HistWar
HistWar (English zone) => General discussions => Discussion démarrée par: AJ le 23 avril 2010, 21:33:56 pm
-
Just which setting of FOW is historically realistic or the closest to realistic. This has really been bugging me, so I conducted a series of experiments. I have just watched a Documentary on Austerlitz and read Osprey's clash of the 3 Emperors.
We have undisputed accounts in these resources of Napy's observation position, and what he saw from there.
Basically, from Zurlan, Napoleon, once the fog had cleared, using a spyglass, could see the progression of the 3rd and 4th Allied Columns, from their start position at the top of the Pratzen Heights and their progression down the Heights.
I used this battle, because we know for sure where the Emperor was, what he saw, and at what location he saw it. This way I could recreate the locations on the Austerlitz map and run the experiment in 3 modes. I fought as commanding both sides to enable me to place the troops correctly and toggle between Armies.
At 7:50am precisely, I took a screen shot of the French View and the Allied view. 7:50am is not historically correct but that is irrelevant, I had the Allies in March order and they moved faster than at the real Battle. I took the shots at 7:50am because that is the time from the French side that the Emperor first spotted any sign of the enemy
descending the Heights in "Gronard" mode, and all shots in the other modes are taken at the same time.
1. GRONARD MODE-Full FOW, view restricted to CinC
2. CONDITIONAL (historical delay), view unrestricted
3. MARKER info VAGUE (no delay) view unrestricted
-
EXPERIMENT 1-GRONARD MODE (Full FOW)
As we can see from the screens, if Napoleon would have been restricted to the Gronard mode, from Zurlan he would not have seen the 40,000 or so troops that he and witnesses state they saw at the top of and descending the Pratzen heights.
Therefore, having no proof that the Allies had fallen (in sufficiently large numbers), into his weak right wing trap, his battle plan would have been in disarray. Napoleon clearly tells Soult that he is not committing Soult to the Center attack until he has observed the enemy fully committed to the right wing ruse.
In the French screen we see what Napoleon saw at 7:50am (the time he first sees anything on or near the heights), clearly not 40,000 men at the crest and moving down the Heights. However in the Allied screen at 7:50am, they were clearly at the crest and moving down.
The significance of the Allied screen, is that using Gronard mode Napoleon cannot see the Allies where he actually and in reality did see them.
Conclusion. In this battle Gronard mode may have changed history
-
EXPERIMENT 2-CONDITIONAL HISTORICAL DELAY (View UNrestricted)
This one is even worse, for some reason the Allies got all the way down the heights and are nearly engaged (I must have started them of from a slightly different position).
The fact is they crested and descended the Heights undetected except for a few regiments. Remember the screens are both identical times, look where the Allies actually are then look at Napoleon first sight of the Allies is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
EXPERIMENT 3-MARKER info VAGUE (View unrestricted)
OK, Napoleon now sees the Columns at the crest and descend the heights (which he actually did). He sees they are fully committed but even then tells an impatient Soult to wait another 15mins before beginning his attack on the center (Osprey), just to make sure!!!!
I know he is seeing some forces that he probably couldn't see historically but remember they may not be where the map shows them and he doesn't know much about them.
Now I would like all who read this little treatise to ask themselves a question.
If you were Napoleon writing his memoirs on Austerlitz, using HLG as an illustrative aid, which mode would you choose?
Had to crop the French screen, it was too many Kb's
-
CONCLUSION
This may surprise some. I don't think any of them are right, with "Gronard" (the exception being an army stumbling upon another with no intel) being the worst. Game designers could not devise one FOW that is Historical. JMM has done the best option, he gave a number of different settings so that gamers can fight with the option they prefer.
There are too many imponderables. Who had the best intel before the battle? Did one side interview deserters? Did the scouts get captured? Did someone use a "Signal System" as Napoleon did at Austerlitz?
In my experiment I attempted to illustrate 3 modes. There are those who read this who will point out this or that Corps did this or that differently etc.. The point is, In "Gronard Mode"I brought 40,000 men over the top of Pratzen heights relatively undetected, whereas Napoleon personally watched the last 2 columns move from the top and begin their descent. He would not sanction Soult beginning his attack on the center until he had personally viewed all 4 columns committed.
