Online users
- francis
Combat changes
December 10, 2009 - 3:26pm — Stephen Schmidt
The proposed NWOL-3 rules changes had 3 proposed GITM combat changes. One of those turns out not to have been sensible; it was to reduce the chance of units shattering. Units shattering is not a random event (they only shatter when no valid rout or retreat direction is available) so there is no way to reduce its probability (other than by having units cover their flanks, but that's the players' problem, not the coder's). The other half of that change was to increase the chance of routing, but I think it doesn't make sense to do that if I can't reduce the chance of shattering. So that one's punted.
The other was to reduce the fatigue penalty for routing from 5 to 3 points and to reduce the shatter recovery time from 3-4 turns to 2-3. I have done both of those. The aim is to help defeated armies recover faster and more completely.
The only remaining changes are the scoring changes for giving cities to the Bourbons and Revolutionary states, and preventing reinforcement of armies not at home between campaigns. Both of these can't happen at present; I should be able to implement them before they come up.
Steve
This site is intended for the sole purpose of supporting the Players Guild an activity sponsored by the Historical Online Learning Foundation. It exists solely to provide a discussion forum for the members of the Guild and to provide an outlet for announcements of other services offered by the Foundation. Any other activities involving this site are prohibited. All rights reserved.
Who's new
- joequ1oeil
- koolguy66
- Sakkal
- David Adams
- rkimler
or no points...
I have always been opposed to VPs, and this is part of the reason why.
Why is it glorious to slaughter a bunch of militia that don't stand a chance, but not glorious to slaughter fleeing Imperial Guard or other high quality troops?
I will continue to advocate for a scoring system that is not based simply on how many enemy troops you kill. I'm sure Napoleon was screaming as he was being hauled away to St. Helena "But I have the most VPs! I won!"
-nick
Nick, I've played with the
Nick,
I've played with the kind of subjective system you are suggesting with tailor-made (typically secret) objectives. You think we have arguments now? Imagine what would happen -- everybody objecting to the appropriate, subjectively determined credit to be given to accomplishing various and sundry goals. It would be a nightmare.
Objective scoring, with all its warts is the only way to go, especially when you have so many teams to keep track of.
And just because someone suggests that a tweak here or there is needed to an objective scoring system does not in any way strike at the essence of that system.
Jim Voege
Tailors need not apply
Jim,
I don't think tailor made objectives would be practical. I think we need a good list of balanced objectives relative to the power of each country. If they prove to be unbalanced they can be tweaked between games, just like anything else.
I strongly feel that as along as war for war's sake is the only thing that is rewarded in the game we will never have anything that even remotely approaches a simulation of the period. We haven't had one yet.
-nick
victory points
I am in favor of giving victory points for non-military events/objectives but other than converting cash to points, I'm not sure how they could be awarded.
Von Gottes Gnaden König von Preußen
NDOL or NWOL?
Guys,
I guess the argument comes down to whether this is Napoleonic Warfare On Line or Napoleonic Diplomacy On Line. If it is warfare, then the diplomacy/objectives have to be somewhat more abstract; if it diplomacy, then vice-versa. I think if we had public specific objectives, that would be fine. The secret ones would probably drive Steve insane and cause so much controversy as to make the game unplayable.
Dave
NDOL or NWOL?
If we wanted to take the diplomatic aspect out of the game and simply have a France vrs Coalition game than using VPs based on battle outcomes would be fine for keeping score. I think that would be a much less interesting game, though.
My draft proposal (which is very nearly complete) advocates for a mix of secret and public goals for each major country. I think people need to know when the game is about to be won, but also can't use the knowledge of enemy goals to unrealistically counter the enemy's plans. For instance putting 100,000 troops on Martinique because they know the British have to capture it to win.
-nick
When I was thinking about
When I was thinking about this my idea was to keep the VP system plus the objectives which would be worth X amount of VPs to be added to their score at the end of the game. That way people can still gauge how their standing overall but we add another interesting factor to RAR and I'm sure the GITM/PATE side of things.
Never post drunk...unless that is your norm.
Tie IN VP and Objectives
I agree with Ben that tying in objectives and VP's is a good idea. Having defined goals will certainly be of help to monarchs especially rookie ones. Having a stated goal will make the role of monarch easier to assume. There are a lot of activities that tie up the time of a monarch, anything which helps make that go smoother is a plus.
Carl
Looking Forward
Nick,
I look forward to seeing the proposal!
Dave
Morale hit?
I think that the fatigue penalty could be lightened if there was an increase morale effect.
The primary effect of being routed is not that you are more physically tired than if you just retreated, but that you are more emotionally tired.
As it currently stands your morale decrease is the same whether to retreated in good order or whether you routed. (If I'm reading the rules correctly.) That doesn't seem right.
I would be in favor of the decreased physical impact if the psychological impact was increased. This will let people get their army back in the field quicker, but will be less effective when it does. It would also make the impact less severe if it was an aberration during an otherwise successful campaign.
Thoughts?
-nick
Another POV
I suppose we considered the other effect of these changes in fatigue/recovery, which is drag wars beyond their natural term. If defeating an enemy army through the destruction of its cohesion/willingness to fight is no longer possible or will be harder, the alternative will be to kill all their soldiers.
If the point of the change of help gamers get back to the fight quicker, pls also consider that this could happen at the expense of the gamer's entire army for the next war.
IMHO anyway...Marcelo
Goodness
"The other was to reduce the fatigue penalty for routing from 5 to 3 points and to reduce the shatter recovery time from 3-4 turns to 2-3."
Is this to simulate the 2-3 week recovery of the Austrians and Russians after Austerlitz? Or that of the Prussians after Jena-Auerstadt? Or that of the French after Waterloo?
Whose wacko idea was this?
Jim
Jim Voege
Why
I always thought the penalty for a rout was too lenient, not too hard.
On shattered units I dont understand the reason for change.
Then why fight wars?
It seems like we are saying that having units shatter in combat is the players problem and he should have deployed his units better. However, losing a battle is not the fault of the player and we have to adjust matters to get him back into the battle with minimum delay.
I do remember a couple of posts suggesting the reduction of penalties but it did not generate any discussion and why give the idea any credit by posting counter ideas to it? Thus I thought this proposal died the death it deserved.
Robert
Shattered units
The Prussian collapse following Jena/Auerstadt was not due to the loss on the battlefields. At Auerstadt, Davout was in no position to pursue and the Prussians withdrew. The rout that followed was caused by great pursuit by the French, largely with cavalry, which prevented the shattered Prussian forces from reforming. I think that faster recovery times are fine. This will make the pursuit of shattered forces more important following a victory on the field, which is as it should be.
Von Gottes Gnaden König von Preußen
That Would be Great
That would be great if you could show us some way in which the game even comes close to providing a mechanism for an effective pursuit.
But it doesn't. All we have is shatters.
Your argument basically negates any possibility of a decisive victory -- a victory that lasts more than a couple of months of game time.
In that case the good players should just move on to something else to make room for the kindergarten children whose lack of skill will quickly be shown to not be a relevant game factor.
Jim
Jim Voege
pursuit of shattered units
I am not an expert in NWOL combat at all but if I read the rules correctly, shattered units attempt to move into a square that is not occupied by the enemy. If a unit is cut off by the enemy and has no line of contact to a friendly unit or friendly city, it is destroyed. Shattered units take 2 to 3 turns to reform. If enemy units enter the square while they are waiting to reform, they will flee again another 3 to 4 squares along a line of contact to friendly units. They then start the reforming process again.
This should allow someone with a light cavalry force to try to cut off enemy units while they are trying to reform and/or pursue them until they are destroyed. This should make light cavalry units very valuable units to have in reserve or on the flanks of an army so that they can chase down a losing force once it breaks in combat.
I don't see how my statement negates a decisive victory. If one side completely shatters an opponent and then chases the remants of the army for several turns, I would consider this a decisive victory. I would think that any victory that truely lasts more than a couple of months of game time isn't going to be won solely on a battlefield but through brilliant negotiations and statesmanship anyway. Armies can and were replaced.
Von Gottes Gnaden König von Preußen
follow up question regarding pursuit
Two turns ago, I defeated a Hessian force and sent them fleeing from the field. In each subsequent turn, I chased them with cavalry to prevent them from reforming and they scattered and fled at my arrival, as I expected.
What I was surprised to see was that the fleeing units didn't continue to lose men, or if they did, I didn't get points and the Hessians didn't lose points for their losses. I think the pursuing force should get points for capturing more prisoners and causing additonal casualties to the fleeing forces. If the shattered forces can continue to flee until eventually they disappear for not being able to reform but don't count as losses, it is better to let them reform so they can be hit in combat with high fatigue and possibly captured. This doesn't make sense.
Von Gottes Gnaden König von Preußen
They did take losses
But one does not get laurel points for dispersing an already-beaten enemy. Where's the military glory in this? Laurel points are for winning battles.
Steve
I am a wizard. I make things using magic. SJS
glory points or victory points
Winning a battle is only a limited victory. If an army is allowed to retreat and return, the war continues. Chasing a defeated army after winning the battle until the army is destroyed is what wins wars. Unless the enemy is completely surrounded on a battlefield, more prisoners are gathered up during a pursuit than immediately following a battle and capturing standards, men, and cannon is glorious. The victories at Jena and Auerstadt were good but the subsequent pursuit and total destruction of the Prussian army was the crowning achievement of the 1806 campaign.
Since no player is likely going to surrender a city and the defending garrison of 10,000 troops to a brigade of light cavalry, giving a few victory points to units chasing down fleeing enemies seems appropriate to me. It also seems appropriate that the losing side should lose points for losses taken during the pursuit because the losses are a direct result of enemy action and not just attrition.
Von Gottes Gnaden König von Preußen
I Have a Slightly Different Take On It
In a current conversation I am having with Steve he has commented that there should be no laurel points for chasing disorganized and helpless soldiers. I agree with that.
It seems to me that what happened in Prussia in 1806 much of the time was a series of running battles until the Prussian army ceased to function. NWOL can simulate this kind of pursuit and of course awards VPs for each of these battles.
To my mind the more interesting question is the decisive battle in the tactical/operational sense. This occurs when, in addition to shattering your enemy's units you have also ordered your forces in such a way so as to prevent your enemy from having a line of communications to a friendly city. If you can do that the enemy units, instead of being merely shattered are destroyed outright. The best example of a historical battle when this was accomplished is probably Ulm.
What I have just found out, and what I don't agree with, is that if you actually manage to pull off this kind of annihilation you don't get any more VPs than you would if you merely shattered the enemy's units. I'm not suggesting that there should be special VPs awarded for this kind of a decisive win. I'm only saying that VPs should be calculated on the basis of actual casualties so that if a unit is destroyed VPs should be calculated on the basis of the full size of the unit.
Jim Voege
Yet A Different Take
"What I have just found out, and what I don't agree with, is that if you actually manage to pull off this kind of annihilation you don't get any more VPs than you would if you merely shattered the enemy's units."
I think the reasoning, in this case (and I'm sure that Stephen will correct me if I'm wrong), is that the term for "destroyed" should, more appropriately, be "surrendered"...just like the relatively-new result that happens when units that are besieged similarly give-up where there's "no way out".
You didn't really kill any more men in a unit that is "destroyed" versus "shattered", I think...it's merely that the "destroyed" unit is stricken from the OOB because the survivors couldn't find an escape route, and you now have prisoners, whereas the "shattered" unit was able to get away in dribs and drabs, and it has a slight chance of rallying, at some point.
In any event, there are so few men left after a unit shatters, that I don't know how much it really matters. In fact, I could even argue that it could end-up being ultimately worse on your enemy, since a re-constituted unit of 100 men not only still has a minimum cost to maintain, it also eats as much supply as one of 4000 men (and I know we don't want to "go there").
