HistWar (English zone) => General discussions => Discussion démarrée par: Gunner24 le 01 janvier 2010, 16:41:39 pm HistWar (English zone) => General discussions => Discussion démarrée par: Gunner24 le 01 janvier 2010, 16:41:39 pmIn my opinion, that is reason why routers are more than dead or wounded.That is to be expected, but the numbers are VERY high, 30,000 per side, over 30% routed, it looks like too many but I can not find any information to prove these kind of numbers are right, OR wrong ??????.
The 3rd corps under Davout took more than 1/4 casualties at Auerstedt and most if not all of his units were still standing when the battle was over. That is going to be rather difficult to recreate in LG.It would seem so.
I've not found anything about soliders running away from the action, maybe because it's a difficult subject. Was any "action" taken against soliders/units/formations that routed from the battlefield, or was it accepted as a fact of battle ?.
For example, you weren't even allowed to help a wounded comrade back from the line(Officers excepted, of course ), and if you did so nonetheless and it took you too long you were seen as a coward and treated as such by your fellow comrades...I have also seen some of this kind of thing in isolated cases, which if it were true, and followed to a conclusion, would mean there would never be any large scale "routs" but there clearly were.......
I have also seen some of this kind of thing in isolated cases, which if it were true, and followed to a conclusion, would mean there would never be any large scale "routs" but there clearly were.......
The 3rd corps under Davout took more than 1/4 casualties at Auerstedt and most if not all of his units were still standing when the battle was over. That is going to be rather difficult to recreate in LG.
I've not found anything about soliders running away from the action, maybe because it's a difficult subject. Was any "action" taken against soliders/units/formations that routed from the battlefield, or was it accepted as a fact of battle ?.One could look at early (right after the battle) and later casualty reports for units. IIRC at Waterloo a few units had something like 20'ish % of the "casualties" that were merely missing and who came back later on. We could call them lurkers or stragglers or something like that: individuals who had helped wounded but not returned, panicked soldiers who had fled or played dead or simply become lost in the chaos of combat. It is my impression that such soldiers were not punished as there could be all kinds of valid reasons for their disappearance unless it had been some obvious cowardice that was witnessed by someone.
not concerning runaways but we might have the same problem with Austerlitz, as to replaying the exceptional luck the French had at the right wing holding up Kienmayer long enough for Hulins advance guard to arrive at the nick of time and then of course catching the far superior Russian units at Tellnitz of guard, routing them in the process and adding another 30 minutes or so in favour of napoleon's plan... these fortunate coincidences continued throughout the entire battle (6 12lbers of Soult's corps artillery arriving to support Thiebault against Kamensky -1's attack from the flank...)There are certainly loads of examples of units that were still fighting on after taking losses that would be similar to what Guard units in LG can take. Without any other external factors it would be a rather poor unit that would give up at just 20% casualties.
Without any other external factors it would be a rather poor unit that would give up at just 20% casualties.
Yes it was easy enough for units to rout when they felt everything around them was falling apart with routing friends, feeling outflanked or outnumbered.
Spanish troops in the Peninsular War were generally not considered that great. But they did great at Albuera where you also going to find a heavy firefight that left a British brigade still standing after 50-60% losses.
In LG a Line quality unit is going to rout with just 5% losses. It will obviously rally and can do it a few times before it is completely finished at around 20%. It would be a lot better if the mechanic was for units to fall back instead of turning into a defenceless mob that can be captured by cavalry, that along with being forced to do it after just 5% is hardly realistic.
It would be a lot better if the mechanic was for units to fall back instead of turning into a defenceless mob that can be captured by cavalry, that along with being forced to do it after just 5% is hardly realistic.I agree.
Runaways probably includes all units that have "escaped".
These guys have left the field, but will be available for subsequent battles.
Units can't continue fighting forever.We are talking about a day here.
These are what some other games call "routs". They've routed off the battlefield and are no longer combat effective.I would like to see these guys "rallied" in the rear and re-form, even if not capable of fighting again.
do you all think 30% in the screen shot in the first post is too high for BOTH sides ?. I would not be surprised by this figure for the side that was well beaten.for most of the battles I would say yes...
