Latest topics
» How do I change my email address for this forum?
by MJ1 Yesterday at 9:37 pm

» YAHOO SITE
by hammurabi70 Wed Sep 01, 2010 12:16 pm

» Future events
by hammurabi70 Tue Aug 31, 2010 12:53 pm

» British Game for sale 13OCT10
by MJ1 Tue Aug 24, 2010 10:35 pm

» Readymade Kriegsspiel "blocks"
by dmclean1313 Wed Aug 18, 2010 10:23 am

» GenCon Indy
by PhotonCutterTome Sun Jul 25, 2010 5:57 pm

» Though one: point values
by stoffelbier Sun Jul 18, 2010 8:34 am

» Paddy Griffiths passes away
by Ike Fri Jun 25, 2010 9:47 pm

» A Kriegsspiel Blog Opens
by Ike Fri Jun 11, 2010 2:08 pm

» Question About Distances
by Ike Thu Jun 10, 2010 3:24 pm

» Rules for firepower
by MJ1 Wed Jun 09, 2010 10:17 pm

» Blocks used and made
by James Sterrett Tue Jun 01, 2010 3:57 am

Statistics
We have 120 registered users
The newest registered user is citylad

Our users have posted a total of 718 messages in 144 subjects
Log in

I forgot my password

Though one: point values

Post new topic   Reply to topic

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Though one: point values

Post  stoffelbier on Tue Jul 06, 2010 7:27 pm

Kriegsspiel 1924 (von Reisswitz) from "Too Fat Lardies" on page 9:
"... cavalry in ranks = 2 points equals 3 riders" (-> same on page 31 in the Points Values Table)
But on page 9 at the end we read the following: "Cavalry lose a Squadron after 60 points". This should mean a value of 2 points equals 5 riders? (2x30=60 points -> 5x30=150 riders per squadron).

Which one is right? 2p = 3 riders or 2p = 5 riders?

Another one: page 66 of 75 from "British Army Kriegsspiel" Points Values Table:
3 rank inf 1 point = 3 men
2 rank inf 2 points = 10 men
cavalry 2 points = 3 men
artillery 12,5 points = 1 gun

Maybe some of these values are changed by copying or translating or due to some other reasons ...
Which values should be used to have a correct balance?

stoffelbier

Posts: 15
Join date: 2009-07-23

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Though one: point values

Post  Ike on Thu Jul 08, 2010 3:16 pm

I believe the rules you refer to are meant to be used to determine casualties from musket and artillery fire. Notice that the distinctions appear to all relate to the number of ranks or files subjected to fire: "...cavalry in ranks = 2 points equals 3 riders...", "...3 rank inf 1 point = 3 men...", "...2 rank inf 2 points = 10 men..." (emphasis supplied). So it is my understanding that the answer to your question is this: varying with how many ranks or files of men and horse are exposed to the musket or artillery fire, the unit loses a variable number of men. The points to men is simply a numerical way of reflecting that battlefield factor on casualties. And therefore, the numbers were correctly translated and transcribed and are not in need of change to reflect balance. In my ignorant opinion, of course.

Ike

Posts: 27
Join date: 2010-05-04
Age: 63
Location: Central Texas USA

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Though one: point values

Post  stoffelbier on Fri Jul 16, 2010 8:03 pm

Ike wrote:Notice that the distinctions appear to all relate to the number of ranks or files subjected to fire: "...cavalry in ranks = 2 points equals 3 riders...", "...3 rank inf 1 point = 3 men...", "...2 rank inf 2 points = 10 men..." (emphasis supplied). Varying with how many ranks or files of men and horse are exposed to the musket or artillery fire, the unit loses a variable number of men.


I know the relation between number of ranks and losses (point values). But the differences i've found are between the point values of the same ranks!

Another one: page 66 of 75 from "British Army Kriegsspiel" Points Values Table:
3 rank inf 1 point = 3 men -> Reisswitz says 1 point = 5 men
cavalry 2 points = 3 men -> R. says 2 points = 5 men
artillery 12,5 points = 1 gun

And even worse: In the official Supplement to Kriegsspiel (you can read this at the end of the manual from Von Reisswitz - Too Fat Lardies) it states:
90 points = 1 battalion in close order!!! -> this means 1 point = 10 men

Who can help me?


Last edited by stoffelbier on Sat Jul 17, 2010 7:24 pm; edited 1 time in total

stoffelbier

Posts: 15
Join date: 2009-07-23

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Though one: point values

Post  Ike on Sat Jul 17, 2010 3:54 pm

The point per man or men per point in the 1824 edition by Von Reisswitz - indeed, the entire rules set! - is explicitly based upon the unit organization, strengths and field deployment doctrines of the Prussian Army of roughly Napoleonic War vintage. For example, the infantry battalion is numbered as being 900 or 800 or whatever, I'm working on something else at the moment, forgive me if the numbers are not exact. Three ranks of a Prussian infantry battalion has a given number of men in each rank and each file. The numbers are different for a British infantry battalion, even if the total field strength of the battalion is identical. Why? Different organization, different formations, yielding different density of soldiers under fire. Let me see if I can recall the establishment strengths well enough to provide some numbers.

