days.

Example:

Base limit = 22
Random 0 to +3
+1 Defender
Reinforcements (usually a Division or two over the Battle limit)

In open terrain (such as Borodino) this would equate to a possible 26+ Divisions, or 220,000+ troops for one side (assuming some Artillery in there) - much larger than either side at Borodino.

I'm in agreement with you on increasing the size of Naval maps, although not as big as you suggest ;-)

Well this site:

http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/Borodino_battle.htm

lists 37 infantry and cavalry divisions (not including any artillery units) for the French. The Russian Army isn�t broken down into divisions but I believe they had more individual divisions on the field than the French did.

But my point is the artificial limits to the number of units are just that. It�s artificial and has no basis in reality whatsoever. Name one battle where either side had to leave units out of the fight because the number of units present in their army was too many� it's just silly.

As to quadrupling the map size, currently my fleets span from one edge of the map to the other at start with a second row created because I have too many ships for a single battle line. If you quadruple the map size, that�ll add 1 1\2 the current distance to each side of the map.

After extending the line to one single battle line, I think it�ll leave about one maps worth of open water on either flank of the fleet for room to maneuver in, so I don�t think that is unreasonable.

Jim

< Message edited by Jim D Burns -- 3/10/2009 7:21:55 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Russian Guard)

Post #: 3

RE: Army size limits - 3/10/2009 7:32:15 PM

Russian Guard

Posts: 1251
Joined: 10/14/2005
Status: offline

I think it was George Will who said "reasonable men of good conscience can agree to disagree honorably".

In CoG, Divisions are usually at or near full strength when they fight (10,000). At Borodino, most Divisions were severely under-strength; just a few thousands per Division in some cases. I love the site you reference, and I believe it states that rough estimates of either side at Borodino was in the range of 135,000 to 155,000 troops per side.

Ideally I guess, battle limits would be based on number of troops, not Divisions. I remember being quite perturbed playing Empires in Arms when a Corps - whether it had 1 factor or 30 factors - counted as a Corps for all purposes. In any event, I think the system works well in depicting reasonable battle sizes for the period.

(in reply to Jim D Burns)

Post #: 4

RE: Army size limits - 3/10/2009 7:41:14 PM

Jim D Burns

Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Russian Guard
In any event, I think the system works well in depicting reasonable battle sizes for the period.

Unless of course your divisions are under strength, then you're stuck with an unreasonably tiny army due to these artificial limits. That�s the problem with the system, it assumes you�ll have full strength divisions, something that I rarely have after one or two big battles.

So it only works when you�re fresh and at full strength. But once you start fighting, the limits become a severe handicap. Especially if a fresh power attacks you a year into a war or something. All his units are 10k strong and yours are only 3-5k or so.

So even if you have 300,000 men in your big army, his 180,000 man army will whip it every time due to artificial limits preventing you from fielding all 300,000 of your men.

Jim

Edit: And don't even get me started on battles where all your artillery and cavalry show up, but most of the infantry is left out because of the crazy limits, it just plain doesn't work well for what it is supposed to try and do.

< Message edited by Jim D Burns -- 3/11/2009 9:36:23 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Russian Guard)

Post #: 5

RE: Army size limits - 3/10/2009 8:29:10 PM

morganbj

Posts: 3634
Joined: 8/12/2007
From: Mosquito Bite, Texas
Status: offline

Well, I look at this in another way. I don't see the units as divisions per se, but as "chits" or groups of 8-10,000 men. Divisions were never much more than 6,000 in actuality, even when at "full" strength. I felt the same way you did when COG came out and researched the number of engagements where large numbers of divisions were present and found that while there may have been 30 divisions, most were not anywhere near 8,000 in strength. After a few months of campaigning, they were down to 2,500 to 3,000 in most cases.

The size if the army should be thought of as the total number of men. An army of 180,000 was large in those days. While there were certainly times when battles were upwards of 400,000 combined strenghth, those were relativey rare. The vast majority of the significant actions were about half that.

I see your point about the restriction in the number of units involved, and in some ways I agree with it, but if you're truly using Napoleon's strategy, you'll have a second army (or several corps) close enough to call in as reinforcements. That's what actually happened many, many times. A battle would start, and would grow in size as more and more units arrived. That is replicated very well in the game. Most times I start a battle with fifteen or twenty "divisions," but by the next day, I have many more. That's pretty close to correct, I think.

Borodino, for example, had a French strength of about 130,000 men. In game terms, that's about 16 units of 8,000 strength. That's very doable. If each unit is at 6,000 strength, that's 22 divisions. Surely, one can muster that with an army reinforced by a corps on the second day.

(in reply to Jim D Burns)

Post #: 6

RE: Army size limits - 3/10/2009 9:02:45 PM

Jim D Burns

Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan
Borodino, for example, had a French strength of about 130,000 men.� In game terms, that's about 16 units of 8,000 strength.� That's very doable.� If�each unit is�at 6,000 strength, that's�22 divisions.� Surely,�one can muster that with an army reinforced by a corps on the second day.

That isn�t fair, you�re looking at just the final battle and assuming things are reasonable if you can somehow fudge the numbers in a mathematical breakdown of the systems upper limit *possibilities* without putting it into context of the campaign in question.

Napoleon began the invasion of Russia with 600,000 men. His army suffered from attrition and battle casualties and only had 180,000 or so left by the time Borodino was fought. So he had lost 2/3rds of his beginning strength levels by the time Borodino rolled around.

You�re 22 unit estimate gives a max army size of 220,000 (10k per unit) in the game, which is nowhere near the 600,000 men he began with. But even so, if they lost 2/3rds of their strength, those 22 invading units would fight with only 67,000 or so men by the time a Borodino rolled around.

In the current system we have, 600,000 men would be about 60 full strength divisions, of which at best a little over 1/3rd of those units could ever participate in any given battle (usually far less than that).

Now assuming your 60 unit army suffers the same level of attrition Napoleons army did as you advance into Russia. Your 60 units would have strengths of about 3,000 men (180,000/60) per division by the time a Borodino was fought. Using Russian Guards estimate of upper limits for units on the field gives us 26 * 3000 = 78,000 men, still far too few.

So artificial limits make a Borodino battle impossible with the current system. Unless of course you are fighting your very first fight of a war with full strength units. But a long campaign with a large battle at the end? No way will it even be close to historical.

Jim

_____________________________

(in reply to morganbj)

Post #: 7

RE: Army size limits - 3/10/2009 9:16:49 PM

barbarossa2

Posts: 915
Joined: 1/17/2006
Status: offline

The amount of troops a region can field should be limited only by the level of cultivation, the rules and practices with which the army lives off the land, the season, and the amount of supply it is receiving from outside which goes to those troops, and the density and quality of the road network over which these supplies travel. I too feel that placing artificical caps on unit density is a-historical and a gimmick used to cover for weaknesses in the modelling of these other factors.

When you exceed this number which the region can support, people start dying or falling ill. And the more you have there, the faster it happens.

I would prefer a system like this over arbitrary caps on density.

< Message edited by barbarossa2 -- 3/10/2009 9:23:50 PM >

(in reply to Jim D Burns)

Post #: 8

RE: Army size limits - 3/11/2009 12:25:56 AM

Mr. Z

Posts: 1048
Joined: 3/24/2005
Status: offline

But there are also geographical concerns. One of the motivations for battle limits was the notion that it should be highly unlikely to impossible to fight a Borodino-scale battle in, say, the Swiss Alps, or in the middle of the Pripyat. Or in Libya or the fjords of Norway.

Tying battle limits to something like Forage value could be interesting--though it might take a subsequent review of forage values. Say the square of the value as a very rough estimate. Perhaps a depot or a road could add a handful of units to the count.

I do feel that limits should be in place, though, even if they may need to be raised higher.

I agree that calling reinforcements can easily bring any battle to a Borodino-scale, though I admit I couldn't promise they would arrive on the same day.

(in reply to barbarossa2)

Post #: 9

RE: Army size limits - 3/11/2009 2:14:38 AM

barbarossa2

Posts: 915
Joined: 1/17/2006
Status: offline

Dear Mr. Z, :)

I would like to say, that in what many people consider to be some of the most restrictive terrain of the world, the Swiss Alps, you can still put 1,000,000 men into a region the size of those on your maps. I am probably not unique in this forum when I say I have been there on several occassions. Heck I even lived in the Austrian Alps right next door.

What you should change is the battle resolution method. Though even though you can fit 1,000,000 men to a side into these regions, what you can't do is fight the same way. In wide open space like that around 1813 Leipzig, you could actually line up 500,000 men and have them shoot at each other fast long and hard enough to deliver a decisive moral blow to one side or the other within 2-3 days. If you are talking southern Switzerland, this would be difficult. It seems engagements between such large armies would be stretched out in time. Approaches are narrower. And smaller armies would be at less of a disadvantage as the larger army wouldn't be able to envelope it as easily and bring all forces to bear as quickly.

Supply issues are also different. I would think that this is the limitation on long term troop deployment in regions the size of those in CoG:EE in 18th and early 19th century warfare. In the Swiss Alps, the roads ARE worse for supply. Lots of winding doubles, triples, or quadruples road lengths required to get from point A to point B. The roads in these regions connecting valleys are surely also worse, making delays, slow marches, and breakdowns more frequent. There isn't as much agricultural area around you to support such an army. But there really is place for the 1,000,000 man army to march up these valleys and passes and there are many locations where you could camp such an army...like little islands of space surrounded by some of the most beautiful scenery on the planet. People take up surprisingly little space. Of course, what happens when they meet and fight over a tiny pass is another matter. And then perhaps quality of your best units takes a front seat in the engagement.

And I haven't mentioned WINTER! In winter the passes of late 18th century become literally impassible -- starving larger armies out which are cut off. I don't know if you would have any real movement above 1500 to 2000 meters back then.

