Latest topics
» SOW Scenario Generatorby rschilla Today at 7:21 pm
» Impromptu Games
by Morsey Today at 6:45 pm
» Deciphering the AI system
by Didz Today at 2:26 pm
» Sunday 20 May 2018 Napoleonic Kriegsspiel
by Martin Yesterday at 11:03 pm
» 2018 AGM and Club Election
by Uncle Billy Yesterday at 3:50 pm
» New Player Intro
by Uncle Billy Sun Apr 22, 2018 4:51 am
» 1914 WW1 Kriegsspiel
by Iconoclast Fri Apr 20, 2018 6:09 pm
» Sunday 22 April 2018 Kriegsspiel
by Martin Sat Apr 14, 2018 12:57 pm
» Small beginner group looking to find a home in North America.....
by Tactical Wargamer Fri Apr 13, 2018 2:05 pm
» AI OPTIONS
by Uncle Billy Mon Apr 09, 2018 8:28 pm
» SOWWL Napoleon Mod 1.27 Released
by Uncle Billy Thu Apr 05, 2018 4:23 pm
» Issues with Peninsula OOB
by Uncle Billy Thu Apr 05, 2018 12:38 am
Statistics
We have 1012 registered usersThe newest registered user is Odovacer
Our users have posted a total of 24621 messages in 1966 subjects
Log in
Today's Game July 19th
Page 3 of 3 • Share •
Page 3 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Re: Today's Game July 19th
I don’t think the VP issue is straightforward.
* In our face-to-face kriegsspiels, we normally have specific victory conditions for both sides, although they may be asymmetric. So, at least in theory, both sides could achieve them.
* They always have importance, but are not always *critically* important. But the players don’t always know that for situational reasons.
* And in any case it’s no good achieving your objective if you no longer have a viable force. If that’s the case the objective is likely to have little value.
* Of course, the situation may mean you can recover stragglers, and reorganize into a viable force overnight. In which case the statement above is not true.
* OTOH you may fail to achieve an geographic objective, but if you’ve decisively defeated the enemy, there will be nothing to stop you securing it the next day.
* Always assuming that securing it was not time-critical. For example marching to the relief of a fortress which was about to fall. In which case the next day is too late.
It’s very difficult to come-up with a rule that covers all situations. All I can suggest is the approach we use in our kriegsspiels. There, the final decision on victory/defeat always rests with the person who organised the game. Only they are aware of the whole picture, know what’s in everyone’s briefings, and hopefully have the objectivity to come to an informed and unbiased view.
That may not be a perfect approach, but it does seem to work. It does require that all players accept the decision, but over many years we have not found that to be a problem. One difference in our MP games is that the organiser plays, rather than umpires. But they typically take a minor command, and so are probably less invested in the result.
Martin (J)
* In our face-to-face kriegsspiels, we normally have specific victory conditions for both sides, although they may be asymmetric. So, at least in theory, both sides could achieve them.
* They always have importance, but are not always *critically* important. But the players don’t always know that for situational reasons.
* And in any case it’s no good achieving your objective if you no longer have a viable force. If that’s the case the objective is likely to have little value.
* Of course, the situation may mean you can recover stragglers, and reorganize into a viable force overnight. In which case the statement above is not true.
* OTOH you may fail to achieve an geographic objective, but if you’ve decisively defeated the enemy, there will be nothing to stop you securing it the next day.
* Always assuming that securing it was not time-critical. For example marching to the relief of a fortress which was about to fall. In which case the next day is too late.
It’s very difficult to come-up with a rule that covers all situations. All I can suggest is the approach we use in our kriegsspiels. There, the final decision on victory/defeat always rests with the person who organised the game. Only they are aware of the whole picture, know what’s in everyone’s briefings, and hopefully have the objectivity to come to an informed and unbiased view.
That may not be a perfect approach, but it does seem to work. It does require that all players accept the decision, but over many years we have not found that to be a problem. One difference in our MP games is that the organiser plays, rather than umpires. But they typically take a minor command, and so are probably less invested in the result.
Martin (J)
Martin- Posts : 2222
Join date : 2008-12-20
Location : London
Re: Today's Game July 19th
Martin, I see lawyer-potential in you. All you lack is a few more "to the contrary notwithstandings..." ;-)
Re: Today's Game July 19th
That will be five thousand dollars please, Ron

Martin- Posts : 2222
Join date : 2008-12-20
Location : London
Re: Today's Game July 19th
Accepting we didn't take the objective and NSD's victory.
I am curious about how my commanders felt at the battle end? Just taking into account the actual fighting.
Did you feel we were getting the upperhand in the battle or we're getting our asses kicked?
I couldn't see beyond the ridge of Martin's position (Roland's division) but all the fighting around Goumont was reduced to mopping up some French battalions.
I am curious about how my commanders felt at the battle end? Just taking into account the actual fighting.
Did you feel we were getting the upperhand in the battle or we're getting our asses kicked?

I couldn't see beyond the ridge of Martin's position (Roland's division) but all the fighting around Goumont was reduced to mopping up some French battalions.
Iberalc- Posts : 433
Join date : 2014-09-19
Location : Alicante
Re: Today's Game July 19th
I only ever felt dubious about our position early on when I took the second ridge and began to get pounded by French guns. One of my batteries had a cannon rout before it had opened fire. Then with my guns pulled back (er... forced back) off that ridge I saw masses of French infantry attacking I wondered if we would be able to stop them.
The second worrying moment was when I had to pull back to keep connected with our left and saw Goumont woods full of cheering garlic eaters who then pushed Mike's brigade back and swarmed around the chateau.
After that though I found out my reserve brigade had brought powder and bullets with them and these, with help from Mark's brigade to my left and mine and Roland's 40+ guns managed to stop the enemy on this flank.
The second worrying moment was when I had to pull back to keep connected with our left and saw Goumont woods full of cheering garlic eaters who then pushed Mike's brigade back and swarmed around the chateau.
After that though I found out my reserve brigade had brought powder and bullets with them and these, with help from Mark's brigade to my left and mine and Roland's 40+ guns managed to stop the enemy on this flank.
_________________
The other Martin - Charles Reille, le dernier Maréchal de France.
"Any hussar who has not got himself killed by the age of 30 is a jackass." - Antoine Charles Louis Lasalle, commander of Napoleon's light cavalry, killed in battle at Wagram 6 July 1809, aged 34.
"I had forgotten there was an objective." - Generallieutenant Mikhail Borozdin I
Mr. Digby- Posts : 4933
Join date : 2012-02-14
Age : 58
Location : UK Midlands
Re: Today's Game July 19th
Iberalc wrote:Did you feel we were getting the upperhand in the battle or we're getting our asses kicked?
One vote for "asses kicked."
Re: Today's Game July 19th
My brigade was in good shape and the French had relented. I was once very worried, but when I saw a brigade led by Pepe of Villaflor come up beside me, I knew the day was ours.
kg little mac- Posts : 430
Join date : 2012-07-09
Age : 59
Location : Eden
Re: Today's Game July 19th
We are Russians, of course we won. 
Actually, the idea was for us to attack and drive away the snail eaters. Instead, they counterattacked and drove us back. I really don't understand what happened. We had a colored battle plan and everything. What more did we need?

Actually, the idea was for us to attack and drive away the snail eaters. Instead, they counterattacked and drove us back. I really don't understand what happened. We had a colored battle plan and everything. What more did we need?
_________________
I can make this march and I will make Georgia howl.
Uncle Billy- Posts : 3022
Join date : 2012-02-27
Location : western Colorado
Re: Today's Game July 19th
"What more did we need?"
An Austrian with a firmer Rückgrat?
An Austrian with a firmer Rückgrat?

kg little mac- Posts : 430
Join date : 2012-07-09
Age : 59
Location : Eden
Re: Today's Game July 19th
Thank you, Martin. Very helpful.I don’t think the VP issue is straightforward.

_________________
The other Martin - Charles Reille, le dernier Maréchal de France.
"Any hussar who has not got himself killed by the age of 30 is a jackass." - Antoine Charles Louis Lasalle, commander of Napoleon's light cavalry, killed in battle at Wagram 6 July 1809, aged 34.
"I had forgotten there was an objective." - Generallieutenant Mikhail Borozdin I
Mr. Digby- Posts : 4933
Join date : 2012-02-14
Age : 58
Location : UK Midlands
Re: Today's Game July 19th
And don't get me started on the implications of losing your baggage train
Martin (J)

Martin (J)
Martin- Posts : 2222
Join date : 2008-12-20
Location : London
Page 3 of 3 • 1, 2, 3

» Justice: Leonor Cipriano's lawyer is going to request the annulment of today's court session
» 19th Alberta Dragoons: Staghound patches
» Leicester Mercury 7 July 2011.
» Home alone...Leicester Mercury 23 July 2011
» "Missing People" go to Downing Street today - and guess who's "Missing"!!!
» 19th Alberta Dragoons: Staghound patches
» Leicester Mercury 7 July 2011.
» Home alone...Leicester Mercury 23 July 2011
» "Missing People" go to Downing Street today - and guess who's "Missing"!!!
Page 3 of 3
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum