Winning in HW

[[NBC]Friant]

https://vimeo.com/107867313
Here is a replay of a recently played game.
Good attack by the French in the north.
Imo deserved a win. I think it is very hard to be the offensive player in HW at the moment.
That offensive later in the day would have won the battle, it is all about timing, once the offensive player makes his move it is too easy for the defensive player to counter.
JMM is thinking about changing lops to something else, do not know what at the moment but there was some talk of 'floating' lop system where they could be placed anywhere on the map, is that correct.
Imo there should be more emphasis on ground taken. There is something still not quite sitting right for me in these battles.
The French attack in the north pushed the Russian right flank back many kilometres (6 or 7 I would say if a 15km map), something that would really be unheard of in a Napoleonic battle without something seriously going wrong.
The fact that you can push a flank back this far and not have a serious morale effect is becoming very frustrating for me, in that the attacker has made a very aggressive show of force and his reward is a mass surrender at the end.
Even if the French had held at their further most advance I doubt if they would have won this battle, but looking at the overhead map something is telling me that it really should have been some sort of strategic win for the French?
Tactical retreat or not, that flank on a Napoleonic battle would have been deemed as broken?
What could help the more offensive player get a better reward for being the aggressor?
Should ground taken be more important in the game?
Is the lop system working as it should, should more or less emphasis be put on this?
Casualties shouldn't imo should not be the decisive factor in these battles, many of Napoleons battles saw him lose more men but win the battle.
This is not a moan I am just trying to think of way to improve the result of the game and reward the offensive player.
I think ground taken should be the key?
(imo in most cases the best ground would have been occupied by both sides on the front line from the start, once a corp was forced back and back their choices of good ground would have reduced massively.)
What does anyone else think?

NB, we complain a lot about fluidity and movement on the HW battlefield but imo there is probably far too much, front lines moving forwards and backwards many kilometres, just look at some historical accounts to disprove this.
Austerlitz, once heights were taken battle over.
Waterloo, if Wellington had lost his ridge.
Borodino if the Russians had their flank turned as the above battle.
Leipzig, either flank crushed as above.

[Gunner24]

Hello Friant, this is not too bad an example of how HW is working right now.  As I was the French I could say "I should have won" but in all honesty I knew after a while I would lose badly.  If it had been a serious game (it was a practice one) then I would not have carried on the attack as long as I did, because, I have seen in several other MPs in recent months what happens.....the attacking side end up surrendering, almost every time.

There is no point now days (I'm not saying this is right or wrong) trying to win by taking LOPs, it is too far to advance, well if fighting all the way it is.  If you can advance without fighting, then that is totally different and will work well, if it's possible to find a rout with no enemy there.  I have done this is solo testing, and it does work.  But to FIGHT your way there is only going to end up in mass surrenders.

The only way to win now, is to defeat the enemy in place, and then STOP.
Then do it again, and STOP.
etc etc

My own opinion, is that surrenders are happening too often, instead of routs and leaving the field.  One minute your fighting well, the next your completely beaten because your guys have surrendered.

But knowing that, "we" have to change, the best way to win (topic ?) is to attack a weak part of the enemy line with strong forces and then STOP.  Then you do it again somewhere else, and STOP......if that has worked as it should, the enemy is now a lot weaker than your side, and a more general attack / advance might then work but the better option will still be to attack strongly, and then STOP.

The one thing not really possible now, is a long fight and advance, but, hold on, that is perhaps 100% correct, as these armies never fought for 6 hours trying to advance 10k in that time.  They lined up and battered each other until one side had had enough, and retired, then they can be "chased" away.

[[NBC]Friant]

Perhaps any territory held in the opponents deployment zone should be rewarded accordingly.
Although I have used the tactic myself, I think it should not be so easy to give up large swathes of territory without penalty, you can virtually sit on your lops and gain victory by letting the opponent push and push, land was not given up easily in battles, campaigns yes, but not the battlefield.
Wining in Historical Battles should be different to winning in one off games?