But I assure you that if the supply network is there (i.e. modern transport systems, roads, rail, and 21st century logistics systems) you can easily ship enough supply in to keep a 1,000,000 man Napoleonic army maneuvering indefinitely--even in winter. :) And a good supply model is what would probably make it difficult to field such a large army for more than a couple of weeks in such terrain in the early 19th century.

Again, the nature of deployment and the style of warfare would just look totally different. Maybe the changed combat model would make it not worth your while to put so many troops there.

I have always wondered why we really have stacking limits in hex based games. Because technically, you could have fit all of the armies of WWI into a single hex in most theater level games. But in reality, you could never supply all of those people in such a tiny place I am guessing...the supply and transport networks would be taxed to their limits. Not without relaying about 4000km of track? I think that among other things, the max stacking allowance is there to "simulate" the nature of an imperfect supply system which would break down when over taxed.

In my humble opinion, I would say your "natural" stacking limits (no help from outside) should be in proportion to:

(the *fertile and cultivated* area of the region) X (the quality of the road network or ease of travel between most two points) X (the nation's foraging and "logistics tech") X (seasonal modifier)

How many FOREIGN napolenic soldiers (assuming none of them come from the local labor) can a region like Southern Switzerland support comfortably without outside support for a longer period of time? I don't know. Maybe for a region like southern Switzerland the number works out to 150,000? Who knows.

Imagine the difference between foraging in the Loire river valley and foraging in the Upper Rhine river valley (SW of Chur in Switzerland). In the Loire, you can send troops in every direction (360 degrees) for a day and have them hit fertile land to pillage and loot. In the upper Rhine valley, you can send them in exactly 2 directions, on narrow paths. Going north or south isn't really an option. The available fertile and cultivated area for such support operations simply drops dramatically and you are probably dealing with 10% as much open space within a "day's march as the bird flies". You can make up the surplus requirements for 1,000,000 men by shipping the extra goods in. And that wouldn't be a minor undertaking even by modern standards.

Players could send more supply INTO the region (say southern Switzerland) from France to increase this number, but its effectiveness of redistribution would be modified by the quality of the road network and the "logistics tech". What was left over would be the number of troops which could be there comfortably.

Of course you could put more troops in, but once it was over this level additional troops would suffer from high rates of attrition, which could rise exponentially as this number was exceeded. This would allow players themselves decide on if it was worth shoving too many troops into a region for a short period of time and see them eaten away quickly.

< Message edited by barbarossa2 -- 3/11/2009 12:40:12 PM >

_____________________________

My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
Pro patria mori*.
-Wilfred Owen
*It is sweet and right to die for your country.

(in reply to Mr. Z)

Post #: 10

RE: Army size limits - 3/11/2009 3:19:10 AM

Mus

Posts: 1759
Joined: 11/13/2005
Status: offline

Whats the size limit for a battle 2-3 days into an engagement when you are calling in reinforcements?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Borodino#Prelude

So if you had a 2-3 Corps meet a pretty big Russian Force and started calling in reinforcements and they did likewise how many men would you have a couple days later for a big showdown?

(in reply to barbarossa2)

Post #: 11

RE: Army size limits - 3/11/2009 5:53:13 AM

Lord_Stanley

Posts: 32
Joined: 1/21/2007
From: on the pond
Status: offline

Army sizes should only be limited by "natural causes" not artificial numbers.
Natural causes are things like supply, national manpower, command limits and other factors.

If a game is good there are no artificial army size limits.
The army sizes will remain similar to their historical counterparts because of these natural forces.
Large armies will struggle under their own weight naturally, there should be no artificial limits.

(in reply to Mus)

Post #: 12

RE: Army size limits - 3/11/2009 12:07:24 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

I think you guys are forgetting one thing, one of the main complaints about CoG was that you could force a much too large a battle, it didn't happen, it couldn't happen, so it shouldn't happen, the designers took that to heart and made changes to the system, so the Large Battles of CoG can't happen any more

(I was one who said, it shouldn't matter, you let large battles happen, there will be complaints, you don't let large battles happen there will be complaints, but the Complaints from CoG won out)

so basicly now, something that was seen as a Issue in one game and fixed in the next, is now seen as a issue on the other side, the Designers can't win

_____________________________

(in reply to Lord_Stanley)

Post #: 13

RE: Army size limits - 3/11/2009 12:44:16 PM

barbarossa2

Posts: 915
Joined: 1/17/2006
Status: offline

Hard Sarge,

If the battles are too large, in my opinion, the system isn't punishing players enough for collecting too many troops in one place. I am not saying the battles should be large. I am saying there should be mechanisms in place which punish the players for putting so many troops in one region for any time without adequate logistical support.

Then let the players decide on whether they want to lose 100,000 troops of a 400,000 man stack before they even hit combat in the Pripyat marshes. Of course, in the real world your supply officers would tell you that a move like that would be impossible, but a crazy general could order it anyway and suffer massive losses.

