HistWar

HistWar (English zone) => General discussions => Discussion démarrée par: AJ le 11 août 2010, 02:20:01 am

Titre: Formation for Defence Line
Posté par: AJ le 11 août 2010, 02:20:01 am
Question, when commanding the French and ordering a "Defence Line", what is the concensus of whether the line should form in "Mixed order, Column or Line"? What situations influence which formation you use?
Titre: Re : Formation for Defence Line
Posté par: Hook le 11 août 2010, 04:46:57 am
A defensive line is just that, a line, to maximize firepower.  It will be backed up by reserve battalions and their formation would depend on the circumstances at the moment.  This is what happens currently, although I'm not sure what formation the reserve battalions use, or if they change.

Hook
Titre: Re : Formation for Defence Line
Posté par: Marquês de Alorna le 11 août 2010, 18:07:33 pm
I've recently sent JMM a proposal to allow more control over the "Deploy on line" order, being able to specify which formation to use in the 1st and 2nd line.
Current HW-LG tactics are too French-oriented and do not allow the simulation of e.g. the Austrian army in the beginning of the period in question.

Regarding the the "Defend in Line" order, I think that it is fine as it is. Maybe it could be improved if you were able to optionally enforce that the troops should be deployed behind the defined line, so that you are sure that your troops do not try to deploy too much ahead of the line.

(Question: how to define "behind" when you have enemy units located at different directions? As far as I know, it does not matter to draw the lines from right to left or vice versa...)
Titre: Re : Formation for Defence Line
Posté par: AJ le 11 août 2010, 18:52:50 pm
Citer
"Mixed order, Column or Line"? What situations influence which formation you use?

I hear all you guys are saying but my question is more as to "What circumstances influence your selection of Mixed Order, Line or Column", when forming a Defense line?
Titre: Re : Re : Formation for Defence Line
Posté par: Marquês de Alorna le 11 août 2010, 19:55:02 pm
I hear all you guys are saying but my question is more as to "What circumstances influence your selection of Mixed Order, Line or Column", when forming a Defense line?
Oh, ok. I understand. You mean the current options. Have you made any experiments? It is odd that those options are given, since the manual says that each unit will rush to the designated position with no care for keeping the formation. So regiments should always choose column formation, then deploy and change to line.

Maybe - this is just a guess - those options only affect the 2nd line regiments of the corps.

 
Titre: Re : Formation for Defence Line
Posté par: AJ le 11 août 2010, 20:25:59 pm
Citer
Oh, ok. I understand. You mean the current options. Have you made any experiments? It is odd that those options are given, since the manual says that each unit will rush to the designated position with no care for keeping the formation. So regiments should always choose column formation, then deploy and change to line.

Maybe - this is just a guess - those options only affect the 2nd line regiments of the corps.

MDA, it is a given that they rush there as quick as they can mate. the options being discussed are essential, they allow you to select which formation they adopt AFTER they arrive and deploy. This, my friend is the object of my question.
 
Titre: Re : Re : Formation for Defence Line
Posté par: Marquês de Alorna le 11 août 2010, 20:41:11 pm
MDA, it is a given that they rush there as quick as they can mate. the options being discussed are essential, they allow you to select which formation they adopt AFTER they arrive and deploy. This, my friend is the object of my question.
 
I've never tested it, but I think that the 1st line regiments always form in line. The reserve regiments might adopt different formations.
The best is to make an experiment.
Titre: Re : Formation for Defence Line
Posté par: Franciscus le 11 août 2010, 20:49:18 pm
I may be wrong, but I think that the only order that results in the corps's units "rushing" as quick as they can to the destination is when you give a march order. In all other cases corps go through several phases, namely "concentration", and they march orderly to the destination.

Nevertheless, I am also not sure about the relevance of giving line/column/mixed order orders have when we order a defensive line (the way they march ?? I think not...). But it is a fact that when they form a defensive line the front regiments form in LINE, as Hook stated.

Regards
Titre: Re : Formation for Defence Line
Posté par: AJ le 11 août 2010, 20:58:19 pm
Thankyou to Franciscuss MDA and Hook. You fight 100's of hours of HLG and suddenly you wonder about something :idea:
Titre: Re : Formation for Defence Line
Posté par: Franciscus le 11 août 2010, 21:03:56 pm
AFAIK you (and maybe G24) are the champions of HWLG in hours played... ;)  :mrgreen:

I only wish I had 1/10 of your available time to play... :cry:

Best regards
Titre: Re : Formation for Defence Line
Posté par: AJ le 11 août 2010, 21:23:33 pm
Citer
AFAIK you (and maybe G24) are the champions of HWLG in hours played...   

I only wish I had 1/10 of your available time to play...

Best regards

Franciscuss, we may have played a lot but we are nowhere near being Champions, i play a lot and lose a lot :roll: :roll:
Titre: Re : Formation for Defence Line
Posté par: Gunner24 le 11 août 2010, 21:23:42 pm
Citer
I may be wrong, but I think that the only order that results in the corps's units "rushing" as quick as they can to the destination is when you give a march order.
I think you are correct.  I use this often when in the rear and safe from enemy attack, mainly to re-deploy from one area of the battlefield to another.

Citer
In all other cases corps go through several phases, namely "concentration", and they march orderly to the destination.
Yes, I believe so as well.

Citer
Nevertheless, I am also not sure about the relevance of giving line/column/mixed order orders have when we order a defensive line (the way they march ?? I think not...). But it is a fact that when they form a defensive line the front regiments form in LINE, as Hook stated.
I'm not so sure about this, I will try to check next time, is the first line ALWAYS in line ?.  I thought (I could well be wrong) that they deployed in line,  column, or mixed order depending which you select.  

As to when to use each, I find it depends on if your flanks are safe, the length of line to be covered and what your trying to do.
Titre: Re : Re : Formation for Defence Line
Posté par: Franciscus le 11 août 2010, 23:01:52 pm
I may be wrong, but I think that the only order that results in the corps's units "rushing" as quick as they can to the destination is when you give a march order. In all other cases corps go through several phases, namely "concentration", and they march orderly to the destination.

Well, I was indeed wrong, as is often the case... :mrgreen:

According to the manual, the defend on line order is also carried away as quickly as possible by the individual units...
(pic, from page 31 of the manual). I was convinced otherwise, anyway... :roll:

Sorry and best regards
Titre: Re : Formation for Defence Line
Posté par: Gunner24 le 11 août 2010, 23:53:20 pm
Ahhhh, so much to remember in this game !.
Titre: Re : Formation for Defence Line
Posté par: Marquês de Alorna le 12 août 2010, 22:52:31 pm
I have one question (maybe a stupid one).

What is the difference between the "normal" Line formation of a regiment and the "defense" Line formation? Since the icons change, I wonder if these formations are not the same.

Titre: Re : Formation for Defence Line
Posté par: Hook le 13 août 2010, 01:46:52 am
What is the difference between the "normal" Line formation of a regiment and the "defense" Line formation? Since the icons change, I wonder if these formations are not the same.

In reality, I'm not sure.  Possibly more of an attitude difference, with the troops told to hang onto their plot of ground to the death.

In the game, the defensive line gets a lot of special treatment.

Hook
Titre: Re : Re : Formation for Defence Line
Posté par: Marquês de Alorna le 13 août 2010, 03:49:13 am
In reality, I'm not sure.  Possibly more of an attitude difference, with the troops told to hang onto their plot of ground to the death.
In the game, the defensive line gets a lot of special treatment.
Well, but if they are mathmatically different, some physical reason must be provided (unfortunately the manual leaves many details in the dark).
It could be that the men are allowed to use terrain features for their protection, but then this would be a sort of going from a well formed line into a skirmish cloud, which would have its disadvantages too (e.g. difficulty to reform into line or column...).

Maybe JMM can clarify.

But if this is the case, it is also true that several column attacks also degenerated in something of this sort... Specially when the units were inexperienced or poorly trained and the enemy did not immediately rout during the initial advance to contact - though I agree that an "improvised" skirmish cloud would not be exactly the same as a well prepared defensive skirmish cloud.
Titre: Re : Formation for Defence Line
Posté par: Hook le 13 août 2010, 04:09:57 am
Well, but if they are mathematically different, some physical reason must be provided

"In battle, the moral is to the physical as 3 is to 1." -- Napoleon

If an attacking formation breaks into "impromptu skirmishers" the men are likely to just run away.  You can't control them unless they're in formation.  The actual skirmishers had some different training and indoctrination, and knew how to fight independently.  There wasn't anyone standing behind them keeping them in line, and this wasn't necessary.  There's a bit of fine balance going on here.

