Wish List

[englishoo7]

 I wish Corps would keep their troops closer together and not find any reason not to do what they have been told to? They take an age moving regiments onto an enemy defence line! ('waiting for artillery preparation' or 'concentrating' or 'Corps in dissaray' for a few seconds before 'Corps concentrataing' again, time and again.)
 
Is there a setting in the full game where Corps commanders will just get on and do what you tell them to?

If infnatry continue to rout as much as they do, how can we have a Corps that is not in 'dissaray' or 'concentrating' all the time?

[englishoo7]

I wish there were more casualties during firefights! Both sides fire several volleys at each other often hitting nothing or just causing five or so casualties! With all those men firing surely they would hit more?

[Hook]

Englishoo7, I'm not sure what you're asking about units routing so much.  Any time two regiments face off against each other one or both will retreat.  SOMEONE has to retreat or they'll be locked in combat forever or until one unit totally vanishes, and fighting to the last man was not normal.  I've read a number of reports from soldiers in the field who said their unit was forced back from an assault, then went back in.  Units wouldn't all be forced back from combat at the same time which would lead to the broken nature of the battle lines that you've been seeing.

Your corps commanders generally know what they're doing.  Some corps commanders will wait for all their units to form up when "concentrating" while others will advance before they have everyone in formation.  One thing you need to watch for is when a corps is retreating, if it has any units near the friendly map edge, they may march off and be lost.  Give those guys movement orders to keep them on the battlefield, and eventually reattach them to the corps.

Casualties from firefights were typically very low.  Soldiers would fire too high most of the time. 

Hook

[englishoo7]

I am finding that I am becoming frustrated! This is because I can make no headway on positions decisively. Artillery stops everything in its tracks and Infantry are fragile. As I have said many times, in previous video's we see 'swirls' of combat without ground taken by either side on the whole. This is because troops rout at the first opportunity, then come back and rout again and again! I seriously wonder if your average buyer will be happy to draw deploy lines and watch while units go back and forth like this?

I know this just sounds like frustration, and some of it is! There is so much that is good about Les Grognards. An amazing amount! The thing is there are ways to fix the few things that are wrong! And I really believe that there are things wrong. Listen to the forum.

1. Troops rout all the time. They should rout less but stay routed for longer or nothing gets done.

2. Artillery kills the game by making everything else in front of it rout. It should stop 'some' and weaken a lot more, but 'whole Corps'?

3. Corps could perhaps just reach a point where their regiments have taken enough casualties/loss of moral, that they go into retreat for a time, falling back some distance onto their supply lines. This way features would be taken and I would feel like I had achieved something.

Though I realize that many will not agree I think that these points would solve most of the problems that are leading me to feel a frustration with a game I want to like.  

[englishoo7]

Englishoo7, I'm not sure what you're asking about units routing so much.  Any time two regiments face off against each other one or both will retreat.  SOMEONE has to retreat or they'll be locked in combat forever or until one unit totally vanishes, and fighting to the last man was not normal.  I've read a number of reports from soldiers in the field who said their unit was forced back from an assault, then went back in.  Units wouldn't all be forced back from combat at the same time which would lead to the broken nature of the battle lines that you've been seeing.

Your corps commanders generally know what they're doing.  Some corps commanders will wait for all their units to form up when "concentrating" while others will advance before they have everyone in formation.  One thing you need to watch for is when a corps is retreating, if it has any units near the friendly map edge, they may march off and be lost.  Give those guys movement orders to keep them on the battlefield, and eventually reattach them to the corps.

Casualties from firefights were typically very low.  Soldiers would fire too high most of the time. 

Hook

I understand this. I don't want my regiments to fight to the last man total war style! In a firefight someone has to win. But what I don't want is regiments rarely getting into any kind of firefight because they have routed several times before getting there, or their Corps commander has told them to stop or go after an artillery battery far away or whatever else. I have read quite a bit on Napoleonic warfare. I know that casualties were lower than anyone would have dreamed possible. But a regiment firing at another severel times and hitting nothing?

[Gunner24]

I can see the problem, it will be very hard to overcome a well placed defender, with the real game, when there are more cannons on the battlefield.  Deploy in defensive line, allow the attacker to rout in front of the cannons, then couter attack, it seems like that will work, but if that's right, who will attack ?.

[Hook]

3. Corps could perhaps just reach a point where their regiments have taken enough casualties/loss of moral, that they go into retreat for a time, falling back some distance onto their supply lines. This way features would be taken and I would feel like I had achieved something.

This is already happening.  Whole corps will fall back and form defensive lines.   They don't go all the way back to their supply lines, but they do fall back 1000 to 1500 yards.  I've seen both my corps do it and enemy corps as well.

But a regiment firing at another severel times and hitting nothing?

There are reports of units firing at each other for 15 minutes and neither side taking any casualties. 

Hook

[FranzVonG]

I wish that infantry were not so easily broken! Did every regiment that was involved in a battle run away at least ONCE? That is what hapens in Les Grognards!

Of every two regiments that were involved in a firefight/charge, usually one routed (there are records of prolonged firefights with no consequences, but these happen also in LG). Obviously, you should consider two things:
- usually it was a single batallion running, not the entire regiment (but batallions are not depicted in LG, apart from a graphical point of view).
- it was often a retreat, with a fast regrouping when far enough from the enemy.

So it's accurate from an historical point of view: my only concern is that it happens a bit too fast in the game, and too often regiments advance lonely against the enemy line encountering an obvious defeat.

PS: sorry, I dind't notice that there was another page of discussion after your message 

[Gunner24]

usually it was a single batallion running, not the entire regiment (but batallions are not depicted in LG, apart from a graphical point of view).

Is this a part of the problem, a Battalion gets into serious problems, which makes the whole Regiment rout.
 

[Holdit]

Is this a part of the problem, a Battalion gets into serious problems, which makes the whole Regiment rout.

I don't so much mind the whole regiment routing as what causes it to rout. I'm used to miniatures rules with the brigade as the manoeuvre unit - either the whole brigade stays put, or the whole brigade retreats - and it's not really a problem because this doesn't tend to happen unless the brigade has been in close combat (i.e. trading volleys) with an enemy brigade. In HLG, however, there is lots of routing before the infantry gets anywhere near musket range.

Holdit

[JMM]

usually it was a single batallion running, not the entire regiment (but batallions are not depicted in LG, apart from a graphical point of view).

Is this a part of the problem, a Battalion gets into serious problems, which makes the whole Regiment rout.

hummmmm... just a short remark...
There are some difference:
a) flanker : a regiment with 3 battalions can protect one flank... and the 2 ones with 4 battalions en more...
b) defensive line : the length of the front line increase with the number of battalions...

The rate of casualties is calculated from the strength regiment, not only the strength engaged.
So, the number of battalion modifies the results... BTW, it's really important for the hand to hand fighting.

JMM

In HLG, however, there is lots of routing before the infantry gets anywhere near musket range.

We have to check these behaviours again to be sure...
Beta Test Team made a lot of tests for this kind of combat to validate the model...
That said, tests were one unit vs one, two, three ENI ones. The idea was to be sure for simple fighting...
I have to check this combat again, before modifying the parameters if need.

[englishoo7]

Yes Hook, I too have seen whole Corps retreating! This is just another reason my Corps give for not getting any of it Regiments up to the enemy line! This retreating Corps usually reforms, concentrates, comes forward again, perhaps stopping for artillery preperation and then another regiment routs, shows Corps is in dissaray, reforms e.t.c.... e.t.c until one or maybe two regiments actually get into a firefight. But they are usually isolated so those lone regiments rout. And so it begins again.
All the commands, like 'concentrate', 'disarray', 'march' and deploy and many others are great as of themselves. JMM has gone to great lengths to put in all that is left out so many other game designers. The problem is that somewhere amongst all this the 'crunch' has been lost! There is no point where I think 'YES'! There is no real breakout. I have never said yes I have broken that Corps or punched through that defence line, it all happens in dribs and drabs. Do you get a 'rush' when an attack goes in  Hook? Honestly? Or do you just look up and find the enemy has no forces left because one after another they have left? I am often watching a screen with a constant trickle of routing and re-routing units until another Corps turns up and so it continues.
 As for saying that in history sometimes regiments shot at each other for long periods without hitting anything, very often they hit too.
 JMM has come so close. But I and I am sure many 'average guys' just looking for gripping play need a 'turning point'. I need an order. One that gives me a chance that a Corps will go up that hill and meet the enemy 'together!' At the moment if the enemy has any artillery at all then that will that will not happen. Someting is wrong? Maybe its the demo? Perhaps the settings we do not yet have access to yet will help. I doubt it though. It is all there in the game and more but without that all-important 'moment' when all your plans come to fruition, then it becames just a battle of attrition. A slugging match.
  

[Hook]

Two opposing corps both advancing into contact are going to be a little disorganized no matter what you do.

One corps advancing to attack a defensive line should give you plenty of rush. It does me.  If the defending corps has artillery, then some of my regiments just aren't going to make it to the opposing infantry.  If the defending corps also has cavalry, then that's going to break up my attack even worse.  That's what these guys are for.

I think the only time you'll see what you want is if the defending line is nothing but infantry, and even then your corps won't all hit at the same moment.  If you lose, your corps won't retreat all at once, and if you win, the defending line isn't likely to retreat at the same time either. 

I've seen two opposing regiments get into a firefight, and both sides take casualties until one retreats.  At the time I thought the casualties were a little high.  But at least it was my regiment that won.

If you can find it, read Ardant du Picq's "Battle Studies".  It certainly dispelled a lot of my illusions.  It's in the book "Roots of Strategy" volume 2 along with Clausewitz's "Principles of War" and Jomini's "Art of War" so it's a worthwhile purchase.

Hook

[Holdit]

If you can find it, read Ardant du Picq's "Battle Studies".  It certainly dispelled a lot of my illusions.  It's in the book "Roots of Strategy" volume 2 along with Clausewitz's "Principles of War" and Jomini's "Art of War" so it's a worthwhile purchase.

Can you provide some relevant quotes?

Holdit

[englishoo7]

 If what you say happens happened then I would be fine with that. I do not want many regiments hitting all at the same time. I am saying that in one's and two's Regiments hit after waiting for an age for the Corps commander to get them there! iIf you put a Corps against a Corps now then one Corps artillery would stop any infantry attack in its tracks. So first we must destroy almost all artillery and then think about an advance. Is that how Napoleonic battles were fought?
 You must be seeing pretty much the same as me? Prhaps we want a diferent game Hook. I want one where I can organise and carry out something like D-Erlons atack at Waterloo. If I did this with the demo then I would get nowhere near the enemy's lines. I would bumble about in between my own and his. I certainly wouldn't crash through the first defence line and then go on to batter the second line. The thing is that the cavalry would respond because of JMM! So the difficult bit has already been done. Units think and react because of the deep thought JMM has put into the game, its fantastic what I see them do! But maybe sometimes they think too much? Maybe we should be able to put parameters on those thoughts. I don't want them to go after enemy artillery sometimes. I don't want them to move apart or wait for artillery preperation. I don't want them to set off at all different times. Sometimes I want them to go up that hill and take it! I want a nail biting assault, one that results in one side or the other retreating. It happened. Why can't I recreate it with the troops I have?