_____________________________

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 14

RE: Army size limits - 3/11/2009 1:24:38 PM

Erik Rutins

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

This does seem to be a case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't"... there were many historical problems based on the real operational issues of command, control, coordination, communication, road networks, terrain, etc. that often left divisions and even corps unable to participate meaningfully in a battle. The same applied in the later American Civil War.

I think there's a case to be made for battle size limits as a way of limiting battles to a more historical size, since the operational factors need to be somewhat abstracted at this scale. I'm surprised there haven't been more grogs pointing this out.

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC

For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to barbarossa2)

Post #: 15

RE: Army size limits - 3/11/2009 2:13:08 PM

Joram

Posts: 3198
Joined: 7/15/2005
Status: offline

Well Erik your thoughts echo mine exactly I just couldn't put it as eloquently. :)

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 16

RE: Army size limits - 3/11/2009 2:23:00 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: barbarossa2

Hard Sarge,

If the battles are too large, in my opinion, the system isn't punishing players enough for collecting too many troops in one place. I am not saying the battles should be large. I am saying there should be mechanisms in place which punish the players for putting so many troops in one region for any time without adequate logistical support.

Then let the players decide on whether they want to lose 100,000 troops of a 400,000 man stack before they even hit combat in the Pripyat marshes. Of course, in the real world your supply officers would tell you that a move like that would be impossible, but a crazy general could order it anyway and suffer massive losses.

there already are, put 400,000 men into the Propyat marshes and see how long they last ! there are provinces that will not support large troop numbers, no matter how good the supply line is

_____________________________

(in reply to barbarossa2)

Post #: 17

RE: Army size limits - 3/11/2009 3:16:06 PM

morganbj

Posts: 3634
Joined: 8/12/2007
From: Mosquito Bite, Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

You�re 22 unit estimate gives a max army size of 220,000 (10k per unit) in the game, which is nowhere near the 600,000 men he began with. But even so, if they lost 2/3rds of their strength, those 22 invading units would fight with only 67,000 or so men by the time a Borodino rolled around.

So, did those 600,000 ever engage in combat all together? No. And in game terms, those would be in three or four armies of 20 divisions, or so.

You should know from a casual examination of any map of the 1812 Russian campaign that those 600,000 men were not, in game terms, all in the same province. That's my point. Those 600,000 men were in several "game" provinces, and moved in different directions. Two corps split off and went northwest. One more "watched" the southwest flank. Another was many miles behind the main army. This means that the army could be in four or five different provinces, perhaps more. So, I stand by what I said.

Frankly, I would love to play bigger battles myself, but can't. However, with the brigade combat option, it can get the feel of playing a very large engagement. It helps a lot.

The real point is that in all games, reality is abstracted. Do the abstractions developed to take an infinite number of variables found in real life to a simple set of rules in a game recreate that reality closely enough? I think COGEE is very good at this. It's certainly not perfect. I could find many things I think are off here and there; I've had many arguments about them on these forums. If I had my way, I'd double the number of divisions allowed in an army and that can engage in combat, but reduce the maximum number of men per unit to 6-7,000. But, overall, the game is a very faithful representation of the period, from a strategic perspective and I'm willing to accept the abstractions to make it playable.

(in reply to Jim D Burns)

Post #: 18

RE: Army size limits - 3/11/2009 5:12:56 PM

Randomizer

Posts: 1473
Joined: 6/28/2008
Status: offline

Have to agree with Erik, Hard Sarge, Joram and bjmorgan here and throw out my opinion on size limits.

I think that the unlimited-army crowd severely underestimates the logistical and command nightmare�created by�huge field armies.��They are ignoring that in that�era, control was exercised by voice or with mounted runners carrying quickly scribbled notes for orders and where no commander ever had the god's-eye panorama view or the information about the enemy, even with game imposed fog of war, available to gamers today.

Gamers have no requirement to manage the sick and wounded, see to feeding and sanitation of the troops and the thousands of camp followers that grew exponentially as armies grew in size.� Nor is forage for the tens of thousands of horses a matter for the player, they want to just keep adding numbers ad infinitum in the name of some counterfactual 'realism' ideas.

Although�terms like battlespace and�span of control did not exist in timeframe of CoG-EE, the battle realities�that�caused them to be coined were as real for Napoleon as they are for field commanders today.� Cramming 600,000 soldiers into a single field is certainly possible, you could fit them all into some sports stadiums so this issue is not space alone but the net result is that under any sort of stress they will cease to be an Army and become a mob.

I think�these restrictions are�just one of the areas where the CoG-EE team got it right.

Edited to correct the spelling of Erik... D'oh

< Message edited by Randomizer -- 3/11/2009 7:06:53 PM >

(in reply to morganbj)

Post #: 19

RE: Army size limits - 3/11/2009 5:22:51 PM

barbarossa2

Posts: 915
Joined: 1/17/2006
Status: offline

If you think that troop concentrations are verging on being too high, then really all I am saying is that the punishments inflicted by the game for putting too many troops in place should be higher then perhaps. And that there should be no artificial and magic ceiling for troop concentrations. The return on putting so many troops in one region should fall off gradually and then rapidly as the numbers go up. It is possible that in some campaigns they were already operating at the point on this slope where things were rapidly dropping off. Who knows.