Hook
Titre: Re : Re : Formation for Defence Line
Posté par: Marquês de Alorna le 13 août 2010, 04:40:11 am
"In battle, the moral is to the physical as 3 is to 1." -- Napoleon
If an attacking formation breaks into "impromptu skirmishers" the men are likely to just run away.  You can't control them unless they're in formation.  The actual skirmishers had some different training and indoctrination, and knew how to fight independently.  There wasn't anyone standing behind them keeping them in line, and this wasn't necessary.  There's a bit of fine balance going on here.
Yes, I agree. And most of those frustrated column-to-skirmish attacks ended-up with the attackers simply running away after some shooting (or a counter-attack...).

But again,  how to justify the special treatment of the "defensive line" relative to a "normal line" formation? I can understand the difference in the defense of building structures, but not in the open.
Titre: Re : Formation for Defence Line
Posté par: Hook le 13 août 2010, 07:52:31 am
But again,  how to justify the special treatment of the "defensive line" relative to a "normal line" formation? I can understand the difference in the defense of building structures, but not in the open.

File closers (sergeants and officers) standing behind the ranks keeping them in place.  They don't expect to have to advance until after the enemy attack is broken, and they've been told not to retreat.  Basically, the attitude of the leaders and what they do to keep the men in place.  It's somewhat easier to keep men standing in one spot than to get them to advance, and if they're not in "defensive line" they'll be expected to advance.

For what it's worth, if you have conscript troops they can handle forming a defensive line a lot better than they can handle conducting an attack.  Conscript troops probably can attack, but they're not good at it.

Hook
Titre: Re : Re : Formation for Defence Line
Posté par: Marquês de Alorna le 13 août 2010, 14:00:03 pm
File closers (sergeants and officers) standing behind the ranks keeping them in place.  They don't expect to have to advance until after the enemy attack is broken, and they've been told not to retreat.  Basically, the attitude of the leaders and what they do to keep the men in place.  It's somewhat easier to keep men standing in one spot than to get them to advance, and if they're not in "defensive line" they'll be expected to advance.
Honestly, I don't think this is enough to distinguish between a static "normal line" and "defensive line". They are the same to me. File closers are positioned at the same spots, and I guess that in both cases the leaders will instruct the soldiers to keep their positions.
If the difference is whether there is or not movement, the two formations should be the actually same (line formation), with movement having a bias on combat.

On the other hand, if the difference that the "defensive line" means using protective terrain, that I will be able to buy to some extent. However, it would not apply in all terrain types, only in terrain that can provide extra protection: trees, buildings, etc. And the question would remain of how much this use of terrain would affect the cohesion of the formation.

JMM, are you in there?  :D

Titre: Re : Re : Re : Formation for Defence Line
Posté par: Marquês de Alorna le 13 août 2010, 14:26:08 pm
On the other hand, if the difference that the "defensive line" means using protective terrain, that I will be able to buy to some extent. However, it would not apply in all terrain types, only in terrain that can provide extra protection: trees, buildings, etc.
Also, reverse slope tactics could in fact fit here.
Titre: Re : Re : Re : Formation for Defence Line
Posté par: Count von Csollich le 13 août 2010, 16:04:09 pm
Honestly, I don't think this is enough to distinguish between a static "normal line" and "defensive line". They are the same to me. File closers are positioned at the same spots, and I guess that in both cases the leaders will instruct the soldiers to keep their positions.
If the difference is whether there is or not movement, the two formations should be the actually same (line formation), with movement having a bias on combat.

On the other hand, if the difference that the "defensive line" means using protective terrain, that I will be able to buy to some extent. However, it would not apply in all terrain types, only in terrain that can provide extra protection: trees, buildings, etc. And the question would remain of how much this use of terrain would affect the cohesion of the formation.

JMM, are you in there?  :D



I really don't see your point here....having seen that you are a historically interested man.....you should know that there were differences between bataillons deploying in line but ready to move forward and bataillons deploying in line to hold a certain line without any offensive interest.....I think this is shown by the difference between line and defensive line in HWLG - you would never have men kneel when a bataillon will soon be advancing - there is simply no time for that!

CvC
Titre: Re : Re : Re : Re : Formation for Defence Line
Posté par: Marquês de Alorna le 13 août 2010, 16:33:50 pm
I really don't see your point here....having seen that you are a historically interested man.....you should know that there were differences between bataillons deploying in line but ready to move forward and bataillons deploying in line to hold a certain line without any offensive interest.....I think this is shown by the difference between line and defensive line in HWLG - you would never have men kneel when a bataillon will soon be advancing - there is simply no time for that!