For me personally, I think "Marker, Vague, Unrestricted View" as my main settings, will give me the enjoyment of a good battle and provide a good workable FOW. I may use "Gronard" or "Conditional" for some of the excellent scenarios that have been created because most of these were "Stumbled Upon" actions where intel was at a minimum.
-
Experiment with full FOW.
(If i have undestdood something)
The experiment is very very interesting, but the austerlitz map is made with satellite elevation?
The heights of the map is real?
Should repeat experiment with map made with satellite elevation method how explained in the file depot.
(sorry for english)
-
Huge work... just a comment..
Yes, Napoleon was on Zurlan... but Zurlan isn't at the place where you placed him ;)
On your shot, Napy is on Le Santon...
BTW, I visited Austerlitz and there is a table of orientation at the top of Zurlan hill.
I can't be sure at 100%.. but I think FoW runs fine in solo or MP mode.
The present problem is in PBEM mode because it seems I don't save all informations for the management of conditional FoW.
So, after resuming at each step, it's possible the FoW isn't right at 100% (and I am working on this)
JMM
-
This was done in solo mode, JMM could you give me the location of Zurlan on the map and I will rerun the battles. It looked right in corralation to Ospreys map.
-
Alfiere, I leave the map making to others, I'm not that technical. This is the original game map made by JMM and modded for the old style appearance
-
This was done in solo mode, JMM could you give me the location of Zurlan on the map and I will rerun the battles. It looked right in corralation to Ospreys map.
Hill on the south of Schlappanitz...
THX...
JMM
PS : the maps aren't done from the satellite elevation.. It's possible to build a better map; that said, it's possible there are some modifications during the 200 years. It's funny to mix a present satellite photo and a old picture drawing at this epoch.
-
However I must say it is a great game if it is close to these meticulous experiments.
-
Can you tell me from the attached the number of the hill
-
Can you tell me from the attached the number of the hill
<<2>>
Just a question. This position isn't described on the Osprey manual?
JMM
-
No, it shows it on the hill to the East where I put him
-
Is this right, it's the highest point
-
Yes.. it's here :D
JMM
-
If anything it was worse. Napoleon does not see the massed columns topping and descending the Heights.
Incidentally, this is not a criticism of HLG's FOW system. I am rather critiquing the FOW concept and the notion that any one FOW is the "Correct" one.
-
If anything it was worse. Napoleon does not see the massed columns topping and descending the Heights.
Incidentally, this is not a criticism of HLG's FOW system. I am rather critiquing the FOW concept and the notion that any one FOW is the "Correct" one.
Just a little question for your understanding of Austerlitz:
1) could you show me a reference where it is stated that Napoleon actually saw these movements you're talking of?
2) for the later orders he issued during the battle he moved his position on the Pratzen heights and had a much better view of the Allied deployemnts...and thus was able to redirect his reserves consisting of Bernadotte's corps...as he had changed his plan from the initial one, which was to turn the Allied right under Bagration, to the newly developed opportunity of splitting the Allied army in half through the centre...
a big part of being CinC is understanding the "big picture" and placing trust in those carrying out the task that they were given, without having the ability to interfere...as I understood you you are saying that you don't like the FoW system...well I think it'S very realistic...as CinC you give the order to advance to a certain place for example...and you just don't see exactly what is going to happen:
let's take a well known example: the Pickett-Pettigrew-Trimble Charge up on Cemetery Ridge: Pickett only saw a huge mass of men converging on one point...he didn't see what unit he was engaging, how his men were doing, he only saw some colours and a huge cloud of smoke...
after the attack was driven back, his men defeated...only then he realized the magnitude of his defeat...it's actually well shown in the "Gettysburg" movie...
so basically, as CinC you see very little of the field, unless you have a really dominant position, from which to issue orders, and even then, smoke will somewhat blur the picture after some time...and not even Wellington saw all of the major action, even though he rode 5 different horses until they were blown on that day at Mont St. Jean
having one of these hills at your disposal, while the enemy lacks of one, might be a winning factor, but not every battlefield provides them (obviously) -
Conclusio: if you play as realistically as possible, you have to accept the simple fact, that you have to have a plan first, which is carried out (your initial orders), and with any luck, it's a good plan...certain things can be changed during a battle, but only so many....you'll never see the entire action going on, and if the enemy uses the terrain to his advantage maybe he'll outwhit you and you'll be surprised by his appearance some place you would have never expected him to be...