There SHOULD be limits on how many armies and men are COMFORTABLY in one place. And players who exceed them should be BRUTALLY punished. A good example of a system which I find fantastic in this manner is AGEOD's Birth of America 2. An older game system would have simply disallowed any movement between December and March. BoA2 allows players to risk marches and campaigns during this time and getting caught in the open. Doing this, especially if hit by very adverse weather conditions and in highly concentrated numbers IS a recipe for disaster. But! If you need to do it, it CAN be done. But is the expected payout worth the gamble? In my humble opinion, putting a cap on your stacking limits is like saying, "no movement from December to March".

However, having said all of this, perhaps the simplest system to use is the one already in place. After all, players don't have the luxury of having a logistics officer that reports to them every morning who has already done all of the research and can spot problems BEFORE they arise. That is probably something for 23rd century gaming.

And look, I think CoG:EE sounds like an incredibly awesome game. And I am very close to buying it. It is not that it is not within my monetary budget, but games also come with a price tag of hours of play attached to them. And this is the budget it might not fit in with me. :( I am truly worried I might love it so much that I put 500 hours into it this year. And I have to be careful about that.

< Message edited by barbarossa2 -- 3/11/2009 6:54:39 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Randomizer)

Post #: 20

RE: Army size limits - 3/11/2009 7:58:18 PM

Walloc

Posts: 3141
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: barbarossa2
A good example of a system which I find fantastic in this manner is AGEOD's Birth of America 2. An older game system would have simply disallowed any movement between December and March. BoA2 allows players to risk marches and campaigns during this time and getting caught in the open. Doing this, especially if hit by very adverse weather conditions and in highly concentrated numbers IS a recipe for disaster. But! If you need to do it, it CAN be done. But is the expected payout worth the gamble? In my humble opinion, putting a cap on your stacking limits is like saying, "no movement from December to March".

Having played AGEODs game alot i agree with u that it works very well in those. Especially taken into consideration the war's it cover.
From a purely historical issue u run into more problems in the Nappy age.

The end of 1805 camapign spills well into dec.

The Eylau part of the 1806-1807 campaign happened during dec-mar. Yes there was lulls and troops going into cantoment, but obviously military operations happened too.

The russo-sweden war of 1808-1809 started in late feb and action in march too.
1809 dec-mar is lull in action.

The end of 1812 and start of 1813 went through dec-march too. Yes losses last part of the retreat in dec was horrible but not so in particular in jan-mar. The dec lossing having more so to do IMO with the conditions concerning the retreat, then purely weather tho if ofc also matters.

1814 campaign happens almost exclusivly in dec-mar

Leaving only 1809 and 1815 and the latter by the nature of it couldnt possibly have happened during dec-mar, as the only campaigns with no action in dec-mar.

Im excluding all the "mediterranean" campaigns where the term winter is argueble from a "bad" weather point of view.

Im in no way saying that weather doesnt play a large role and there shouldnt be penalties. Just pointing out that in the "american" war's, displayed in 2 of AGEOD games, that the no movement in the dec-mar periode seems generally more in line with historical lack of operations. 1861-62 west theater being an obvious exception.
Unlike nappy age where campaigns in that periode of the year isnt that uncommon. Tho spring-summer-fall are ofc prefered for operations.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

< Message edited by Walloc -- 3/11/2009 8:02:34 PM >

(in reply to barbarossa2)

Post #: 21

RE: Army size limits - 3/11/2009 7:59:44 PM

ericbabe

Posts: 11927
Joined: 3/23/2005
Status: offline

Ahhhh, the ancient debate over battle limits in COG.

In the early days of COG I was implored by many

people telling me just how bad it is that we didn't have battle size limits, and that my game was terrible for allowing every battle to be Leipzig-sized, and that it should only be the very rare battle that was that large.� So I did a lot of work adding battle limit rules to make the people

, but then after the game came out we had many new

people seeing the game for the first time who didn't want any limits on their battles.� At some point, on this issue I rather threw my hands up in the air and moved onto something else, on the principle that if there are roughly as many

people on both sides of the controversy, then I've at least achieved some sort of stasis.

� Anyway, please feel free to continue the discussion on battlelimits.� I just wanted to make you'all aware that we've been over many of the arguments pro- and con- in the game's previous incarnation.

Players do find the battle limit rules for COG:EE confusing, and I almost removed them in COG:EE for this reason alone.� "I fought a battle in Switzerland and my guards weren't there" is a question I must have handled in support dozens of times.

What I'd really like to do is have every corps/army have to make a check to see whether it can arrive at the battle on time.� The more "stuff" you have in a province, the harder the check becomes (because harder to coordinate many corps than just a couple corps).� Units that fail the check enter the battle later, after a certain reinforcement delay.� This would give commanders another nice, clear function on the battlefield.� It would be an additional layer of complexity, but it would obviate the battlefield limit rules we have now, so it would be replacing one complexity with another, arguably more understandable (and more easily UI-reportable) complexity.� Provinces with bad terrain / poor roads would also have harder checks, naturally.� This was one of the COG:EE improvements I wanted to do but we just didn't have time/budget for it (and we went way over both time/budget, as it was.)

