Roads have no effect (?!)

[Broadsword]

I almost hate to mention a negative reaction to anything about HW:LG, since I love everything else about it and can't wait to buy it. But...
I've read in the manuals that roads and trails are treated just like surrounding terrain and have no effect on movement in the game. I can accept that in small battles, perhaps, but in maps of the "mini-campaign" size, roads should have enormous significance as supply routes, lines of communication, and avenues of advance, retreat, reconnaissance, etc. At a grand-tactical or operational level, roads channel troop movements and greatly shape the eventual battlefield.
If I were playing on a mini-campaign map, the first thing I would do is send my light cavalry to screen all the roads, set outposts overlooking all the likely roads the enemy might use, etc. But if the enemy could move just as easily in any direction on any axis, with roads having no effect, how could a cavalry screen possibly have enough troops in it to be effective?
At Waterloo, why do you think Blucher appeared where he did in the late afternoon? After Ligny, why do you think Blucher was faced with two basic choices about his direction of retreat?
If this unrealistic choice was forced on JMM because of design limits in the game engine, or something like that, then OK. But maybe it can be considered for the next expansion/update? Just don't pretend it's a small and unnecessary detail, and therefore not represented in the game.

[Hook]

From the manual, book 2:

Apart from unexpected situations, it is difficult to define a tactical battle plan uniquely based solely on the available road network. Of course, this comment does not apply at an operational level, where communication channels are essential for speeding troops and supplies to the battlefield.

It may not be as bad as you think.

Hook

[dmcheatw]

i commented on this on the --------- forums and i totally agree.  the maps are basically a giant parade ground where you can essentially march in battle formation over large distances, often taking a direct path (like a bird would do) to an area.  Not saying the game won't rock or anything, but it is a fairly large omission and changes the nature of battle substantially.  hopefully JMM will have such success with this title as to be encouraged to make a sequal.  Coding AI to move over a more realistc map would take time I would think.  In multiplayer though...

also there is also the chance that the game will be easily and heavily moddable. if so  that can only be a good thing.

[Darsh]

i commented on this on the --------- forums and i totally agree.  the maps are basically a giant parade ground where you can essentially march in battle formation over large distances, often taking a direct path (like a bird would do) to an area. 

It isn't true, you couldn't march in line over large distances without be tired and you should adopt a march formation to have a more faster and less tired army.
Plus you couldn't ignore the tactical components and the elevations on the battlefields for the march.

Rivers, bridges, and fords are important tactical components as they can
seriously slow down armies’ movements.

Elevation is an important map component.
In “HistWar: Les Grognards”, the elevation has a natural and immediate impact on
visibility conditions, on movement, and, finally, on unit fatigue.
In addition, a unit moving downhill will travel faster and tire less quickly than a unit
moving uphill.
-

[_Cambronne_]

Yes,I also think the game is almost perfect,less the roads making no difference and the 300 CEH limit(I just don't understand why is there a CEH limit at all). But I still hope they would be fixed someday. All in all,a GREAT game! After reading the manuals I almost feel ready to take command of my brave boys. Let the Demo come!   

[Darsh]

the 300 CEH limit(I just don't understand why is there a CEH limit at all).

Perhaps because there are a limit of 50.000 soldiers (1 soldier represent in reality 10 soldiers) in histwar.

[lodi57]

I just don't understand why is there a CEH limit at all)

The objective of CEH limit is to fix an historical number of fighters gathered in the same battlefield. A 300 CEH max allows players to build army of about 250 000 men so 500 000 men in the same battlefield, and there is no battle in this period over that number.

[lodi57]

Roads effects mean bonus for units that use them. Or on a battlefield the way armies deploy (infantry, cavalry and artillery formations) at this period make roads useless for the time of a battle.

The main aim of LG is to reconstitute battles so you have to consider "mini campaign" as a bonus to give more entertainment to players and a idea of what can be the driving of operations in a wider scale (introducing an operational project).

Now, there is in LG a very important notion (surely the most important for tactical thoughts) that you may misunderstood or not already read. This is LOP (line of operation). For each battle, it will exist one or two LOP and even in "mini campaign". French Colonel Camon defines LOP as the way (roads or lanes) from a center of operation (a place where army supplies are gathered) or an allied army to the head of your army. According to Napoleon, a general can lose temporarily without disadvantage his line of communication (road(s) to his country borders) but it would be criminal that he loses his LOP.

So as you can see, the most important parameters to make tactical thouhts real to players have been took in account by JMM.

light cavalry to screen all the roads, set outposts overlooking all the likely roads the enemy might use

The aim of a cavalry reconnaissance is to collect information of tactical or technical order on the enemy, a given zone or point (French military definition for reconnaissances).

t Waterloo, why do you think Blucher appeared where he did in the late afternoon? After Ligny, why do you think Blucher was faced with two basic choices about his direction of retreat?

That exactly deals with LOP  . Blücher had 2 LOP at the beginning of Ligny battle: to Namur his centre of operation and to Quatre-Bras to try and join his British ally. At the end of the day, one of these lines was cut (Quatre-Bras) so he had to retreat by Wavres road (making a detour) to manage to join British army.