Besides, perhaps, if you have that many troops, to pin, isolate, out-firepower, get mixed-bonus, out-flank, etc. in order to win such an overwhelming victory...and still have units leftover to man all exit strat-squares from the battlefield...maybe you've won enough VPs and really don't deserve any more for having such an overwhelming force to begin with. I mean, just as Stephen says there is no glory in running-down fleeing men with lancers, there's not a whole lot to defeating an enemy that you so overwhelmingly outnumber, right?
Finally, just as Nick keeps fighting his own "battle" of national goals versus VPs...I maintain that battlefield VPs still should be all that count. I appreciate the addition of cities earning different values, based upon, well, their base value...but the Bourbon VP total should be the clearest indication of all that there is no "glory", either, in merely seizing cities.
How many battles did the Bourbons win, after all? And, yet, look at their score...
Steven Mathena
I am in marketing. I make you buy things you don't need. SGM
in my case
"I mean, just as Stephen says there is no glory in running-down fleeing men with lancers, there's not a whole lot to defeating an enemy that you so overwhelmingly outnumber, right? "
In my case, I am chasing 8000+ fleeing Hessians with less than 1200 men. In the intial battle, we were about evenly matched. If they hadn't shattered in the first turn of combat, I might have been able to completely surround them and taken them all prisoner. In the grand scheme of things capturing troops at the battle site or capturing them the week after while chasing them is still capturing troops.
If no one else agrees with giving VP points for running down fleeing enemies, it won't bother me. If I can completely destroy forces during a pursuit, they won't be available to defend their cities when the rest of my army arrives to take possession. When I started the war with Hesse, my first goal was to destroy their army, taking a city or two was second, and I figured VP points would just follow.
Von Gottes Gnaden König von Preußen
There should be major laurels
There should be major laurels for getting an enemy unit to surrender, shatter to extinction, whatever it's called. It should be the ultimate goal of any battle and the ultimate thing to avoid for the other side. Laurels and penalties should reflect that better then it does.
There Should Be Major Laurels
"There should be major laurels for getting an enemy unit to surrender, shatter to extinction, whatever it's called."
I just had an epiphany...
Maybe we're looking at this upside-down.
I think that Patton said it best, "No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country".
I've always thought that we should get credit for causing any and all kinds of injury to the enemy...the problem has been, however, to decide, proportionally, how such injury should be credited.
For example, what percentage should Prussia get when both her and Mecklenberg both are involved in the same battle when defeating the French?
Just base the VPs on respective losses...it's as easy as that.
Steven Mathena
I am in marketing. I make you buy things you don't need. SGM
flogging the dead
One problem with giving laurels for any damage inflicted on the enemy is that it gives one a big incentive to keep flogging a dead horse. That is UnFun if you're the horse, although some people seem to enjoy it as long as they get to be the flogger. (These people may not realize that one day they could be the horse. The lack of sympathy that a number of NWOL players have for their opponents is a constant trouble for the game designer and somewhat depressing but not something that can be remedied by writing rules, alas.)
So there are some things in the rules which are written to encourage Nation A, after clearly having defeated Nation B, to settle up on peace terms rather than sowing the land with salt. I think it is not only desirable but necessary to make sure that certain kinds of damage to one's enemy are not rewarded.
Steve
I am a wizard. I make things using magic. SJS
Actual NWOL example highlighting present problem
Nothing shows that the present point system is flawed more than the turn rerun we had this campaign.
T4 was run twice. In both the Spanish won the battle at the city of Bordeaux.
The first run all defenders were surrounded and there were no troops in formation to see another Tac Phase let alone another day:
Battle at C7-W0, 6-4
Spanish forces:
Front line: SP10IN (3264-1 A), SP5IN (3160-1 A), SP15IN (2845-1 A), SP27IN (3315-1 A), SP29IN (2705-1 A), SP28IN (3323-1 A)
Second line: SP2LA (288-2 A), SP3MA (300-3 A)
Rear line: SP11MC (1145-0 A), SP8MC (1189-0 A), SP2MC (1496-0 A)
French forces:
Front line: FR12IN (3857-1 X), FR58IN (3783-1 X), FR22MI (2337-0 X)
Second line: FR8LA (281-2 X)
Rear line: FR11LC (1373-0 X), FR15MC (1884-1 X)
Battle front is 2 miles long
Spanish front line is 90.10001% over length. Excess strength placed in rear.