< Message edited by ericbabe -- 3/11/2009 8:00:43 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to barbarossa2)

Post #: 22

RE: Army size limits - 3/11/2009 8:26:34 PM

Anthropoid

Posts: 3107
Joined: 2/22/2005
From: Secret Underground Lair
Status: offline

I wonder what the highest concentration of military personnel on Earth ever was? Any ideas?

Stalingrad? Maybe?

Never having served in the military, and not having the kind of detailed knowledge of military history that some might have, I've always wondered about "stacking limits" and the like in games. The contrast between say TOAWIII, and Civilization 4 is an interesting example.

In TOAWIII, a game in which scenarios can have hexes as small as 5 or 10 km or as large as 100km (maybe larger), most scenarios have stacking limits. I seem to recall that for the Barbarossa scenario in TOAWIII, which is Division scale chits (?) you can put about 5 or 6 Div in one hex (scale must be 100km hexes or more?) and then you can keep putting them in there but you suffer as a consequence of doing so, both in terms of supply/attrition and in terms of combat. I always thought that that was one of the most amazingly specific detailed points of TOAWIII: the thing actually does some calculations when you have an 'overstacked' stack and certain weapons (things that go boom, for example) cause _more damage_ to an overstacked stack than a reasonable stacked stack. I mean think about it. If you are shooting at a 10ft wide front, and there 2 guys within range across that front your random chance (even discounting aiming) to hit something is much lower than if you got 4 guys in there, versus if you got 40 guys stuff in there.

I always wonder when I watch these war movies and I see guys all lined up one right behind the other while the enemy is spraying the area with machine gun fire and grenades and such . . . that cannot possibly be realistic!? I mean surely they teach infantry to keep some distance between one another under many circumstances??

Now having said all that: I don't have a freekin' clue what is a reasonable number of guys with guns to allow in any given area of 'space' as abstracted in a computer game . . . but the general idea that there should be 'limit's seems reasonable.

But I think Barbarossa is making a compelling point: the 'limits' should not be manifest as 'caps' but rather as escalating costs for putting more and more guys with guns into a given area . . . Heck! You could apply the same principle to the 'container's themselves! Instead of each 'Walls' infrastructure development level allowing an additional 'unit' of military to garrison in a town, why not change it to be 'allow' in a less rigid sense, meaning:

You can cram as many guys with guns as you want into any container in the game, but be advised that you those toy soldiers will suffer exponentially worse negative consequences the more of them you stuff in over the 'recommended' limits.

Then of course I have to think in terms of the Devs (and testers) perspective on this kinda thing: 'Ah sheeze! It works for Pete's Sake and it is a conceptually valid abstraction of how things work in the real world.' Having players ask for things that are real boogers to implement, or which may result in all kinda unforeseen negative consequences in how the game is balanced must get kinda annoying. But it does raise the question: COULD the game be modded so that the 'limits' for max Div size, max Divs per container, stacking limits per province, etc., were not 'cutoffs' of the sort that Barb and Jim are complaining against, but instead were just levels which, if surpassed resulted in worse and worse attrition, worse and worse supply/economic costs, and/or whatever other negative consequence ensue from stacking too many guys with guns in too small a space?

_____________________________

The x-ray is her siren song. My ship cannot resist her long. Nearer to my deadly goal. Until the black hole. Gains control...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkIIlkyZ328&feature=autoplay&list=AL94UKMTqg-9CocLGbd6tpbuQRxyF4FGNr&playnext=3

(in reply to barbarossa2)

Post #: 23

RE: Army size limits - 3/11/2009 8:31:23 PM

barbarossa2

Posts: 915
Joined: 1/17/2006
Status: offline

Ericbabe,

I like this idea of the "check" to determine if corps can make it on time! This is a must.

Perhaps you should then also have a "supply" check too. And the more units are present, and the worse the roads, the more likely it is that the unit will have to rely on its own stocks to supply its units and not suffer disproportionately.

But yes. The "march to the guns" check is critical to replicating battle in regions like Switzerland where it certainly could take dramatically longer for corps to gather for battle in certain (but not all) situations.

_____________________________

(in reply to ericbabe)

Post #: 24

RE: Army size limits - 3/11/2009 8:38:10 PM

Mus

Posts: 1759
Joined: 11/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

What I'd really like to do is have every corps/army have to make a check to see whether it can arrive at the battle on time. The more "stuff" you have in a province, the harder the check becomes (because harder to coordinate many corps than just a couple corps). Units that fail the check enter the battle later, after a certain reinforcement delay. This would give commanders another nice, clear function on the battlefield. It would be an additional layer of complexity, but it would obviate the battlefield limit rules we have now, so it would be replacing one complexity with another, arguably more understandable (and more easily UI-reportable) complexity. Provinces with bad terrain / poor roads would also have harder checks, naturally. This was one of the COG:EE improvements I wanted to do but we just didn't have time/budget for it (and we went way over both time/budget, as it was.)