In real life, if a whole Division "routed" what did this mean for that Division after the battle ?.nothing special if this Division belonged to the victorious side: they would simply reassemble, regroup if necessary and then be available for combat after ressupplying and perhaps a few "morale rising" days off :mrgreen:
I've seen units stand and fight until almost destroyed. I've seen units frightened by being ordered to march. There are a lot of possible results and the range is huge. The game will, at some point, duplicate almost anything from any true story you've heard. It will not, however, duplicate anything you can possibly imagine, and it will not usually duplicate some general's fantasy, like destroying an unshaken square by throwing cavalry into it.I can second that, same things happened to me and I was very impressed - and i totally understand that some outstanding things that maybe happened once can't reoccur in that game!!
Runaways probably includes all units that have "escaped". These guys have left the field, but will be available for subsequent battles. Units can't continue fighting forever. These are what some other games call "routs". They've routed off the battlefield and are no longer combat effective.
CiterUnits can't continue fighting forever.We are talking about a day here.
CiterThese are what some other games call "routs". They've routed off the battlefield and are no longer combat effective.I would like to see these guys "rallied" in the rear and re-form, even if not capable of fighting again
Do you all think 30% in the screen shot in the first post is too high for BOTH sides ?
Just a thought... Is there any chance that in statistics every unit that routed at least once (even if later rallyed and fought again) is being cumulatively summed up ??
I believe it to be impossible to review every single regiment in order to get definitive parameters for their performance in battle (they might have fought bravely once and taken flight the next time...)It certainly will be something that takes a lot of study yes, but IMO not impossible to get a reasonable understanding of it. Christopher Duffy noted how some Prussian regiments in the SYW still behaved poorly more than a year after a serious defeat. The combination of lots of recruits as well as the veterans having tasted enough blood to lose some of their confidence was most likely the reason IIRC.
I've seen units stand and fight until almost destroyedHave you seen units stand and fight beyond the expected 15-42% losses as described in the manual?
A system where external factors (feeling outnumbered/outclassed, flanks threatened or supported etc etc) adjusts the currently fixed percentage before a unit is forced back would be nice.
Have you seen units stand and fight beyond the expected 15-42% losses as described in the manual?
Yes. I've seen units in defensive line take 80% casualties before breaking. Look in the Analysis for the unit that took the most loss (third from the bottom on the third screen if it's not translated from French). Some of them are quite high. I've got a screen shot that shows over 2100 loss for one regiment.Then you should report it as a bug or the manual needs a change :lol:
Hook
Then you should report it as a bug or the manual needs a change :lol:
If it indeed supposed to be like that, then it seems better than described in the manual and what I have seen in tests (with my obviously outdated demo)
Yes. I've seen units in defensive line take 80% casualties before breaking. Look in the Analysis for the unit that took the most loss (third from the bottom on the third screen if it's not translated from French). Some of them are quite high. I've got a screen shot that shows over 2100 loss for one regiment.
Hook
There's no reason to render a huge mass of units near the rally point/lines of communication if they're not going to be going back into the battle. Just think of it as, the rally point is off the map.Ahhh, yes, good point.
I think if you divide the number of runaways by the number of units out of the map from a previous analysis screen to get the number of runaway men per unit, you'll find the number are more reasonable.I'm not so sure, the number of runaways is for the most part WHOLE units that have left the battlefield.
My point, which keeps getting missed, is :
Was it "normal" for about 30-35% of an Army (win OR lose) to be "gone" after a battle where a couple of thousand were killed and wounded ?.
I'm not so sure, the number of runaways is for the most part WHOLE units that have left the battlefield.When I did a test I could see how the number of runaways increased whenever a unit had moved off the map. So it seems the number comes from the soldiers who are in units that have escaped.
My point, which keeps getting missed, is :Each battle is of course unique but was it normal? No.
Was it "normal" for about 30-35% of an Army (win OR lose) to be "gone" after a battle where a few thousand were killed and wounded ?.