Dear Count,

Of course I know that. However we are talking about a static line formation. If all men are standing (ready to move forward) and suddenly you see the enemy column advancing towards them, if you intend to remain static, it is not difficult to order your front-rank men to kneel. It is also not difficult to take a different decision and just order your men to charge home when the enemy is close enough (as the British used to do).
In HWLG, you cannot micromanage these things, so it is desirable that the Regimental staff will do it for you.

My point is: if the regiment is static, and its the commander intends to receive the attack is a static posture, he will give the orders in a way that favors this intention. In order words, if your interpretation is correct, he would promptly order a change from  "normal line" to "defensive line". If this consists on little more than kneeling the first rank, this would not take much time to be implemented, since the relative position of ranks and files would remain the same.

My interpretation - i.e. that the "defensive line" represents using the cover provided by the terrain features, fences, etc - would justify much better that a different "line" representation is included in the game. But then there are other consequences that seem not to be addressed.

But again, I would  like to know JMM's interpretation because that is the most important.

Titre: Re : Re : Re : Re : Re : Formation for Defence Line
Posté par: Marquês de Alorna le 13 août 2010, 16:50:31 pm
After all, maybe the secret rests in the fact that we are talking about "Regiment" formations and not "Battalion" formations. If we bear in mind this decoupling we can consider that in a "defensive line", the battalions of the Regiment will each form in line but they may be deployed in relative positions that use the terrain to a greater advantage. In a "normal line" we might consider that each battalion forms in line, and the ensemble of battalions also forms a rigid line.


Titre: Re : Re : Re : Re : Re : Formation for Defence Line
Posté par: Count von Csollich le 13 août 2010, 17:23:06 pm
Dear Count,

Of course I know that. However we are talking about a static line formation. If all men are standing (ready to move forward) and suddenly you see the enemy column advancing towards them, if you intend to remain static, it is not difficult to order your front-rank men to kneel. It is also not difficult to take a different decision and just order your men to charge home when the enemy is close enough (as the British used to do).
In HWLG, you cannot micromanage these things, so it is desirable that the Regimental staff will do it for you.

My point is: if the regiment is static, and its the commander intends to receive the attack is a static posture, he will give the orders in a way that favors this intention. In order words, if your interpretation is correct, he would promptly order a change from  "normal line" to "defensive line". If this consists on little more than kneeling the first rank, this would not take much time to be implemented, since the relative position of ranks and files would remain the same.

My interpretation - i.e. that the "defensive line" represents using the cover provided by the terrain features, fences, etc - would justify much better that a different "line" representation is included in the game. But then there are other consequences that seem not to be addressed.



ahh ok....that is a fair point!

CvC
Titre: Re : Re : Re : Re : Re : Re : Formation for Defence Line
Posté par: Count von Csollich le 13 août 2010, 17:24:18 pm
After all, maybe the secret rests in the fact that we are talking about "Regiment" formations and not "Battalion" formations. If we bear in mind this decoupling we can consider that in a "defensive line", the battalions of the Regiment will each form in line but they may be deployed in relative positions that use the terrain to a greater advantage. In a "normal line" we might consider that each battalion forms in line, and the ensemble of battalions also forms a rigid line.




well as we all know the main unit was the bataillon - and not the regiment....due to several reasons though - JMM has decided to use regiments as the main unit....a regiment never deployed in a strict line....only a bataillon would! - simply due to reasons such as reserves or terrain as you mentioned!

CvC
Titre: Re : Re : Re : Re : Re : Re : Re : Formation for Defence Line
Posté par: Marquês de Alorna le 13 août 2010, 18:51:50 pm
well as we all know the main unit was the bataillon - and not the regiment....due to several reasons though - JMM has decided to use regiments as the main unit....a regiment never deployed in a strict line....only a bataillon would! - simply due to reasons such as reserves or terrain as you mentioned!
I agree.
So, lets wait for JMM to provide a better explanation for the "defensive line" feature.

Titre: Re : Formation for Defence Line
Posté par: Hook le 14 août 2010, 00:57:27 am
I think the biggest differences are that a defensive line will not move to attack, maintaining its cohesion between units, and if forced back will attempt to move back to the line position.  While it often seems that the defensive line is harder to break than a corps formed for offense, there may not be any mathematical differences at all... just the fact that the corps in defensive posture is always in line and always waiting for the enemy to advance into fire. 