That would be excellent. Especially if the forces can in over a 2-3 day period allowing some kind of movement to contact to occur initially with say a cavalry corps stumbling into an enemy defensive position and then the rest of the Corps in or moving into the province to "move towards the sound of the guns" over the next couple days before the main engagement.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

But it does raise the question: COULD the game be modded so that the 'limits' for max Div size, max Divs per container, stacking limits per province, etc., were not 'cutoffs' of the sort that Barb and Jim are complaining against, but instead were just levels which, if surpassed resulted in worse and worse attrition, worse and worse supply/economic costs,�and/or whatever other negative consequence ensue from stacking too�many guys with guns in too small a space?�

For one thing I can guarantee it would smell god awful. Especially if it was too many French guys with guns in too small a space.

< Message edited by Mus -- 3/11/2009 8:39:29 PM >

(in reply to Anthropoid)

Post #: 25

RE: Army size limits - 3/11/2009 8:59:30 PM

barbarossa2

Posts: 915
Joined: 1/17/2006
Status: offline

So the way it is now, do all of the units in a region when the shooting starts get to participate? If so, then this may be part of the problem of having "unrealistically" large "battles".

However, there are two kinds of "battles" revelant to a game like CoG:EE...

Battle Type 1) a tactical struggle over 1-3 days in one relatively well defined geographical location not stretching over 10-14 miles in any direction (during the Napoleonic era)

and

Battle Type 2) an operational struggle for a area of land approximately the size of a region in CoG:EE, lasting one month (or however long a turn is in CoG:EE).

If your "battles" in CoG:EE represent type 2 above, then it would be odd not to have large "battles/struggles" for provinces. The number of troops present at these type 2 battles would not jive* with what most players know as normal type 1 "battle" sizes. CoG:EE battles MUST be of type 2 if there is only ONE CoG:EE battle resolution per month in any region. I can't think of any campaign which had ONE type 1 battle per month per region or anything like it...in fact most of the battles were small affairs which most of us never hear of. So a CoG:EE "auto-resolve" battle resolution must be a type 2 battle with several smaller engagements rolled into it. There were at least five battles with 5000 or more deployed on each side in the campaign for Ulm, but I am almost sure no one reading this can name them. So it seems that an "autoresolve" CoG battle should be of type 2 and have a good chance of involving most of the units present to some extent or another.

If CoG:EE is modelling type 2 battles, the numbers involved in these CoG type 2 "battles" WOULD seem large compared to "battles" of type 1 of the time--if those are the numbers players are complaining about when there are no limits. But in a simulation of the kind CoG:EE is, the modelling of large struggles for a region of type 2 would be necessary!

When Napoleon marched on Ulm in 1805, he had 230,000 men. NONE of the engagements were large ones (I lived close to most of them and visited them all). They were relatively speaking, small affairs. The size of the battlefields is nothing like that of Waterloo or the decisive Hohenlinden (1800) for instance (which feels --and is-- massive in comparison). Yet, in a game like CoG:EE, the struggle for the region of SW Germany would have to take these 230,000 men into account. It would HAVE to be a large CONFLICT of type 2. So, unless your system has multiple small battles, which go into determining the control of a region in any one turn, and you want to stick with one battle resoltution, I am not sure that you need to "march to the guns", but there should be effects for a unit's variable contribution to the effort depending on leadership, its supply state, its morale, the road network, command style, over all plan (envelopment, frontal assault, guerilla war, defensive). A lot of the Ulm campaign was won with maneuver and encirclement and I don't know if "marching to the guns" captures the effects of what other corps could even be up to. However, I would have to think about that more.

IMHO, I think the designers of COG:EE need to decide on if each "battle" represents a conflict of type 1 or of type 2. And then design from there.

*to jive with: (that's 1970s USA pop talk for "to correspond with")

< Message edited by barbarossa2 -- 3/11/2009 10:37:31 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Mus)

Post #: 26

RE: Army size limits - 3/11/2009 9:49:16 PM

barbarossa2

Posts: 915
Joined: 1/17/2006
Status: offline

A report for the "Operational Struggle" for the provence surrounding Ulm in one turn, might look like this...

***********
230,000 French troops under the command of Napoleon are struggling for the provence of Baden-Wuttemberg this turn.
They have fought 3 minor battles and 2 medium battles for the region.
They have suffered 5,600 losses.
They have inflicted 10,000 losses on the Austrian armies present.
They have captured 40,000 Austrians, including the Austrian General Mack.
***********

Of course, if you let players think that they have 230,000 men of theirs present at a single type 1 battle again and again and again, they will complain and say it is unrealistic.

I think it is a mistake to lower "stacking values" in a region to give players what they expect in terms of "battle size".