Well, I think everybody has understood that the great interest in this game (as in real warfare) is LOP and so consequently there is no trouble with road effects considering the purpose of this game  .

[Gunner24]

I'm sure I have read in the past that most roads during these times were so poor that they were of very little use to an army on the march....sure, they did set the direction and the artillery used them, but a lot of the army marched in the fields and open ground running besides the roads, so I'm more than happy with the way LG treat roads.

In battle situations they don't matter to much, if we have a future LG Campaign game then they will (I'm sure) feature more than in the first release we're all waiting for now.

[dmcheatw]

well i'm not convinced.. but i'll reserve judgement until i actually play the game.  I will say that having read only a small portion oft he manual so far, I am very impressed with how well thought out this game seems to be.

regardless, implementing "real" terrain (i'm talking about hedgerows, mud, forest undergrowth, and roads of varying quality) should be a top priority for a sequal if one is ever made.

[Hook]

Roads are necessary for the movement of artillery and for baggage trains, which took as much road space as the unit they were supporting, but for tactical movement on the battlefield the increase in speed didn't offset the extra time it would take to use roads.  The first troops would start marching while the rest waited until the first troops had moved forward enough to clear the road.  The last troops to get on the road had to wait until everyone else had cleared the road.  

If you are moving an entire division, you could either move in parallel columns of companies cross country and have the whole division at the end point of the move at the same time, or start moving the troops along a road, which probably doesn't go directly where you want to march anyway, and the final elements of the division might not even have started moving yet when the lead elements are at their final destination.  If you'd avoided the roads, your entire division would be ready when the lead elements got there.  

It's like downloading a large file over broadband versus downloading the same file over dialup.

Hook

[dieseltaylor]

It is interesting to see what peoples notions of roads are for the 1800's. In the late lamented thread at BF I had put in some decent arguments that roads were indications of where to travel but the concept that you would/could march a sizeable force down the average road are really I think quite fanciful. I can think of incidences in Spain where there was not a lot of choice but very rugged terrian can make an army adopt an unfortunate formation.

However this discussion would vary considerably depending on the terrain and soil type, and of course the weather.

Metalled roads were by far the exception - rather like Russia in WW2 - and you know what problems the Germans army had despite modern technology AND a large horse drawn component. I have not the energy to redo my research now but I do have books and links which talk of roads/communications of the time.

Unfortunately I have bias to English sources - I daresay there are German and French books that discuss roads at the time of Napoleon so if anyone wants to start ferreting them out - we may get a European view.

[JMM]

...
I've read in the manuals that roads and trails are treated just like surrounding terrain and have no effect on movement in the game. I can accept that in small battles, perhaps, but in maps of the "mini-campaign" size, roads should have enormous significance as supply routes, lines of communication, and avenues of advance, retreat, reconnaissance, etc. At a grand-tactical or operational level, roads channel troop movements and greatly shape the eventual battlefield....

If this unrealistic choice was forced on JMM because of design limits in the game engine, or something like that, then OK. But maybe it can be considered for the next expansion/update? Just don't pretend it's a small and unnecessary detail, and therefore not represented in the game.

Battles : I was walking at Austerlitz 10 years ago. The density of lane was very low and I am sure the Army didn't move on these paths (or just some units, for example Art unit)

...

Campaign : You are right.. it's not an easy problem to manage the movement of troops on the road. We have a very interesting book "Des Marches dans les Armées de Napoleon" : Lieutenant C-P Escalle (1912). He explains a lot of methods to organize an army. There are two problems
a) The engine has to control the movement of each Corps on the road to avoid the conflict
b) The engine must control the placement of each unit... Generally, Art units moved on the road and the Infantry units moved on the two sides.
The third control is about the 3D models...

After releasing the game, I am going to work on the Great Tactical AI to improve its efficiency.. and I would like to add a good AI to control the units on the great map. But really, it's not a easy problem.

JMM

[dieseltaylor]

Napoleon - to be really boring had an idealised road system for army movement. As JMM has said it would be three streams with wheeled traffic in the centre on metalled road and the cavalry on one side and infantry on the other.

The obvious advantage to splitting infantry from cavalry is the speed of movement. I do believe some of these roads were started in France but would need some research on that. In the UK on the chalky Downland the old main coaching roads would be many coach widths as there were no hedges or fences allowing the coaches to go parallel to the road. Using the road proper as a guide.

In other areas and with rainy weather the churned up road would be skirted around where particularly boggy/flooded and the "road" would become wider and wider as traffic skirted further and further around the deep mud.

The lack of field hedges/fences and walls may be a little disturbing on LG's battlefield pictures but until
I play the game  ............ I doubt in army terms the field system was significant though woods, fords, fortified farm complexes would be. Bearing in mind that these woods etc would have to be fairly significant in size to have a meaningful effect . Anyway we shall see shortly : )

[Gunner24]

I'm a little concerned that the "maps" look a little plain, but sometimes all the "stuff" only gets in the way anyhow, if it makes pathfinder better to have less features on the battlefield, so improving the game play, then I can live without the hedges and walls etc etc.