a little story of Austerlitz on that: after the initial attack of Soult on the Pratzen heights, Napoleon knew very little of what was going on, and when a column of unidentified soldiers appeared on the ridge line he even asked: "could those be Russians" - being very worried that his entire corps might have been lost - as he didn't see anything of what was going on...the situation at Napoleon's HQ at Zurlan hill was very confused...and some things were cleared up by incoming reports AND the movement of his HQ to the Pratzen Heights...
CvC
-
Just a little question for your understanding of Austerlitz:
1) could you show me a reference where it is stated that Napoleon actually saw these movements you're talking of?
2) for the later orders he issued during the battle he moved his position on the Pratzen heights and had a much better view of the Allied deployemnts...and thus was able to redirect his reserves consisting of Bernadotte's corps...as he had changed his plan from the initial one, which was to turn the Allied right under Bagration, to the newly developed opportunity of splitting the Allied army in half through the centre...
Osprey's Battle of the three Emperors by David Chandler,is the authority, and I haven't heard it disputed. This is the position he watched the columns from and the position from which, with Soult at his side, he gave Soult the order to attack the center
Napoleon had kept Marshal Soult at his side all this
while, and 'the foremost manoeuvrer in Europe'
found the inaction of the main part of his corps
d'armee hard to take. Both Vandamme's and Saint-
Hilaire's divisions were still concealed in the
lingering thick mist in the Goldbach valley between
Puntowitz and Jirschikowitz villages, and there was
no sign that the foe even guessed at their presence
there. The top of the Pratzen was now in sight from
the Zurlan, and the Emperor's spyglass clearly
revealed a torrent of the enemy moving south and
downwards - perhaps already as many as 40,000,
with more beginning to follow. As Napoleon
intended, the Allies were obligingly emptying their
centre of troops in order to execute their gigantic
wheel against the French right.
At length, Napoleon turned to Soult. It was now
8.45am. 'How long will it take you to move your
divisions to the top of the Pratzen Heights?' he
enquired. 'Less than 20 minutes, Sire; for my
troops are hidden at the foot of the valley,
concealed by fog and campfire smoke.' 'In mat case
we will wait another quarter of an hour.'
Napoleon's mind was working like a computer,
calculating distances and times, odds for and
against alternative courses of action, and yet leaving
space for the element of 'luck'. Timing is
everyming in war. The Allies must be given exacdy
the right amount of time to clear the centre before
Soult struck. As Napoleon knew, 'there is one drop
of water that causes the full bucket to overflow'.
As for anything that happened after this , I do not dispute. It was only this time period that my study to date encompassed.
Also if you fight Austerlitz as realistically as possible, you would have to take into account Napoleons Signal System which he was using for receiving reports and the issuing of some of his orders (Osprey)
-
you DO know that this movement was his plan all along? and that he only waited for it to happen? - otherwise he would never have given up the Pratzen heights and hidden his troops in the morning mist down in the valley?
Osprey books are fine for an introduction to the battle...I'd suggest you try to read Robert Goetz's book on Austerlitz, and get back to me on that then...which was published 2005, if I'm not mistaken
to the game: I recall putting Napoleon at exactly the same spot on Zurlan hill, and I recall seeing the allied columns when they appeared before Tellnitz and Sokolnitz - so FOW is perfectly fine in the game
CvC
-
oh, and another thing: if I check your screens, where is the reference for your deployments?...you said you tried to play it historically...I don't recall seeing Murat's reserve cavalry around Tellnitz and Sokolnitz?
CvC
-
Count, I simply tried to move 4 Corps over the brow and down the hill, for the purpose of the experiment it doesn't matter who they are in the slightest. As for the Grand Tactic, I am not an idiot, of course I know. This experiment wasn't about tactics or who's corps was where. It was simply to see if Napoleon could see a large body of men from Zurlan descending down the hill in "Gronard mode". You say you fought it and he saw them, in that case do my experiment and reproduce what you saw, post the results as I have. Osprey may only be an introduction, that's fine, I am not trying to pretend I am an expert on Austerlitz. I merely used a reliable source to give me Napoleons position from where he viewed the 4 columns. Now you insinuated in an earlier post that he didn't view them from there. I have quoted my source as requested by you, what is your source that says he didn't.