My point, which keeps getting missed, is :
Was it "normal" for about 30-35% of an Army (win OR lose) to be "gone" after a battle where a few thousand were killed and wounded ?.
This will include units that are reorganizing. Or whole corps that have retreated off the map. They are no longer available to fight for whatever reason.What your saying here is these men have in fact "retreated" to safety and can no longer fight TODAY, but may re-organise ready for tomorrow, that makes sense to me but I'm sure this figure is too high when compared to the killed and wounded stats.
Suggest a different term for "runaways" and I'll put that in the translation file instead. Would "Left the battlefield" make more sense? We have a statistic on another screen for units "Out of map", this would be "Men out of map" or similar.How about "Withdrawn from battlefield", would that be any good ?.
At the end of the battle, 1/3 of the force is no longer combat effective and have left the battle rather than fight to the death. How would you prefer to handle these forces?If you look at the casuality figures for major Napoleonic Battles there were huge numbers of men killed and wounded, if what your suggesting is correct, how did that happen - as they would have left the battlefield rather than fight.
Battle French Casualties Enemy Casualties
Austerlitz 9,000 27,000
Borodino 30,000 44,000
Eylau 25,000 15,000
Jena-Auerstadt 12,000 38,000
Waterloo 41,000 22,000
Yes, it is obvious that the above casualty figures, which include killed, wounded and missing, are large;
We could say, at Waterloo, almost the whole French Army ended up as "runaways" but how many of the Brits/Prussians did the same ?.
What do you have to compare it to, since it's never reported for real battles?Ha, so why are you right and me wrong when you admit there are no sources to prove one way or the other.
And exactly why do you think this number is too high?.Everyone is allowed to "think" something for themselves (even if they turn out to be wrong) and I gave some interesting stats. If we use Borodino from them as an example, 30k and 44k killed, wounded and missing for each side, that's about THREE times the number in the LG demo battle, so it would follow that the 30k "runaways" would also be three times as many, meaning neither side would have hardly any (if any at all ?) effective troops left after Borondino. Now you can say that is correct because after that kind of battle very few troops would be capable of fighting again for................how long ?.
More likely they were withdrawn to a safe area, with little or no action, for a spell to re-group and rest, then they would be ok for further action later - if needed.
...
If we use Borodino from them as an example, 30k and 44k killed, wounded and missing for each side
...
Instead of "Out of Map" how about "Left the Field". I also like "Combat Ineffective" and "Broken".
"Missing" could even be a good term for this statistic...
Instead of "Out of Map" how about "Left the Field"
"Left the Field"is good, but is :
is good, but is :
"Left the Battlefield" better ?.
I believe this is modelled in game, with a rallied unit regaining strength and morale over time. Can anyone confirm this?
I would like to see units "retreat" instead of rout if they have only taken a small number of losses, atleast when on the defensive. This would reflect being pushed back. If they took more losses the retreat might turn to a rout.
1. In LG is there any morale bonus/penalty for a regiment with a threatened or unsupported flank?
2. Do friendly fleeing regiments negatively affect morale? I am not sure, sometimes I see corps taken apart piecemeal with regiments routing and being captured, while some other regiments stand steadfast.
3. I would expect that if a corps commander was taking massive losses, he would order his corps to retreat rather than see it destroyed. Does anyone have opinions on this?
Already happening. Probably only happens for higher quality units. You have to have considerable control over troops to get them to do an orderly retreat, more than you'd have for a typical line unit. Read du Picq.
1. Don't know. Feel free to check.
2. It appears they do. In any case, it's documented that an elite or guard level unit fleeing will have a major effect on morale. Check the manual.
3. This is already happening. Some corps will retreat completely off the field.
I imagine this would be hidden in the engine if it was the case, so I think it's something that we can speculate on but JMM will have to confirm or deny for certainty.