[zu Pferd]

' One of the problems with Napoleonic battlefield games is that the players know history.
They know that Napoleon won't be coming to Pultusk, and that Bennigsen outnumbers Lannes
two to one (neither of which was known at the time). In the Campaigns of Napoleon, with its
operational scale, such god-like knowledge is less influential, but in a battle game, where all of the
grand-scale maneuvering is finished before the battle starts, player knowledge changes history right from
the outset. '
K Zucker

I chanced on this comment reading the OSG blogs. The blog was about how to employ the light cavalry properly: vedettes
to reveal your enemy strength and location without giving the opponent the same.
But how to do this in HWN ? In the larger context each player knows history, and he can read volumes written about
each battle, so there are not too many surprises. We do not have 'chance' cards to stimulate events with positive or negative
outcomes, there are just sprites slugging it out and a seemingly impassive AI which will destroy its own with a cold
calculating manner. Scouts perform admirably and get into early tussles which can be annoying as handling a
hot chunk of coal. The lines are revealed ? too much too soon...All are visible how big how much ...what if they were all vedettes
and the real strength is hidden somewhere ?
We do not have this card in our deck at the moment. Perhaps such a card is needed to create our own subterfuge , and not the
one employed by Lannes, make as smaller force bigger.

So apparently no finesse no intrigue no subterfuge. I do not think we can design a campaign
simulation without finesse intrigue and subterfuge, and a truly reactive AI, one with a set of possible strategies
to employ including retreat and reorganize bombard to dislodge.
So not having this kind of AI I went back to the usual.
I designed a battle : Mockern and tested it out. I gave each Coalition corps their orders and the French army the order
to defend in place at the loss of considerable amount of terrain.
The Coalition AI took my orders to 'attack' but did organize their attacks together. With 50,000 vs 30,000 the odds in numbers
are nearly 3:1. Coalition leaders are fair to good as their counterparts, in turn only the conscript elements in both armies (low-middle)
would show earlier signs of early fatigue, as in the 'quadrigame' all regular  and first line regiments sit with a middle-middle
set in aggression and initiative so 'equal'. Well as it turned out the Coalition just disintegrated, against the strong defense line.
The AI sent the Russians in first and then the Prussians: either side seemingly fighting at odds even instead at nearly 3:1 if they
went at it together.
It kept a considerable force as a rear guard : a division each to guard the LOC.

Well the AI alone question can't be that is not reactive is surely the reason why that side failed because the other side
strategy was stronger? Then possibly we need a programmable AI because at the moment its either defense is too strong
and always wins , attack with superior numbers is not possible because the AI keeps at least 17,000 men in a strategic
reserve...can this be meddled with ?
Check the maps provided to show the order I gave to both armies.
On a 6 km map there is only attack 'head on'. So I think my intervention in the AI to plan its 'attack' was 'wrong'. I meddled and
produced a false negative.
I'm replaying the battle. This time I'm playing the French. Coalition is doing a little better and simulated braking through the weak
Polish division sector. Souham is trying to redeploy. It appears the Coalition attack has petered out...the AI once again has put
an overabundance of resources to defend the LOC.

[zu Pferd]

a continuation


The AI assaulted the weakest sector as well; the Polish weak division which
was placed in the wrong sector by me  and as it was produced a
very similar result as in the historical battle. All other Coalition attacks along the line
were ineffective. A single Elite Prussian grenadier regiment clears French light out
of Gross Widderltzsch on the wake of the larger push...everything here looked rather
good; the only thing is the Grenadiers came out of the town and parked behind the
French second defense line and...stayed there until I manhandled two units to push them
away...more meddling of a different sorts in Souham sector, where I had to reform the defense line now broken because of the Polish contingent melting before the Coalition onslaught...too little too late as the game ends in a draw and Coalition loosing terribly
for the effort 8000 to 4000 for the French.

[[NBC]Friant]

I hope people take the time to read this because I think we had the solution all along...

