New Opt Rule: Movement Threat

[TheGrayMouser]

So, this will be a little bit of a rant, but lately we have had some new rules and game engines changes come, seemingly out of nowhere and I question how much thought/playtesting went into the actual effects in practice ( in theory they sound good...)

I'll limit this to the Topic ( threat movement option) and its equally valid for the  Nap games as well as 7 years War Title.

Infantry not wanting to "close" in this era seems reasonable but just what is this supposed to represent?  Each hex is 100 yards, so even units adjacent are possibly 100 yards apart firing at each other.  All the training and discipline was put into them executing just that! ( getting into effective range to shoot!!)   Suddenly we have units  that cant move to effective fire range without possibly disordering  ( BTW units in line already can disorder from movement anyhow so they are getting double wacked!!)

I mean, closing to bayonet/melee range is really what was hard to force units to do in the era...so...
Doesnt it make sense that units should test upon attempting to melee, and not simply getting within musket rage?

I can live with this to some degree if only infantry vs infantry were considered but what about cavalry vs cavalry?

Prior to this post I just launched Murats Gamble in Echmeil and began maneuvering a full Division of stacks squadrons of A+ French Heavies vs Austrian stacks of Dragoons and guess what, 3/4 of then became disordered or ROUTED just to come adjacent to the Dragoons!!!  ( yes, the game appears to test EVERY hex you enter...)  
Considering the majority of cavalry in the Nap games are B and HIGHER it is shocking too me that playtesters didnt notice that closing with cavalry is all but impossible even with high quality cavalry... Now consider The 7 Years war where c and D quality cavalry are quite common....  

Cavalry when going into "charging" mode also have to test to not disorder as the game considers a charge a formation change... So Another obstacle to closing with out becoming a disordered and or routed rabble.

Fortunately this new rule is optional but it really need to be looked at and adjusted for it to be viable.

I personally feel the simplest solution is to simply have attacking units test when they attempt to melee ( the threat test to change formation would of course remain in place).....
If we really want to get a feel for Nap warfare and have some sort of movement threat, perhaps only a stack of any type of unit entering a frontal ZOC of an enemy infantry IN LINE formation causes a test ( and then melee a second test?!) .
Or increase the threat range for infantry for formation changes...

I dunno, just some thoughts but it seems this new rule was an attempt to make fire combat more decisive over melee but if infantry units have a hard time even get in to shooting range and cavalry cant move at all if enemy cavalry are within 6 hexes then the rule does not accomplish this, just makes maneuvering armies a disorganized-routed mess before even a shot fired...  I havent even tested to see what happens to the AI when it must go on the attack!!

[LarkinVB]

I agree that this rule is not working properly at all. We tested it and when cavalry (A class) got disordered even riding parallel to the enemy cavalry in some hexes distance we immediatly disabled it.
Thank god I found a way to do this (dis/enabling options) in ongoing games so we didn't have to restart.

[phoenix]

Mmm. Not much response to this thread. I've actually stopped playing my Napoleonic titles for a bit now because I found that games - prior to the new rule - seemed to be mainly a rush to melee, and it all seemed a bit unhistorical. Then the new rule came but I couldn't get my head round precisely the things mentioned in TheGrayMouser's post above. I was all for a rule change which encouraged firing over melee, on historical grounds, but when I found it worked as mentioned above - so that infantry units were finding it difficult to get into firing range in good order, I gave up on it. But then everyone seemed to be using it in PBEM. Has that changed? Is everyone using the new rule in PBEM, or going without it? Is there only a couple of people unhappy with the way the new rule works - really? Just curious.

[neonlicht]

Played a 7YW scenario against the AI recently and was surprised to see my Prussian cavalry rout when ordered to advance on a few squadrons of Cossacks. I'm not an aficionado of this period, so don't know if this is ahistorical or not.

As for the Napoleonic games: I thought there might have been a "bayonet charge" command option that--depending on modifiers--could cause opposing infantry to rout? Just a thought.

As for routing: seems units fly off in random directions? Or am I wrong about that? Would be nice, perhaps, if units could be made to rout towards "Rally Point" markers placed on the map via the Scenario Editor?

[LFDLM]

Personally, I understand these "disorder" and "routs" by "Movement Threat" as just the chaos that settles in close proximity to the enemy.

In fact, troops who are not tired and who are well commanded find their normal state easily. There is just the danger of a counter-attack at the very moment one is setting up to attack.

I think this rule has big problems and could be better, but it may not be so absurd if we understand that a unit with 0 fatigue points and 0% loss that routs is not in the same state as a unit that routs with 500 fatigue points and 45% loss.

So I use it :)

[TheGrayMouser]

Personally, I understand these "disorder" and "routs" by "Movement Threat" as just the chaos that settles in close proximity to the enemy.

In fact, troops who are not tired and who are well commanded find their normal state easily. There is just the danger of a counter-attack at the very moment one is setting up to attack.

I think this rule has big problems and could be better, but it may not be so absurd if we understand that a unit with 0 fatigue points and 0% loss that routs is not in the same state as a unit that routs with 500 fatigue points and 45% loss.

So I use it :)

Hey, long time since we have crossed pike and arquebus!

The problem I have with the rule is it way too powerfull.   I'm not sure which game you use it in, but load up any nap title where troops are relatively close by.  Then take 0 fatuiged A or higher quality cavalry( plentifel in the nap titles) and simply move toward enemy cavalry...  They disrupt and rout at possibly as high as a 50% rate!!,  its basically impossible to close and have cavalry melee other cavalry.   Other titles feature quite a bit of b, c and d rated cavalry,  imagine the carnage then...

[LFDLM]

Hi !

I have played several games of Napoleonic Battle and I can promise you that we still manage to kill each other ! But you're right, the rule is a bit too powerfull. It's still playable anyway. For example, I played 3/4 Plancenoit (close battle + assault) without big issue.

Yes, I do miss P&S and SJ... Getting beat by you was always a pleasure

BTW, do you play REN ? I'd like to get started. I've only played two or three games so far... We can still use pikes and arquebuse :)

[TheGrayMouser]

Hi !

I have played several games of Napoleonic Battle and I can promise you that we still manage to kill each other ! But you're right, the rule is a bit too powerfull. It's still playable anyway. For example, I played 3/4 Plancenoit (close battle + assault) without big issue.

Yes, I do miss P&S and SJ... Getting beat by you was always a pleasure

BTW, do you play REN ? I'd like to get started. I've only played two or three games so far... We can still use pikes and arquebuse :)

So, I feel like a jerk for asking this but the answer would be yes, Id love a game but with a condition.... ( a modified PDT)

To go lightly into the detail, I have been playing JT games since like 1999, and enjoyed them but never played MP.  After a while though one thing began to really bug me about theses games, to the point I considered stopping playing them altogether, which led me to trying to mod them to mitigate this "thing" I cannot take.  This "thing" is the basic melee resolution, so its not a minor thing at all in my eyes!     What's the issue you wonder?:

The defender, all other things being equal has what appears to be a 2-1 combat advantage!

  You dont need take my word for it, the manual explains and even gives a sample of how combat works ( interestingly, the sample in the manual uses a situation where the attacker has slightly more than twice as many men as the defender which might mask the issue from many players who tend not to read the manual back to front, or skim thru things...

This thorn in my craw has been untouchable until I recently found that one can use the weather entry lines of "Attacker Modifier"  to increase the attackers strength in melee.  Its not possible to back exactly into the the #'s but Ive tested ranges for 30-60% bonus and its just too hard to figure where the best # lies  ( the problem is one would have to run literally 10's of thousands of tests to find the perfect % to obtain a  50-50 win loss ratio between attacker defender ( of exactly equal units)
I have settled on 35% attacker modifier though, as it seems to get the job done, so to speak! ( and perfect is the enemy of good enough)

Anyway, this is the modified file ( attacker bonus of 35% in the weather entry line in the PDT) I would request, nothing else.  If your ok with this, I am ok with any other of the official game suggestions, although I really like MDF OFF and I think rout limit "off" is one of the best things about these games (I  love chain routs!!)  If you have any house rules to stop silly maneuvers gameplay etc I would be all ears too!  Cheers man!

[LFDLM]

I'm not sure I understand your motivations to change PDT (I'm not shocked that the defender has an advantage), but I agree

Other than that, I'm OK with any side and any scenario (maybe an "encounter" ?). I prefer to play with the defensive fire manual to avoid "blitz"... and sending as much mail as you want is free !

For the house rules, we can agree on them as we go along, but roughly speaking : no charging in the forest or in the villages (the malus are not big enough, it seems to me), no commando/suicidal action of one unit alone to capture a leader or supply far away behind the enemy line and so on.

[TheGrayMouser]

I'm not sure I understand your motivations to change PDT (I'm not shocked that the defender has an advantage), but I agree

Other than that, I'm OK with any side and any scenario (maybe an "encounter" ?). I prefer to play with the defensive fire manual to avoid "blitz"... and sending as much mail as you want is free !

For the house rules, we can agree on them as we go along, but roughly speaking : no charging in the forest or in the villages (the malus are not big enough, it seems to me), no commando/suicidal action of one unit alone to capture a leader or supply far away behind the enemy line and so on.

So, lets keep things simple for this first game, and forgo the modified the file.  ( the "problem" is less evident in Ren because of the vast disparity in quality and melee power of units, armor etc)

Those seem like logical house rules, agree.
How about Encounter8 ( French vs Italians)?   Your choice in sides!

Do you want to set it up and send me the email file?

Oh, I am am using the JTS version, I assume you are too?