Please let's not let this become an unpleasant debate, calling into question my veracity. As often happens, I posted something that provoked thought and did not call into question HLG itself and I become attacked personally.
Once again I will state clearly as I did before. This topic is NOT about Austerlitz or about how well JMM has designed the FOW options, it is about the whole concept of FOW and how and which options work the most realistically in various situations.
-
You may have slightly better luck if you move Napoleon slightly south-southeast to the military crest of that hill rather than putting him on the highest point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_crest
I don' t know if the trees in that direction will obstruct his view.
This is a good example of why I always said that the final arbiter of what the commander can see is the view from the F5 camera for that commander. Also, while I see French units fading out, I see no fading Allies in the French view. Go to the F3 view for a few seconds, then back to the map view and see if more enemy units are visible.
Hook
-
okay, I had a little free time today so I set myself the task to show you, aj, how FoW works with an "as close as possible" historical Austerlitz (at least up to the point where I started to lose my patience)
Thanks Hook for the nice graphic! - I find that you only position your CinC perfectly if you reposition him on the 3D map accordingly...you can roughly position him on the 2D map and then make fine adjustements (which make a huge difference!) on the 3D map!
The screens show the developement of the battle - pay particular attention to the proximity of the allied movement towards the French right - they literally marched in front of the French faces down to Sokolnitz - even closer than shown in my game screens
NOTE: as for the historical deployment: I only paid attention to the corps involved in this FoW example: the reserves such as the Guard, Oudinot's Grenadiers or Bernadotte'S Corps are not placed where they should be, as well as Lannes (due to the zone restriction) and Davout, who was still on the march with most of his troops, on a road, which is not shown on this map;
Soult's deployment is close but not entirely correct - Napoleon's HQ is in the right spot (I only used the 2D map - to avoid any argument about the EXACT place where he rested his horse!)
Last statement adressing you personally aj: I think it's common knowledge that I usually try to avoid confrontations of any kind on the forum, because it tends to be neither intelligent nor interesting in any way. So a just question is: Why did I attack your whole thread with an attitude a tad more aggressive than usual?
Simple answer: JMM's very busy at the moment, fixing orders as well as MP and all those other "major" things many of which you want fixed in no time - best would be a release of a patch yesterday!
I simply think that taking up JMM's precious time with new stuff coming up almost every day - makes him lose focus on the things already there...I therefore considered it my duty to take over and try to tell you that FoW works perfectly fine as it is...and any problems with a game in Grog mode are due to the "order" problem which we ALL know of by now!
therefore: here is my answer, as requested by you! - I took screens, I added text, I looked up the maps and movements, to get it as close as possible (I wasn't very patient with this, as I've got many other things to prepare)
I think the screens make it obvious that FoW works at it should work - information not shown with your own eyes - well that's where you rely on your corps commanders to send AdCs to you, or messengers with dispatches (a system already there, I know, rarely used by most of you, but if you use the information shown on a dispatch, from an area you don't see - you can really work with it! and dispatch reinforcements, if needed, accordingly)
I can't remember having ever attacked you personally aj, least having offended you in any way with any of my written words - I might have been more direct and outspoken than usual - this happens when I consider it of utmost necessity!
CvC
-
here the other screens - I tried to add enough text to explain my thoughts...if not - feel free to ask questions!
CvC
-
and the last ones!
CvC
-
I think the screens make it obvious that FoW works at it should work
Firstly thank you for at least trying to do the experiment yourself rather than just criticising, and I do appreciate the moving of Napoleon a few feet. However your screens do not make it obvious at all. For the experiment to be valid all screens need to be taken at EXACTLY the same time from both the Allied and French view. Your screens were all taken at different times, It is not in dispute that Napoleon would eventually see the forces descending en mass, the point is, in Gronard mode, when he sees the first sign of troops moving down, how many had already gone past undetected. This can only be shown by a screen shot of both sides at exactly the same time. However as Alfiere points out (and JMM concedes), the map elevations are not precise, so we may both be running a faulty experiment. It is a basic scientific norm, that for any experiment to be proved beyond doubt to be a fact, it must be reproducible without variation, neither of us have achieved this.
information not shown with your own eyes - well that's where you rely on your corps commanders to send AdCs to you, or messengers with dispatches (a system already there, I know, rarely used by most of you, but if you use the information shown on a dispatch, from an area you don't see - you can really work with it! and dispatch reinforcements, if needed, accordingly)
How do you know it is rarely used by most of us? In fact it was Ges and myself at nbc, who first discovered the despatch problem in pbem (posted on Redmine), that was because we were trying to use dispatches.
Last statement adressing you personally aj: I think it's common knowledge that I usually try to avoid confrontations of any kind on the forum, because it tends to be neither intelligent nor interesting in any way. So a just question is: Why did I attack your whole thread with an attitude a tad more aggressive than usual?
Simple answer: JMM's very busy at the moment, fixing orders as well as MP and all those other "major" things many of which you want fixed in no time - best would be a release of a patch yesterday!
I simply think that taking up JMM's precious time with new stuff coming up almost every day - makes him lose focus on the things already there...I therefore considered it my duty to take over and try to tell you that FoW works perfectly fine as it is...and any problems with a game in Grog mode are due to the "order" problem which we ALL know of by now!
I am to shoulder the blame for not having a timely fix for pbem and MP? My post had no personal comments toward anyone, just because someone posts something you don't agree with or may take up JMM's time (I don't know why it should it wasn't a bug post and I went out of my way to say that he had given us good options to use to our personal preferences), it doesn't warrant your strident tone or condescending attitude, JMM behaved like a gentleman in this matter. As for JMM fixing things "I want fixed in no time", I and many others have paid good money for this product and we are not talking minor bugs here, I bought the game to play multi/pbem, neither of which can really be done. So yes I do expect a fix pretty fast. MP is essential to receive decent press reviews, which aren't going too well right now. When was the last time you bought a defective product and didn't complain to the store?
Conclusio: if you play as realistically as possible, you have to accept the simple fact, that you have to have a plan first, which is carried out (your initial orders), and with any luck, it's a good plan...certain things can be changed during a battle, but only so many...
How in the world would you know how I plan and fight my battles? This is what I mean about condescending.
Count, I can only hope that we have miscommunication due to a language problem. My sole intention as I stated originally, was not to criticise the design of FOW in HLG, but was rather a critique of the various modes of FOW and individual players observations. As you know, I am noted for starting topics in order to provoke discussion and sharing of thoughts. (Divisional Command, Waterloo), this topic was intended to do just that. However I feel that I have been "Put in my place", as I write I can see my sheep through the window, they follow each other no matter what!!!!!
-
And what about the effect of using Signal Stations (Semaphore)to relay orders and receive dispatches from Corps. It must have had an effect otherwise Napoleon wouldn't have used it. Wouldn't that make order delay "Historical" a little suspect for this particular battle.
New standard footnote for my posts: This post is no way meant to be provocotive or to criticise HLG or it's creation team.
-
I've not spent a huge amount of time studying this FOW subject, my prefrence is to play a "game" for enjoyment, and that means I like to see what's happening !. The total grog FOW option in HWLG is not very much to my liking, but that's my preference, if it works as it should, then all well and good, there are other options we can use, BUT, in PBEM and MP games how many will set the full grog mode up to play - my bet is very few. It could be a lot more if it were a little more "friendly". This is a GAME, we are not on a real battlefield 200 years ago fighting for our lives - thankfully.
JMM
I don't like the polemic and the dialectic isn't a good way in this forum!
And believe me, if you like this game, the best is to avoid this kind of behavior!!!
EDIT by g24....whole "off topic" rant removed - sorry to cause offence.
We all want the same thing, a great game, which we have almost got, and will have soon, just because someone says "how about if you do.....this that or the other" does not mean they hate the game and are trying to cause trouble - in fact it's the oppersite, they love the game and want it to be as good as possible.
Over and out for now.
-
the problem is that we are mixing all; with this view,I can't fix any bugs...
a) First of all, visibility runs fine in solo mode!
b) Possible problem when we resume a game (pbem,solo) and I think I fix this issue
c) Execution of Orders: I am working on this problem.
Just a comment:
However as Alfiere points out (and JMM concedes), the map elevations are not precise
Sorry, I never said this, just I didn't use maps from satellite: it's not the same thing...
Another comment:
The testers can talk about the game like other guys... Because they are testers, they know a bit more the game.
That said, a lot of present testers entered into the team 3 or 4 months ago...
I don't like the polemic and the dialectic isn't a good way in this forum!
And believe me, if you like this game, the best is to avoid this kind of behavior!!!
Now, I must continue to work...
JMM
-
Sorry, I didn't mean to misquote you, I meant to say you didn't use a sattelite map. I don't think FOW is bugged in SOLO (I never said it was). I didn't bring up the question of the pbem/MP fix.
I agree the whole tone of this Topic has turned bad, I personally concede, I am defeated, I already feel beaten to a pulp. I can't help feeling that we may be missunderstanding each other due to translation or language differences. A small nuance missed in translation or not being absolutely fluent in a language can cause a lot of problems.
-
I agree the whole tone of this Topic has turned bad
Indeed it did, maybe this is why a lot more people read forums, than post on them !.
Perhaps I should have counted to 10 (or a 100????) before I posted some of my comments, sorry if they caused any upset - offending comments now removed.
I'm sure we can march on regardless of one slightly "bad" topic.
-
Until now I've only played solo mode. What I can say is that I find this simulator terrific. I have spent a lot of money on it (Napoleon's box). Although I have identified several bugs, I regard the money I've spent as an investment in order to give the possibility for JMM's team to continue to improve it despite the dangers of the unpredictable market. I bought this one and no other because I've seen here the potential to turn it into the Napoleonic battle simulator of my dreams, and that takes time and effort. In summary, just keep doing your work steadily, persistently, accurately. No rush!
Regards,
António
-
FoW experiment is a good topic!
Again, I can't say there isn't any issues in the complex process (particulary with fow with delay because HW uses several counters for each unit...) but I spent several days to develop/check this part, and I think the software runs fine.
That said, I know there is a bug after resuming the game.. I think I fixed it, but yet I didn't check.
I hope to give a new version to the beta test team in the next days.. and if all is right, a patch 01c very soon.
I don't forget you are waiting this new patch... I can understand your impatience.
JMM
-
Now,out of curiosity, after 200 years Austerlitz with satellite.
Made with Google Earth e Scilab software.
It is not bad how historical map but with important changes in some area.
The map is right and brucepos did a great job with very useful explanation and map editor is very powerful that permit this utility.
-
Alfiere, could you post that map on the depot for download, Thankyou.
-
I am not sure, it is the first time that try.
I like experiment but on constructive spirit.
-
Got it, thanks mate
-
Hey Count, a little humor. Our lively debate actually scored 2nd place in a google search. Now that's high profile perhaps we'll have the whole world joining in :lol: :lol: :lol:
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=what+is+the+exact+location+of+the+Zurlan+at+austerlitz&btnG=Google+Search&rlz=1R2GGLL_enUS371&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=what+is+the+exact+location+of+the+Zurlan+at+austerlitz&gs_rfai=&fp=9118ce00d2daff08
-
Ok .
Repeat test for me for curiosity and do not post result.
Rather delete previous post.
Hello
-
Alfiere, that was wise. I deleted my reply as well. I'm just DONE with the subject!!!!!!!!! email me for further discussions on it
-
This is a fantastic conversation. All of you Gentlemen are to be highly commended for engaging in your work, your thoughts and your serious discussion.
Please accept my compliments and gratefulness, all of you. Conducting the FOW experiment is beyond my current capability. Commenting on the FOW experiment is beyond my capability. As such, I admire your efforts.
I stand on the sidelines only to admire the work of Giants, such as yourselves.
Please continue to illuminate us. We are all Gentlemen here.
-
Jean, you give us all far more credit than we are worthy of. As for giants, I'm 5'7" I don't know about the Count and Alfiere.
You did however speak as an Officer and a Gentleman, and I thank you for that. :p :p :p