Units in defensive line are more likely to have morale bonuses for adjacent units, for example, and will not be fatigued when the fighting starts.  They should also have better cohesion within the unit than an advancing unit.  If you're looking for mathematical differences, these are a few possibilities.

Infantry units on the field during this period did not take advantage of cover the same way units in the American Civil War did.  The terrain was usually more open, so there was less cover to be had even if they wanted to use it.  Think about cavalry charges:  if the terrain had been as broken in Europe as it was in the US, the cavalry couldn't charge through it.  This is probably why there are so few reports of cavalry charges from the American Civil War... there simply wasn't any opportunity.  I only know of one instance, during Gettysburg where a Union cavalry unit bluffed a charge and caused a Confederate infantry unit to form square.

Hook
Titre: Re : Formation for Defence Line
Posté par: AJ le 14 août 2010, 01:09:49 am
I love starting a topic that elicits so much information and intelligent discussion.

Bravo Gentlemen
Titre: Re : Formation for Defence Line
Posté par: Hook le 14 août 2010, 01:17:43 am
If you're looking for mathematical differences, these are a few possibilities.

And another:  I haven't tried to confirm this, but the defending units should always get off the first volley, which immediately places the attackers at a disadvantage. 

Also, usually the defensive line has artillery support which will be firing on the attacking troops.  Even if the attacking corps stops for artillery preparation, they will have taken several shots from the defending artillery before the attacking artillery is in place to do the bombardment.

Hook
Titre: Re : Re : Formation for Defence Line
Posté par: Franciscus le 14 août 2010, 01:36:12 am

Infantry units on the field during this period did not take advantage of cover the same way units in the American Civil War did.  The terrain was usually more open, so there was less cover to be had even if they wanted to use it.  Think about cavalry charges:  if the terrain had been as broken in Europe as it was in the US, the cavalry couldn't charge through it.  This is probably why there are so few reports of cavalry charges from the American Civil War... there simply wasn't any opportunity.  I only know of one instance, during Gettysburg where a Union cavalry unit bluffed a charge and caused a Confederate infantry unit to form square.

Hook


As an aside, of course terrain had some influence, but I have always thought that the main reason for the diminishing role of cavalry in field battles during the XIX century had mainly to do with the ever increasing firepower of the other arms (mainly infantry) during the same period. I think that a classic cavalry charge usually did not stand a chance against organized infantry during the ACW (and was rarely even tried, AFAIK), and squares were not even necessary because of this.

But as ajlewis says, we are drifting along nicely, talking about our passions... :smile:
Titre: Re : Re : Formation for Defence Line
Posté par: Marquês de Alorna le 14 août 2010, 01:36:29 am
And another:  I haven't tried to confirm this, but the defending units should always get off the first volley, which immediately places the attackers at a disadvantage. 
Also, usually the defensive line has artillery support which will be firing on the attacking troops.  Even if the attacking corps stops for artillery preparation, they will have taken several shots from the defending artillery before the attacking artillery is in place to do the bombardment.
Hook
Hook, what about if one corps is attacking and the other is static, but both have received the deploy order and not the defend order. Won't the static corps have precisely the same advantages?
Titre: Re : Formation for Defence Line
Posté par: Hook le 14 août 2010, 01:50:41 am
Hook, what about if one corps is attacking and the other is static, but both have received the deploy order and not the defend order. Won't the static corps have precisely the same advantages?

They won't maintain their line formation.  The units will start moving forward to attack as soon as someone is within the 500 meter sighting distance and they will probably not be in line formation when they do.  Also, the artillery won't be already deployed in front of the formations firing on the attackers.

Hook
Titre: Re : Formation for Defence Line
Posté par: Hook le 14 août 2010, 02:16:22 am
As an aside, of course terrain had some influence, but I have always thought that the main reason for the diminishing role of cavalry in field battles during the XIX century had mainly to do with the ever increasing firepower of the other arms (mainly infantry) during the same period. I think that a classic cavalry charge usually did not stand a chance against organized infantry during the ACW (and was rarely even tried, AFAIK), and squares were not even necessary because of this.

The square formation was still taught and practiced at this time.

The idea that it was the increased firepower is the usual explanation, but keep in mind that muzzle loaders still load at the same speed, or possibly even slower because of the riflings in the barrel, and increased accuracy only matters if people take the time to aim.  Units still generally opened fire on each other at the same range.  The Sharps Repeater rifle would have a much higher rate of fire for a short time, but was less accurate and had shorter range, if I remember correctly.  Certainly true for the carbines.

In all the books I read from personal accounts from the ACW, cavalry charges simply weren't mentioned.  The only thing I read that's pertinent was, "During this period only elite European cavalry could be counted on to charge home."  In the Gettysburg case, they didn't even try to charge home, they just bluffed the charge and forced square.

The true power of cavalry isn't in the melee anyway, but the ability to force infantry to form square, which unlike in HWLG were generally static and unmoving.  Infantry in square has reduced firepower, but fairly good morale... you can't leave the square to run away without exposing yourself to greater danger.  Of course, if the cavalry encounters infantry who haven't formed square, then they do attack with melee with excellent results, especially if they can attack from a flank.  In HWLG, generally any infantry that has cavalry within the 500 meter sighting distance will form square automatically.

Hook
Titre: Re : Re : Formation for Defence Line
Posté par: Franciscus le 14 août 2010, 02:29:48 am

(...)
  In HWLG, generally any infantry that has cavalry within the 500 meter sighting distance will form square automatically.

Hook


A little back to the point, I have seen several instances of inf units not forming square with nearby enemy cav, mainly, IIRC,  if the infantry is in a defensive line and the cav is in difficulty.

 I always thought rather appropriate seeing inf  blasting away at the poor chaps on horse... :mrgreen:

Regards
Titre: Re : Re : Formation for Defence Line
Posté par: Marquês de Alorna le 14 août 2010, 05:03:39 am
The true power of cavalry isn't in the melee anyway, but the ability to force infantry to form square, which unlike in HWLG were generally static and unmoving. 
During the Napoleonic wars, at least, troops would be trained to move in square formation, albeit at a slower pace. Remember the Battle of the Pyramids, where divisional squares (!!!) were able to move. Later battles well into the HWLG period also provide some instances.
Titre: Re : Re : Formation for Defence Line
Posté par: Marquês de Alorna le 14 août 2010, 05:04:47 am
They won't maintain their line formation.  The units will start moving forward to attack as soon as someone is within the 500 meter sighting distance and they will probably not be in line formation when they do.  Also, the artillery won't be already deployed in front of the formations firing on the attackers.
Ok, good explanation.
Titre: Re : Formation for Defence Line
Posté par: Hook le 14 août 2010, 13:33:38 pm
A little back to the point, I have seen several instances of inf units not forming square with nearby enemy cav, mainly, IIRC,  if the infantry is in a defensive line and the cav is in difficulty.
 I always thought rather appropriate seeing inf  blasting away at the poor chaps on horse... :mrgreen:

Yeah, this seems like it should be correct behavior.  Does defensive line ever form square?  I haven't noticed.

Hook
Titre: Re : Formation for Defence Line
Posté par: Hook le 14 août 2010, 13:49:23 pm
During the Napoleonic wars, at least, troops would be trained to move in square formation, albeit at a slower pace. Remember the Battle of the Pyramids, where divisional squares (!!!) were able to move. Later battles well into the HWLG period also provide some instances.

Whether or not troops in square should be able to move gets debated in wargame circles a lot. I've seen descriptions of squares moving but nothing from personal accounts.  This is why I don't complain about it in the game.  The opinions range from totally unmovable squares to squares that can move at normal speeds or even run, and at least one description mentions a running square.

There are some people who believe that the hollow square used to defend against cavalry was unmovable, while there was another formation more like troops in attack columns that was often called a square, I believe it's called "open square", that was able to move.  It gives considerable protection against cavalry attack, but has very little firepower.

While it's conceivable that a troops in a square formation could modify their formation a bit so that they could march (they can't possibly march if they're maintaining the actual square, and it's not because of facing but because of the amount of ground each man takes up... if they're moving it's a different shape than if they're in square).  If they're not maintaining the square formation proper, then if they're threatened by cavalry they have a chance of being unable to form square.  Now, they're obviously already in a formation very close to square so it won't take long to form, but they are not actually in square.

Because of the above, I'd put a lot of restrictions on squares moving at all.  It would require higher quality troops with good morale, for example.  If they tried to move and were charged by cavalry, they'd have to take a morale test to reform square (which would make them stop) and then have an additional die roll to see if they formed square even if they passed the morale check.  Most of the time the infantry would be successful.  But if you could control whether or not they attempted to move, how much risk would you be willing to take?  If cavalry catches them unformed, as they would be in this case, they're at a severe disadvantage.

