"Runaway" stats.

[Mooncabbage]

Allright I really didn't get that the way you ment it...(I'm not englisch native..if that's what you mean, and i usually don't correct the things i write...but from my earlier comments you might have realized that I am Austrian. However I've learned English, French, Latin, Ancient Greek and Italian - so it all gets a little bit confused up there, hope that I'm still comprehendable)  
Concerning game-programming I must pass, as I already mentioned "many" times now...

And for all the people who don't know Austria: THERE ARE NO KANGAROOS IN AUSTRIA  

Apologies, I automatically assume the non english speakers on this forum are french, I have done you a terrible insult

I think there should be a Corps order :

"Withdraw".

If a Corps Commander can see he is about to get badly beaten he should be able to make some kind of organised withdrawal, to a safer position.

What is everyone using at the moment to do this ?......which order would be best if you want to dis-engage ?.

I agree, but the corps commanders should also withdraw themselves. As should regiments. They are supposed to be lead by reasonably capable officers and I cannot see them standing around being destroyed.

There are 3 levels before a unit routs.
a) losses during the last minute above X1% (instantaneous   flight)
b) losses during the march (beginning on an order) above X2%
c) absolute losses above X3%
There are several other conditions to take flight.

X1 is 8,7,6,5,4% for Vieille Garde,Moyenne Garde,Royal Garde,Line or Light infantry,conscrit
X3 is 42,26 to 28,21 to 24,15 to 20%
X2 is calculated from these 2 values.

JMM

What are the non-loss based impacts to morale? Things like, "exposed flank", "threatened flank", "nearby fleeing allies", "outnumbered", "surrounded", "surprised/ambushed", "under fire", "under artillery fire". I also believe units are more likely flee from a high number of initial casualties as caused by a charge, close range volley, or artillery bombardment, than from the same number of casualties in a protracted firefight.

[Hook]

I also believe units are more likely flee from a high number of initial casualties as caused by a charge, close range volley, or artillery bombardment, than from the same number of casualties in a protracted firefight.

That's covered in "a) losses during the last minute above X1% (instantaneous flight)" above.

Hook

[Mooncabbage]

Ahh, my memory is clearly not working very well today, since I read that and somehow managed to forget it by the time I got to the end of my reply.

[CBR]

That's covered in "a) losses during the last minute above X1% (instantaneous flight)" above.

If JMM means that a unit will rout if it takes above 5% in one minute (Line quality) then yes it will rout, but it will also rout when taking 5% over 10+ minutes of artillery fire. And that is my concern about the combat mechanics as units are very fragile. Not only can they not take many losses before they rout but why rout instead of pulling back to safety. They are easy targets for cavalry who can capture them.


CBR

[Mooncabbage]

Some balancing will have to be done. From personal experience this comes down largely to trial end error, with a dash of reason and logic thrown in. It's certainly not easy to balance morale, especially when you throw AI into the mix.

I agree that a unit should retreat, or atleast try to, before it routs, MOST of the time. The retreat is a command decision however, routs tend to be the result of mob rule as I have said. I think the best thing we as a community can do, is to try to piece together our own system, of how and when we think units should rout, rather than just saying to JMM "It's wrong". Now I've already suggested that a unit under artillery fire will rout faster for the same number of losses as a unit which is not, indeed I am sure it is possible for a unit under artillery fire to flee without taking any losses, if it is already wavering.

So I would suggest a set penalty to spirit/morale per gun firing at the unit, building up over the course of say 2 or 3 minutes to a maximum. For example, each gun might reduce a regiment's morale by a maximum of 5 spirit, over the course of 3 minutes, in a 1/3/5 organisation of penalties.

Similarly one might suggest that being charged/attacked might decrease morale by 5% per attacking battalion or 10% per attacking squadron.

These are ofcourse just numbers I pulled out of the air, but you can see where I am going. Constructive criticism is many orders of magnitude better than regular criticism So let's see if we can't put together something JMM can actually use. History buffs I'm looking at you

[Hook]

So let's see if we can't put together something JMM can actually use. History buffs I'm looking at you

Until we know all the rules JMM uses, attempting to change them will be tilting at windmills.  JMM already knows how these things worked in real life. 

Please try to avoid the appearance of stirring dissent.

Hook

[Gunner24]

I agree that a unit should retreat, or atleast try to, before it routs, MOST of the time.

I tend to agree, but maybe there should be a phase between this, the "wavering" type stage as in TW.....the unit is under heavy pressure and IF it's not withdrawn soon will rout, so it SHOULD retreat, but if not (for any reason) then it routs.......maybe this is how it already works, I will have to take more note of the in game descriptions when this is going on.

[Mooncabbage]

I tend to agree, but maybe there should be a phase between this, the "wavering" type stage as in TW.....the unit is under heavy pressure and IF it's not withdrawn soon will rout, so it SHOULD retreat, but if not (for any reason) then it routs.......maybe this is how it already works, I will have to take more note of the in game descriptions when this is going on.

Yeah it's already in there. You see it sometimes on units with low spirit, in situations where something is threatening them.

Until we know all the rules JMM uses, attempting to change them will be tilting at windmills.  JMM already knows how these things worked in real life. 

Please try to avoid the appearance of stirring dissent.

Hook

There is no reason to wait to find out all the rules JMM uses. Odds are we probably never will know completely. There is no reason to hold off with suggestions, JMM will see what we think should be the case, and I'm sure some experts can weigh in with references and opinions, and JMM can adjust accordingly.

I would think my pre-order would be enough to confirm my vote of confidence in this game. I personally see no reason to tiptoe around the issues. I believe the perception of my stirring dissent to be a personal one. I think I have the right to express my opinion. I think you need to stop taking every criticism of the game as a personal attack on yourself or JMM, and accept it for what it is. What exactly are you worried about here?

[Count von Csollich]

There is no reason to wait to find out all the rules JMM uses. Odds are we probably never will know completely. There is no reason to hold off with suggestions, JMM will see what we think should be the case, and I'm sure some experts can weigh in with references and opinions, and JMM can adjust accordingly.

I don't really want to become heavily involved in this because I'm no programmer...but as far as my understanding goes I know that JMM has a lot of knowledge in the field and is particularly interested in the historical accuracy of this game... so if he programmed something to happen I'm sure he did so with historical reference!!! Just look at the accuracy of Units' behaviour... the cavalry...the Corps deployment...

[dieseltaylor]

Mooncabbage

So I would suggest a set penalty to spirit/morale per gun firing at the unit, building up over the course of say 2 or 3 minutes to a maximum. For example, each gun might reduce a regiment's morale by a maximum of 5 spirit, over the course of 3 minutes, in a 1/3/5 organisation of penalties.

Your suggestion seems flawed in some respects:
a] distance to guns - decreased accuracy and effect
b] effectiveness of guns, less effective in the wet due to ball not skipping as far, also I would imagine wheat would slow ball down
c] formation of the unit , line being least affected
d] effects of slope

and I am sure morale is very much influenced by what is happening nearby in relation to number of friendly and enemy troops. Also I think perhaps you over-rate the effectiveness of a single gun and in fact number of batteries rather than guns may be what would be required at range to have any serious attempt at reducing morale.

I am not a great fan of a mechanistic approach to gaming preferring an element of unknown fudging. The concept that someone can say I have 6 guns and will aim at this regiment and it will lose morale at a specific rate I dislike. My preference is that it will have an effect in the range of  say x  + or - 2.

After all most of the lessons learned from the Napolenic battles was done in hindsight and most of it after the wars were over. Not to say that both sides did not have some exceptional officers who understood better than most what was going on - but then they were the exceptions. One only has to look at the problems the Franch had with training horses for the cavalry to realise how bad ideas could live on throughout the Napoleonic period.

[Hook]

I guess we could copy and paste from 15 different miniatures rulesets, but in the end that's worse than worthless, it wastes our time and space, so it actually has negative value.  It has nothing whatsoever to do with HWLG.

JMM has already determined the rules the game will use.  Your chances of getting these rules changed are very small if they exist at all.  If you spend enough time analyzing the game, you can figure out what the rules are, and then you might be in a position to suggest tweaks.  These have more chance of being implemented, but don't count on it.

Hook

[Hook]

My preference is that it will have an effect in the range of  say x  + or - 2.

I'd prefer this myself, but the way JMM does it deterministically seems to work, especially since so many different factors combine at once that the actual outcome is unpredictable.  I don't know why he did it that way.  Possibly for speed, possibly for ease of record keeping, possibly to keep a series of random numbers from producing an unbelievable result, possibly just because he made the decision to do it that way early in the design phase for no other reason than that this was his design philosophy.

If I'd programmed the game, I'd be using uniform and normally distributed random numbers... but I don't think you'd see much difference.

Hook

[Mooncabbage]

Mooncabbage
Your suggestion seems flawed in some respects:
a] distance to guns - decreased accuracy and effect
b] effectiveness of guns, less effective in the wet due to ball not skipping as far, also I would imagine wheat would slow ball down
c] formation of the unit , line being least affected
d] effects of slope

and I am sure morale is very much influenced by what is happening nearby in relation to number of friendly and enemy troops. Also I think perhaps you over-rate the effectiveness of a single gun and in fact number of batteries rather than guns may be what would be required at range to have any serious attempt at reducing morale.

I am not a great fan of a mechanistic approach to gaming preferring an element of unknown fudging. The concept that someone can say I have 6 guns and will aim at this regiment and it will lose morale at a specific rate I dislike. My preference is that it will have an effect in the range of  say x  + or - 2.

After all most of the lessons learned from the Napolenic battles was done in hindsight and most of it after the wars were over. Not to say that both sides did not have some exceptional officers who understood better than most what was going on - but then they were the exceptions. One only has to look at the problems the Franch had with training horses for the cavalry to realise how bad ideas could live on throughout the Napoleonic period.

It was just an example, as I said I pulled it out of the air. Also not that it was specifically to do with morale, and not casualties, and so I don't see how the bouncing of the rounds comes into it. It's about the morale effects of being under fire, not for calculating casualties. As Hook said, I agree that randomness has a value in wargames in simulating the unknown, to some extent this is mitigated in HWLG by the limited information you get (you don't have floating numbers that reveal the internal maths). Also you don't have easy direct control over units, so you can't quickly intervene in a Deus Ex Machina scenario.

Hook, seeing as we have unlimited time and space, and I'm certain JMM plans to continue modifying and tweaking the game post release, I see no problem with discussing the internal rules. If you don't like it, noone is threatening to break your legs if you don't take part. I just stop replying to the threads in which you no longer have an interest.

[Hook]

Hook, seeing as we have unlimited time and space, and I'm certain JMM plans to continue modifying and tweaking the game post release, I see no problem with discussing the internal rules. If you don't like it, noone is threatening to break your legs if you don't take part. I just stop replying to the threads in which you no longer have an interest.

[Moderator hat on]

Discussing the internal rules:  I welcome discussions of the actual internal rules of HWLG.  I want to see what people have figured out too, like CBR did with the artillery.  But it needs to be about the actual internal rules and not speculation on what design changes might be needed when you don't know what the internal rules are.

Time and space:  I'm concerned about the signal to noise ratio.  The more posts that clutter the forums that aren't actually about HWLG, the harder it is for anyone to get real information, especially new people who have just joined the forum.  Posts about HWLG are very welcome.  Posts about other games may be welcome.  Posts that are mostly attempts to turn HWLG into a Total War clone are less welcome, especially when it turns into a Zergling Rush.

Part of my job here is to support HWLG on the forums.  That means I get to read every post, and respond if necessary. 

[Moderator hat off]

Mooncabbage, I think you will have a lot to contribute.  And I know what it's like to be a modder, having done some extreme modding myself.  But attempting a redesign of the game at this point is not going to be useful.  Hold off until at least after release and the pressure is off JMM.

Hook

[Mooncabbage]

Hmm, my attempt was not to put pressure on JMM, I thought it was clear that everything I had said was intended as speculation as to possible areas of improvement POST release. The game is already more complete than half the crap you see at EB for AUD$110 so I'm really not fussed if he released it tomorrow.

I don't want it to seem like we (the former TW community) are trying to turn HWLG into TW, we spent years essentially trying to do the reverse. I mean I personally only spent a year or slightly less actively modding, but I know others have been waiting for years for something like this, in mod or LG form :P

I think we just want to ensure that as well as being historically accurate it's continually fun and polished in multiplayer, which is what most of us are after. We (and I'm speaking for myself here, but I think others will agree) are willing to sacrifice a little bit of realism in the camera department, for something that lets us soak up the atmosphere and see what our troops are doing at the time. I know a lot of people struggle to find time enough to play online, and so watching the replay after is just more time than they really have available to them. Besides which I think most of us would agree that while the CiC view is nice, and very realistic, and with a telescope it'd be about as close as you'll ever  get to the real thing, what we really want is to be able to look over the battle like a fly on the wall, while it's still going on. I guess it's sort of complicated to explain.

Ultimately we're not trying to turn HWLG into TW, but TW is not a totally useless game, it has some valid concepts. I think it's an underestimation to equate TW players with casual starcraft type players. We were just working with what we had access to. Which is why you'll not a large number of TW players are very interested in this game, although quite a few from the old NTW2/TacWar community seem to be holding off to see how things pan out.

Perhaps however in the future I should confine my speculation to the Grenadiers forum? I guess I can see how my suggestions might be confused with criticisms by people who are already borderline on this game. If you are one of those people reading this: Buy the game. It's awesome. If you are looking for a proper strategy game, then this is it. If you want pretty models and something that won't tax you, then NapTW is for you, but if you want something with guts, with gameplay, and with style, you can't walk past this. Even the demo is incredible, like nothing else you've ever played.