IMHO, go with type 2 battles for your Automatic Resolution and then let players pile in the troops to their own detriment. It won't take long for them to realize there is a healthy medium for troop density. Just as I quickly learned to disperse my troops and put them in many settlements during winter in AGEOD's fine Birth of America. Punish the player adequately and they will learn quickly. And the system will be a much better simulation.

On the other hand, you also have "tactical resolution" of battles, which really makes this complicated. For that you might see if each unit can "march to the guns" of the player controlled battle and then actually resolve other minor battles in the region automatically (the player doesn't control these) and mix the results together to determine what happens in the region.

< Message edited by barbarossa2 -- 3/11/2009 10:16:02 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to barbarossa2)

Post #: 27

RE: Army size limits - 3/11/2009 10:22:32 PM

Mr. Z

Posts: 1048
Joined: 3/24/2005
Status: offline

I would say that COG battles are definitely intended to model the major battles of the Napoleonic Wars.� Hence the fact that tactical battles tend to last only a matter of a few days at most.� (And that tactical turns are on the order of 1 hour each!)

We simply disregard the minor battles as either being uninteresting or simply not able to fit into the engine's system.

Turning combat into operational affairs would require a major rewrite of the quick combat and hexwar code.� That's unlikely to happen.

If players would rather imagine them as large-scale operational affairs, they are free to use the Instant Resolve system.

Not that the above ideas aren't interesting ideas, of course! We encourage discussion of them

< Message edited by Mr. Z -- 3/11/2009 10:23:02 PM >

(in reply to barbarossa2)

Post #: 28

RE: Army size limits - 3/11/2009 10:25:26 PM

barbarossa2

Posts: 915
Joined: 1/17/2006
Status: offline

Cool. Of course, I actually agree that it is more interesting for players to think that each engagement is a battle of type 1.

Mr. Z, doesn't this mean though, that you are assuming that most of the troops in a region end up in the "major battle" most of the time? In my humble opinion, I think this is where your system has made a mistake. (NOTE TO ALL READERS: THIS HAS BEEN CONFIRMED TO WORK DIFFERENTLY IN A POSTING BELOW)

It seems that this assumption (that most forces in a region end up in the same battle--the "MAIN" battle) results in unrealistically large battles on a repeated basis, and that you are then compelled to come up with mechanics which force capping of stacking limits artificially to give players what they want in terms of the size of battles.

Which is why, perhaps, you appear to have to spin in circles on this. IMHO, it would be worth considering changing the combat model for your next release, CoG:EE2

so that you can give players both accurate battle sizes AND realistic stacking limits. At the moment, based on some decisions you have made which I cannot question (after all, I am the armchair computer game designer and you are the real designer), I think you are hamstrung into providing them with one or the other. Or a mix which is unrealistic for both issues.

But I think with sufficient recoding, you can offer the players the "zoom in battles" and give them a more realistic type 2 battle model as I mentioned above. Let them have their "zoom in" battles and see if units march to them in time. This can be the "major" engagement of the struggle for the region. Then auto-resolve the rest of the conflict in the region around it. And mix the results together. Just an idea.

< Message edited by barbarossa2 -- 3/12/2009 4:17:03 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to barbarossa2)

Post #: 29

RE: Army size limits - 3/12/2009 1:08:56 AM

barbarossa2

Posts: 915
Joined: 1/17/2006
Status: offline

Anthripoid (cool name and great icon),

You ask above what the highest concentration of troops has ever been in a "battle". I guess it depends on the size of the space you are talking about.

One candidate MIGHT be the town of Blenheim in the critical and decisive battle of Blenheim (also near Ulm along the Danube--another amazing battlefield to visit...just oozing with history). It was 1704 during the Spanish War of Succession. Primarily fought by the British forces under Marlborough against the French and their Bavarian allies. One of the French generals thought it would be a good idea to secure the village of Blenheim on their right. In a classic example of "too much of a good thing" is too much, the town was crammed with French to defend it.

This is the wikipedia account...

"Although the Allies were again repulsed, these persistent attacks on Blenheim eventually bore fruit, panicking Cl�rambault into making the worst French error of the day.[56] Without consulting Tallard, Cl�rambault ordered his reserve battalions into the village, upsetting the balance of the French position and nullifying the French numerical superiority. "The men were so crowded in upon one another", wrote M�rode-Westerloo, "that they couldn�t even fire � let alone receive or carry out any orders."[56] Marlborough, spotting this error, now countermanded Cutts� intention to launch a third attack, and ordered him simply to contain the enemy within Blenheim; no more than 5,000 Allied soldiers were able to pen in twice the number of French infantry and dragoons.[57]"

Other accounts I have read in lengthier books on the matter make it sound even worse.

Again, this is an example of the type of error players should be allowed to make on their own. Stacking limits would have prevented this and actually keep players from reenacting the battle of Blenheim. Or its critical moments.

I say let players cut their own throats and let them put 700,000 troops into a region if they demand it, then punish them for it. There should be some benefits. But the benefits should be outweighed by the negatives more and more the higher you go.

< Message edited by barbarossa2 -- 3/12/2009 2:31:53 AM >

(in reply to Anthropoid)

Post #: 30