Actually, if I'd written the game, squares wouldn't be able to move.  If enough people complained, I'd implement the above rules.

Hook
Titre: Re : Re : Formation for Defence Line
Posté par: Marquês de Alorna le 14 août 2010, 15:38:21 pm
Because of the above, I'd put a lot of restrictions on squares moving at all.  It would require higher quality troops with good morale, for example.  If they tried to move and were charged by cavalry, they'd have to take a morale test to reform square (which would make them stop) and then have an additional die roll to see if they formed square even if they passed the morale check.  Most of the time the infantry would be successful.  But if you could control whether or not they attempted to move, how much risk would you be willing to take?  If cavalry catches them unformed, as they would be in this case, they're at a severe disadvantage.
I would implement it differently. I would just force the square to remain static when there are enemy cavalry nearby.
Titre: Re : Formation for Defence Line
Posté par: Hook le 14 août 2010, 18:54:58 pm
I would just force the square to remain static when there are enemy cavalry nearby.

That's my first preference as well.

Hook
Titre: Re : Formation for Defence Line
Posté par: Marquês de Alorna le 15 août 2010, 03:48:50 am
Given the fact that in the "Defend in Line" order we are never sure about the precise position of units and - as Hook said - in the deploy order the units will still take the initiative to leave their position, maybe we need a way to say that once deployed, the units are to keep their position like in the defend order. This could be an add-on to the deploy order menu or a new "Defend in current position" order. With the latter we could always enforce a defending attitude keeping the current unit positions even if the previous order was March or Deploy.
Titre: Re : Formation for Defence Line
Posté par: Hook le 15 août 2010, 08:47:01 am
How is this different from the current defend order?  You can give a corps an order to defend in place by specifying a line on top of their current position.

Hook
Titre: Re : Re : Formation for Defence Line
Posté par: Marquês de Alorna le 16 août 2010, 01:19:15 am
How is this different from the current defend order?  You can give a corps an order to defend in place by specifying a line on top of their current position.
Nope. In the current defend order, the corps commander will still try to use the terrain and the regiments will be moved to occupy advantageous positions (e.g. villages), thus breaking the deployment formation. In fact, regiments will individually rush to occupy those positions. Most of the time, those positions are well ahead of the drawn line, so if you put the line to be defended precisely on top of the line in the deploy order, the regiments will probably rush forward, risking to be caught during movement. It is very common for the player to be forced to cancel and redraw the Defend order several times before the AI selects the intended position.
Now, this kind of defend order is also useful, if the enemy is distant and you wish to prepare the defense in the most advantageous spots offered by the topography.

With the "Defend current position" order that I propose, the regiments are ordered to keep their current deployment positions (whatever they are), eventually changing the formation of the first rank to line (if not already in line).
Titre: Re : Re : Re : Formation for Defence Line
Posté par: Marquês de Alorna le 16 août 2010, 02:48:55 am
With the "Defend current position" order that I propose, the regiments are ordered to keep their current deployment positions (whatever they are), eventually changing the formation of the first rank to line (if not already in line).
Or do you think that this would be micromanagement?  :?
Titre: Re : Formation for Defence Line
Posté par: Hook le 16 août 2010, 06:22:53 am
Or do you think that this would be micromanagement?  :?

Micromanaging a defensive position is the only micromanagement that I find proper.  Wellington, for example, had plenty of time to place troops where he wanted them.

JMM has already said he's going to do some work on the defensive line so that you will be able to specify whether it should be in depth or in a more shall deployment that follows the line you draw more closely.

In broken ground, troops do tend to defend in depth, sometimes to an extreme extent, as they find the best ground for their defense.  Unfortunately, this usually means they don't have supporting units on their flanks, but sometimes the defensive ground helps make up for it.  On flat ground troops will deploy in line with the artillery about 500 meters ahead.  If you have a ridge line, troops are pretty good about deploying along the ridge from what I've seen in the past.

Hook
Titre: Re : Formation for Defence Line
Posté par: Hook le 16 août 2010, 06:29:27 am
Most of the time, those positions are well ahead of the drawn line, so if you put the line to be defended precisely on top of the line in the deploy order, the regiments will probably rush forward, risking to be caught during movement. It is very common for the player to be forced to cancel and redraw the Defend order several times before the AI selects the intended position.

A couple of points. 

First, if you give a defend order in the initial deployment phase before the clock starts so that the troops jump to their position, the icons are displayed ahead of where the unit actually is.  This may have been fixed in recent patches, however. 

Second, you cannot give a defend order too close to enemy troops for the reason you describe above.  If your infantry has already gotten within 500 meters of the enemy, they'll attack instead of going to defensive line.  An unfortunate side effect is if the infantry wants to deploy ahead of your line and this takes them within that 500 meter distance.

Hook
Titre: Re : Re : Formation for Defence Line
Posté par: Marquês de Alorna le 16 août 2010, 14:41:16 pm
Second, you cannot give a defend order too close to enemy troops for the reason you describe above.  If your infantry has already gotten within 500 meters of the enemy, they'll attack instead of going to defensive line.  An unfortunate side effect is if the infantry wants to deploy ahead of your line and this takes them within that 500 meter distance.
Yes, that's precisely why I proposed that order to say "just keep your relative positions in the corps, whatever the cost - don't attack."
I fully agree that to prepare well a defensive position, you cannot and should not do it too close to the enemy.

Titre: Re : Formation for Defence Line
Posté par: Hook le 16 août 2010, 14:48:53 pm
Yes, that's precisely why I proposed that order to say "just keep your relative positions in the corps, whatever the cost - don't attack."
I fully agree that to prepare well a defensive position, you cannot and should not do it too close to the enemy.

I think it's intentional that you can't rush the enemy and form a defensive line right in front of him.  I suggest never trying to form a defensive line within 1000 meters of the enemy.  You might get away with it, especially if the enemy is in defensive line as well, but if you get within 500 meters you have no chance at all.

Hook
Titre: Re : Formation for Defence Line
Posté par: AJ le 16 août 2010, 16:03:06 pm
Citer
I think it's intentional that you can't rush the enemy and form a defensive line right in front of him.  I suggest never trying to form a defensive line within 1000 meters of the enemy.  You might get away with it, especially if the enemy is in defensive line as well, but if you get within 500 meters you have no chance at all.

Hook

This situation is where I might give the "Deploy in Checkerboard", with the line drawn at least 1K behind it's current position. Followed by my "defend on line' when they arrive at the new line. it is better to retire using "Deploy" as the units will support each other whilst retiring.
Titre: Re : Formation for Defence Line
Posté par: Hook le 16 août 2010, 22:56:08 pm
I never had any luck trying to disengage a corps from battle, although with the current version of the game it might work better.  Once I've committed a corps to battle, they stay there until they win or are forced back.  If necessary, I might send another corps to their aid.  The only time since the very beginning that I've tried to disengage a corps was when there was another corps linked in support, and the lead corps was in pretty bad shape.  This can work, and the corps actually got out with a few regiments intact, and this with the current version of the game.

While the game is easy to play, you do have to think ahead a lot, similar to chess, and be ready and prepared to either fix any bad decisions or exploit any gains. 

Regarding things like trying to rush the enemy and form a defensive line right in front of him, most of the time, if you can't get away with something in the game, you probably wouldn't be able to get away with it on a real battlefield.  HWLG is a good simulation.  However, if someone doesn't understand what's going on, please do ask.  Napoleonic warfare is very simple on the surface, but has lots of depth, so we expect some questions.

Hook
Titre: Re : Formation for Defense Line
Posté par: AJ le 17 août 2010, 03:21:43 am
Citer
I never had any luck trying to disengage a corps from battle, although with the current version of the game it might work better
.

Hook is right its a tricky business and isn't for the faint hearted. It will leave behind any units engaged, they act as a kind of rearguard. I've tried it a few times with varying results
Titre: Re : Formation for Defense Line
Posté par: Hook le 17 août 2010, 15:14:15 pm
Hook is right its a tricky business and isn't for the faint hearted. It will leave behind any units engaged, they act as a kind of rearguard. I've tried it a few times with varying results

I think about the only time you can successfully disengage is if the corps is already in retreat.  Many times these retreating corps will go back into battle after a bit.  If you catch them before they return to battle, you may have  good chance to get them back to a different position.

AJ is right, a few units still engaged make an excellent rearguard.

I haven't done much with trying to disengage a corps since before we had the retreating corps AI, which is probably why I never had any luck with disengaging.

Hook