I would like to see units "retreat" instead of rout if they have only taken a small number of losses, atleast when on the defensive. This would reflect being pushed back. If they took more losses the retreat might turn to a rout. This already happens sometimes (regiments will make a "retreat move" where the men slowly walk backwards). I think routs should perhaps be confined to units that have had a spectacular failure of morale.I really don't want to contradict you always, certainly not my intention, but this is the way I see it...with historical reference...
I wonder, is the morale system based largely on losses? I think there needs to be a certain "shock" element to morale, where a regiment can stand to be bled slowly, say in a firefight, but factors like surprise, routing allies, being vastly outnumbered, and taking a large number of losses in a small period, say from concentrated artillery fire, can cause them to rout without taking many losses at all.From what I can see the only way a unit does not rout after taking 5% losses(Line quality) is if there is a break of one minute where it does not take losses. If such a break happens then the "clock" resets and it has to take another 5%.
I think there should be a Corps order :That would be a good idea!
"Withdraw".
If a Corps Commander can see he is about to get badly beaten he should be able to make some kind of organised withdrawal, to a safer position.
What is everyone using at the moment to do this ?......which order would be best if you want to dis-engage ?.
From what I can see the only way a unit does not rout after taking 5% losses(Line quality) is if there is a break of one minute where it does not take losses. If such a break happens then the "clock" resets and it has to take another 5%.
From an old post by JMM there is a shock based on losses which is 3% for Guard units. I take that as 3% in one minute.
If I was to take a guess based on the tests and battles I have done so far then armies need to consist of Elite quality units or better to get the same percentage of casualties that we see in several historical battles.
Allright I really didn't get that the way you ment it...(I'm not englisch native..if that's what you mean, and i usually don't correct the things i write...but from my earlier comments you might have realized that I am Austrian. However I've learned English, French, Latin, Ancient Greek and Italian - so it all gets a little bit confused up there, hope that I'm still comprehendable) :mrgreen:
Concerning game-programming I must pass, as I already mentioned "many" times now... :?
And for all the people who don't know Austria: THERE ARE NO KANGAROOS IN AUSTRIA :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
I think there should be a Corps order :
"Withdraw".
If a Corps Commander can see he is about to get badly beaten he should be able to make some kind of organised withdrawal, to a safer position.
What is everyone using at the moment to do this ?......which order would be best if you want to dis-engage ?.
There are 3 levels before a unit routs.
a) losses during the last minute above X1% (instantaneous flight)
b) losses during the march (beginning on an order) above X2%
c) absolute losses above X3%
There are several other conditions to take flight.
X1 is 8,7,6,5,4% for Vieille Garde,Moyenne Garde,Royal Garde,Line or Light infantry,conscrit
X3 is 42,26 to 28,21 to 24,15 to 20%
X2 is calculated from these 2 values.
JMM
I also believe units are more likely flee from a high number of initial casualties as caused by a charge, close range volley, or artillery bombardment, than from the same number of casualties in a protracted firefight.
That's covered in "a) losses during the last minute above X1% (instantaneous flight)" above.If JMM means that a unit will rout if it takes above 5% in one minute (Line quality) then yes it will rout, but it will also rout when taking 5% over 10+ minutes of artillery fire. And that is my concern about the combat mechanics as units are very fragile. Not only can they not take many losses before they rout but why rout instead of pulling back to safety. They are easy targets for cavalry who can capture them.
So let's see if we can't put together something JMM can actually use. History buffs I'm looking at you :)
I agree that a unit should retreat, or atleast try to, before it routs, MOST of the time.I tend to agree, but maybe there should be a phase between this, the "wavering" type stage as in TW.....the unit is under heavy pressure and IF it's not withdrawn soon will rout, so it SHOULD retreat, but if not (for any reason) then it routs.......maybe this is how it already works, I will have to take more note of the in game descriptions when this is going on.
I tend to agree, but maybe there should be a phase between this, the "wavering" type stage as in TW.....the unit is under heavy pressure and IF it's not withdrawn soon will rout, so it SHOULD retreat, but if not (for any reason) then it routs.......maybe this is how it already works, I will have to take more note of the in game descriptions when this is going on.
Until we know all the rules JMM uses, attempting to change them will be tilting at windmills. JMM already knows how these things worked in real life.
Please try to avoid the appearance of stirring dissent.
Hook
There is no reason to wait to find out all the rules JMM uses. Odds are we probably never will know completely. There is no reason to hold off with suggestions, JMM will see what we think should be the case, and I'm sure some experts can weigh in with references and opinions, and JMM can adjust accordingly.
So I would suggest a set penalty to spirit/morale per gun firing at the unit, building up over the course of say 2 or 3 minutes to a maximum. For example, each gun might reduce a regiment's morale by a maximum of 5 spirit, over the course of 3 minutes, in a 1/3/5 organisation of penalties.
My preference is that it will have an effect in the range of say x + or - 2.
Mooncabbage
Your suggestion seems flawed in some respects:
a] distance to guns - decreased accuracy and effect
b] effectiveness of guns, less effective in the wet due to ball not skipping as far, also I would imagine wheat would slow ball down
c] formation of the unit , line being least affected
d] effects of slope
and I am sure morale is very much influenced by what is happening nearby in relation to number of friendly and enemy troops. Also I think perhaps you over-rate the effectiveness of a single gun and in fact number of batteries rather than guns may be what would be required at range to have any serious attempt at reducing morale.
I am not a great fan of a mechanistic approach to gaming preferring an element of unknown fudging. The concept that someone can say I have 6 guns and will aim at this regiment and it will lose morale at a specific rate I dislike. My preference is that it will have an effect in the range of say x + or - 2.
After all most of the lessons learned from the Napolenic battles was done in hindsight and most of it after the wars were over. Not to say that both sides did not have some exceptional officers who understood better than most what was going on - but then they were the exceptions. One only has to look at the problems the Franch had with training horses for the cavalry to realise how bad ideas could live on throughout the Napoleonic period.
Hook, seeing as we have unlimited time and space, and I'm certain JMM plans to continue modifying and tweaking the game post release, I see no problem with discussing the internal rules. If you don't like it, noone is threatening to break your legs if you don't take part. I just stop replying to the threads in which you no longer have an interest.
Posts that are mostly attempts to turn HWLG into a Total War clone are less welcomeHa, where are they, I don't re-call any. Anyone with a brain in their head can see that LG is nothing like TW games. People who want TW games will stay with TW games, many of the TW Napoleonic Community are showing little interest in LG because it's not their type of game, others, like Moon, Grog and I (and others not active here yet) are WANTING to switch from TW to LG.
My problem is with the word ROUT -
which means - a disorderly retreat of defeated troops./ a decisive defeat. /defeat utterly and force to retreat.
I think the word Rout is too strong a word - and should be used for units going off map ( and even then a random number should rally and return to battle), and another word used for units that re-group to fight again such as retreating/ disorganised / pulling back/ Rallying etc..
To sum up - the number of units going off map (routing) seems high to me, some of them should rally and return.
Rout in the game is an uncontrolled disorganized retreat that couldn't be prevented by the leaders. I find the term "rout" confusing in the game myself, but haven't come up with a better term to describe it. If I could, it would already be changed in the translation files.
Routing units will rally nearby and return to battle unless something happens to prevent this, like getting captured.
They don't leave the map until they are combat ineffective. These guys will rally and reorganize (and collect troops that have scattered) and be ready for combat the next day. This has been discussed in this thread already.
Hook
Thanks for that Hook, prehaps what I mean is that some of combat ineffective troops leaving the battlefield should rally and come back...
I know it's only a word, but every time my Guard units 'rout' I moan to myself "Guard units do not rout!" i'm sure I can live with it.
The word I am actually missing is "retire"...I hope this is correct in this context - I believe I have read it some times in books for a situation where a unit realizes it has no chance of winning, but is not yet broken or routed andd decides to break formation and "retires" behind the own lines to regroup and reform...
the best term for a "uncontrolled disordered retreat that wasn't ordered by a commander" is in my opinion RoutYes, I agree......if it were NOT uncontrolled and disordered, then something like :