' One of the problems with Napoleonic battlefield games is that the players know history.
They know that Napoleon won't be coming to Pultusk, and that Bennigsen outnumbers Lannes
two to one (neither of which was known at the time). In the Campaigns of Napoleon, with its
operational scale, such god-like knowledge is less influential, but in a battle game, where all of the
grand-scale maneuvering is finished before the battle starts, player knowledge changes history right from
the outset. '

This just about sums it up in a nut shell, and this will always be a massive problem with Historical Battles, YOU ALREADY KNOW!!
We generally had big problems with this in NTWHB scenarios.
You know the strengths and weaknesses of the enemy, you know what time what will be where. A true competitive ai will always be a problem, unless the ai is programmed for each and every Historic Battle, but then how can you program something that has free reign, where it is not worked on any sort of grid system, with chess each piece has set moves, and the ai can react to set pieces, but in games like this I should think it is nigh on impossible.
Against human players there is an 'answer', mirrored battle where the player takes each side... Then there must be some heavy calculations to decide who has actually 'won'. To me, saying the French won both battles for both opponents is too easy, surely one player must (here we have the crux of the problem) have did better than the other, less casualties more ground taken, etc...
My point was directed at one off battles, A v B, equal cehs etc., but the problem also covers the HB's.
Having given this a lot of thought, I think the game is still sometimes still played too 'gamey'. I include myself in this, we tend to say "Oh what the hell the battle is lost lets just go for it", but on reading how the ai resolves the game this style of play is taking a chance, ESPECIALLY, if you go all out when winning.

Now reading and understanding this proves to me how clever this game is at deciding a winner.
Why??
BECAUSE IT ENCOURAGES YOU TO PLAY IN A NAPOLEONIC STYLE...

Ultimately, the ratio of the CEH of side A to the CEH of side B defines the winner. If
the number is greater than one, the advantage is given to side A; the reverse is true if
the number is less than one.
Before designating a winner, let us examine the impact that a compromised line of
operations has on the victory level. Control of an opposing line of operations is in
effect when the defender/attacker CEH ratio on the local zone near the line of
operations is evidently in the attacker’s favour. Consequently, the tactical victory
becomes more significant.
The strategic evaluation estimates victory conditions by estimating a single battle’s
impact on the larger context of the conflict in the immediate future.
After evaluating the army’s effectiveness during the
preceding battle, the program in “HistWar: Napoléon” will in turn evaluate the results of
the new engagement and propose a strategic winner. *****In this way, a tactical loser may
actually prove to be a strategic winner.

*****The program uses the new potential to do this.
I do wonder why it is JMM never gets involved in this type of thing, I think it is because the system does work if you play Napoleonic.
Once you have strat or tac iniative or both, go onto the defensive, it is then up to the opponent to wrestle that from you. Once it is in your favour the game has already decided the winner, how you use that information is very important, whether you want to take a chance and push that marginal to a decisive is in your hands... But bear in mind continuing along that path could cost you, having said that a persistent enemy who tries to take back that advantage could also help you in your quest for that decisive win if you play well defensively!
I think again, until I started looking into the game result, I have missed the point, all is becoming clear, I think...
PLAY VERY NAPOLEONIC.
But to a degree we already knew that. 

[Gunner24]

I think you may well be right Friant, but you can be "winning" after an hour of battle time by doing something, like destroying a battery or two, so what do you do now, nothing but try to keep that early advantage ?.  I don't think I'm the only one in the MP Community that wants to "do something" other than sit on defensive lines and watch the attacking side lose !!!.

The game may be a little different from 4 years ago after all the changes, but really we do essentially have the same game, with the same "winning" problems we have always had......equal ceh should equal no result most of the time, why would one side gain a big win with equal forces ?.

Then we have the other side of the coin, one strong side, one weak side, now we all know which will win and no one enjoys being on the losing side.

So, we get to the "mirror" battle as a fair game for both sides no matter what strength OOBs we use - we already know this of course........but how many what to fight mirror battles MP - not many.

Using the HW results [converted to points] has been tried over and over again in different formats, none of which have lasted the test of time - why ?.

NBC Campaign game trying to avoid the "I've lost anyway, so why not do this that or the other" has not worked.

I don't believe HBs will ever work long term either, we also know that from ntw3 experience, they don't work over long periods of time.

This just about sums it up in a nut shell, and this will always be a massive problem with Historical Battles, YOU ALREADY KNOW!!
We generally had big problems with this in NTWHB scenarios.

For me, and only me, I still think the NBC campaign idea was by far the best option, but unfortunately no one else much agreed. 
Maybe we will get lucky soon and someone will find a "new" way of enjoying MP games.

Back to proper topic : I think to WIN, if that's all someone is interested in, and nothing else, you need to link the Corps together in two "waves" and mass attack with the first wave, then stop, rest them, and carry on the mass attack with the second "wave".  This will kill or take prisoner so many of the other sides troops they should be able to be mopped up by the rested first wave.  Of course, if the other side do this as well, we either get a massive head on battle, which could well be the correct thing, or what GP used to call the "football match" - where both sides attacks miss each other and they end up swapping sides !.

Tricky, but not as much of a worry as it might seem, if all you want to do is "see what happens" when two sides meet in certain circumstances and the winning side is not important.

[[NBC]Friant]

but you can be "winning" after an hour of battle time by doing something, like destroying a battery or two, so what do you do now, nothing but try to keep that early advantage ?.  I don't think I'm the only one in the MP Community that wants to "do something" other than sit on defensive lines and watch the attacking side lose !!!.

Probably over exaggerating my point a bit, I doubt very much if any body could hope to hold a lead after only one hour, of course I understand that somebody could be winning after an hour, but hoping to sit back and hold onto that lead realistically would be a mistake, and not that easy imo.

Then we have the other side of the coin, one strong side, one weak side, now we all know which will win and no one enjoys being on the losing side.

I always found the RGM interesting to play, a perfect system for very uneven sides, but seemed have lost its appeal.

I think to WIN, if that's all someone is interested in, and nothing else

The purpose of the topic really was trying to find a way of getting out of this train of thought:

equal ceh should equal no result most of the time, why would one side gain a big win with equal forces ?.

I disagree about the HB's in HW, there is one fundamental thing missing from HW HB's and that is times of arrival of different corps.
Marengo is a prime example of this, “At Marengo, I lost the battle at five o'clock, but I won it back at SEVEN!"
Whether he actually said this I doubt know, but just to make my point about different parts of the army arriving at different times.

Now back to getting a win with equal cehs.
These are all from the manual, quotes by Clausewitz.
“We thus believe that under more or less normal conditions, the numerically superior
force concentrated in a decisive point is essential, and that, in the normal course of
events, it is the most important of all factors. The application of force at a decisive
point depends upon the full use of the army’s force, and upon the skill with which it is
employed”

“The concentration of the forces must be regarded as the norm, and any decision to
divide them must be justified with a well-considered explanation”

“In theory, one should not employ his forces gradually – on the contrary, it is
necessary to deploy all of the forces chosen for a given action simultaneously. This is
an elemental law of war”

“The need for numerical superiority leads to another need, which is no less
pervasive: that of surprising the enemy. Surprise is essential for any undertaking,
because without it, excess of force at the crucial point is not conceivable.”

“The more vague or general the mission of the strategic reserve, the more
superfluous, useless, and dangerous it can be

“As far as an army’s morale is concerned, the art of war can never deal with
absolutes or arrive at certainties; the unpredictable will always have room for
manoeuvre, in matters both great and small. It is with courage and self- confidence
that one will respond forcefully and fill the voids created by the unforeseen”

“Now let us examine the general concept of a victory. We find three elements here: to
inflict higher physical losses on an adversary, to weaken his morale, and to make him
openly admit defeat by abandoning his plans.”

Rarely actually happens in game, because most players try to cover the width of the map, this invariably leaves no one in a position to overwhelm at any point because armies are spread across 15km.
If I get a chance against a human opponent I will try these theories out.
Imo opinion everything is placed for this to be a true test at trying to be a tactical genius, you never know we may find one in the community one day, and that will prove this theory right.
You must agree though to get a decisive win with equal ceh would be such an achievement, simply because of the challenge.

[tony scrase]

It is hard to attack and win I think part of the problem is that corps can only stack two deep where I think historically they would often stack deeper than that when attacking. Allowing them to have a massive advantage on a narrow front and punch a hole into the enemy line.

I think also it is hard to use massed artillery to weaken an enemy line prior to attacking it with infantry. Napoleon often used this strategy.

I don't know about other players But I find the best way to attack is to stack three corp deep two infantry corp linked to each other and a cavalry corp behind them. As soon as the first infantry corp attacks you order the second corp to attack knowing there will be about a 30 minute delay. The first corp will almost certainly break up but with a bit of luck the second corp will break the defender and the cavalry can then be used effectively against the routed defenders. you of course need good defence positions else where on the battlefield.

[Gunner24]

Rarely actually happens in game, because most players try to cover the width of the map, this invariably leaves no one in a position to overwhelm at any point because armies are spread across 15km.

We have talked about this covering all the map many times, no one has to do that, but almost all the time people do, why is that ?.

I think I know why, it is because of the "old ntw2/3" "BLOB" type issue who many people (including me) always complained about.  Do people really want to lump everything in a heap and attack, yes, it is easy to do, but not much imagination is required, plus do you bother to worry about holding a flank or not ?.

This choice has been there since day one, but not many have done it ?........but I do now agree, to win, it might well be a good option to take.

[tony scrase]

Hi lumping everything together is the only chance of attacking and winning and I would say fails more often than not. There is high casualty rate that can only really be justified by a successful cavalry attack at the end against routing defenders

I think the important point being made is about armies stretching from
one side of the map to the other is a very important point. I feel that reason for this is that in the game corp can only stack 2 deep rather than as they often did stack much deeper than that and the only response the defender has is to defend in depth (shortening his line) flanks become a well chosen defensive position like a wood or village not the edge of the map.

I also think that the morale effect of a broken line is not sufficient in the game which also means that the defender does not have to defend in depth thus his line is strung out across the map

[Gunner24]

I feel that reason for this is that in the game corp can only stack 2 deep

I just did a quick solo test to make sure, but as I thought, you can LINK as many Corps together as you want, I did 4, one behind the other, but, the big problem with this is when you come to UN link them !!!.

[[NBC]Friant]

There is one other very important point to this topic, and I think that is the fact that we use:
Delay of Orders Limited.
This enables quicker reactions in game when defending against an attack, especially when an opponent has managed to get into a position where he has managed to outnumber his adversary in one area of the map, and a breakthrough could be had...
I think this favours the defender more than the attacker??
Responding to a set piece in a 3rd of the time must also affect how the battle is played out.
Reserves get to the area too quickly, the attacker has taken the plunge, but all to quickly there are ample reserves to shore up the line.
Another knock on effect is an attack can easily be switched to defense when a defensive player decides to capitalise on his more aggressive opponent.
Moving corps in a 3rd of the time must make a difference??

2.1.5 Delay of Orders (Limited, or Historical)
These options determine how long the delay can be when Delayed orders is enabled.
This parameter triples the time taken to draft the orders. For example, even without
taking into account the time necessary for the transmission of a message, the time
necessary for executing an order can be as much as 2 hours for a corps at maximum
strength (24 units) which is led by a Commanding Officer with little competence.

[Gunner24]

Excellent point Friant, that IS making a massive difference, but, there is always a but.......a very long time ago, with FULL delayed orders, there were many complaints that "something must have gone wrong" when orders were taking oh so long to come in........now, in 2014, we could go back to the full delay, that would make PLANNING in advance much more important, but, here's the but again, get ready for some moans and groans about just how long these orders are taking !!!!.

[tony scrase]

Reply t o Friant

As the attacker I have found the only way is to link 2 infantry corp You attack with the first - As soon as you do that you order the second corp to attack (lets say there is a 30- 45 minute delay) by this time the first corp has broken up and the second corp has space to attack . That way within 30-45 mins two corp have attacked the defensive line hopefully before the defenders reserves have been bought in.

but I have found this fails more times than it succeeds but is the closest way to replicate say a four deep corp attack 2 wide corp attack.
Napoleon said never attack without first bombarding the defender with artillery which I think is difficult to do in the game

If that makes any sense - I still feel that the defenders morale is too strong when a line is broken