Prussian Army infantry company strength - on paper, mind you! - was 135 men, six per battalion, giving a battalion strength of 801 men all ranks; cavalry squadron 110 men, regiment 601, in 1806. This was the army which was compelled to contribute units to the Imperial French Grande Armee that was invading Russia in 1812. In the War of Liberation after the failure of the French invasion of Russia, there was a considerable hodge-podge of freicorps etc, but the paper establishment remained unchanged. This, I believe, is the number of men von R. uses in Kriegsspiel.

British Army infantry battalions had a more varied establishment, varying from 600 to 1100 men per battalion. More importantly, it was organized in eight "centre" companies, each of which contributed a variable number to the two "flank" companies. At full strength - say 800 men to make it easy to divide and add - each center company would have a nominal 100 men, (actually 72 as 16 were sent to each of the two flank companies) so 72 men and the grenadier company and light company would each be 128 men. Unlike the Continental practice, grenadier companies were only rarely combined into ad hoc grenadier battalions - and yes I know that it was actually done more often; I'm illustrating the differences in which would produce a different troop density under fire - usually firing in two ranks, etc. Moreover, the battalion was the regiment in nearly all the British Army until about 1803, when second battalions were authorized in a number of regiments (yes, the 60th Royal Americans had 7 battalions). The differences is organization and strength produce a widely variable troop strength, at the "sharp end". Cavalry was four squadrons with a regimental establishment of 905 all ranks, giving 120 - 160 per squadron in field strength.

These differences from the Prussian make for different troop density on the battlefield, thereby giving different men per points and points per men. After the first edition came out, there were revisions made, as you know, several times. One or maybe two of those are included in the Too Fat Lardies edition of Kriegsspiel and some of those revisions were based upon the personal recollections of the senior (and sometimes junior) officers making the changes. This is the more detailed version of what I was trying to say in my first response. That's my explanation - to myself, as I noticed and wondered as well - of this apparent discrepancy.

Besides, it's a game! Think of these variations as if they were some of Scotty Bowden's more irritating "national characteristics" contained in his otherwise - IMHO - wonderful set of Napoleonic miniatures "Empire" rules! Smile And remember that no game rules are Holy Writ. Change them if you believe they're wrong or that it's a typo. It is not possible to read the minds of men long-dead about this issue and say, with authority, "The reason is blah, blah."

Ike

Posts: 27
Join date: 2010-05-04
Age: 63
Location: Central Texas USA

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Though one: point values

Post  stoffelbier on Sat Jul 17, 2010 7:46 pm

Thanks for your explanation. Most of it makes sense to me, i've done some reading in the past. Mostly about 18th century.

But to play the game i wanted to have some realistic point values to start with. I was looking for an average. How many casualties in 2 minute rounds should be usable as a guideline? (i know, in some battles there were devastating musket salvos, and in other battles a few musket balls would hit a few soldiers)

Point values like 1 point = 3 men against 1 point = 10 men -> that's a big difference, even if you take different troop density in account. I think the Supplements on the rules used a battalion (90 points) to allocate hit points, the original Von Reisswitz used point values to calculate per half battalion (90 points)! This could explain the difference between
1 point = 5 men (Van Reisswitz)
1 point = 10 men (Supplemental rules)


stoffelbier

Posts: 15
Join date: 2009-07-23

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Though one: point values

Post  Ike on Sat Jul 17, 2010 11:33 pm

Yes, that "half-battalion" vs. "battalion" as the firing unit would explain much of the difference. I do not know how to answer your question as the issue has no come up for me yet. The number of casualties seems to have little or no significance in the firing rules for musketry and morale failure isn't handled separately from melee and fire resolution in these rules.

Ike

Posts: 27
Join date: 2010-05-04
Age: 63
Location: Central Texas USA

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Though one: point values

Post  stoffelbier on Sun Jul 18, 2010 8:34 am

Ike wrote:Yes, that "half-battalion" vs. "battalion" as the firing unit would explain much of the difference. I do not know how to answer your question as the issue has no come up for me yet. The number of casualties seems to have little or no significance in the firing rules for musketry and morale failure isn't handled separately from melee and fire resolution in these rules.


"half-battalion" vs. "battalion" -> Not only as the firing unit but also as the target!

stoffelbier

Posts: 15
Join date: 2009-07-23

View user profile

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


Permissions of this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum