|
barbarossa2 -> RE: Army size limits (3/11/2009 2:14:38 AM)
|
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.
|
|
|
|