Giving 5 experience points to SP11MC for a total of 16
Giving 5 experience points to FR11LC for a total of 13
Giving 5 experience points to FR8LA for a total of 10
Giving 5 experience points to FR15MC for a total of 12
Giving 5 experience points to FR12IN for a total of 9
Giving 5 experience points to FR58IN for a total of 5
Giving 5 experience points to FR22MI for a total of 5
Giving 5 experience points to SP8MC for a total of 16
Giving 5 experience points to SP2MC for a total of 16
Giving 5 experience points to SP2LA for a total of 12
Giving 5 experience points to SP10IN for a total of 15
Giving 5 experience points to SP5IN for a total of 16
Giving 5 experience points to SP15IN for a total of 15
Giving 5 experience points to SP27IN for a total of 14
Giving 5 experience points to SP29IN for a total of 15
Giving 5 experience points to SP28IN for a total of 16
Giving 5 experience points to SP3MA for a total of 13
Firing Segment
Firing strengths: 17273 Spanish and 12379 French
FR8LA loses 49 men and 0 batteries.
FR12IN loses 682 men and 0 batteries.
FR58IN loses 669 men and 1 batteries.
FR22MI loses 414 men and 0 batteries.
SP2LA loses 22 men and 0 batteries.
SP10IN loses 258 men and 0 batteries.
Unit SP10IN marches to C6-W0, entering in square 11-4
SP10IN fails morale check and routs to C6-W0
SP5IN loses 250 men and 0 batteries.
SP15IN loses 225 men and 0 batteries.
SP27IN loses 262 men and 0 batteries.
SP29IN loses 214 men and 0 batteries.
SP28IN loses 262 men and 0 batteries.
SP3MA loses 23 men and 0 batteries.
Melee Segment
Melee strengths: 23658 Spanish and 13098 French
Spanish side wins the melee!
SP11MC loses 55 men and 0 batteries.
FR11LC loses 277 men and 0 batteries.
FR11LC is unable to rout and is shattered!
FR8LA loses 93 men and 0 batteries.
FR15MC loses 381 men and 0 batteries.
FR12IN loses 1286 men and 0 batteries.
FR58IN loses 1261 men and 0 batteries.
FR58IN has no direction to retreat and is shattered!
FR22MI loses 778 men and 0 batteries.
FR22MI has no direction to retreat and is shattered!
SP8MC loses 57 men and 0 batteries.
SP2MC loses 72 men and 0 batteries.
SP2LA loses 25 men and 0 batteries.
SP5IN loses 282 men and 0 batteries.
SP15IN loses 254 men and 0 batteries.
SP27IN loses 296 men and 0 batteries.
SP29IN loses 241 men and 0 batteries.
SP28IN loses 297 men and 0 batteries.
SP3MA loses 26 men and 0 batteries.
FR8LA tries to fall back but is blocked, and shatters!
FR15MC tries to fall back but is blocked, and shatters!
FR12IN tries to fall back but is blocked, and shatters!
Spanish troops capture Bordeaux!
Total Combat Losses:
French: 7319
Spanish: 3121
Spanish: 376 Victory points for turn which includes the capture of Perpignon that surrendered in siege this run but did not do so in the second run.
The rerun allowed different units to move first and so the city was not surrounded allowing losing troops to retreat rather than shatter:
Battle at C7-W0, 6-4
Spanish forces:
Front line: SP10IN (3264-1 A), SP5IN (3160-1 A), SP15IN (2845-1 A), SP27IN (3315-1 A), SP29IN (2705-1 A), SP28IN (3323-1 A)
Second line: SP2LA (288-2 A), SP3MA (300-3 A)
Rear line: SP11MC (1145-0 A), SP8MC (1189-0 A), SP2MC (1496-0 A)
French forces:
Front line: FR12IN (3795-1 X), FR58IN (3883-1 X), FR22MI (2383-0 X)
Second line: FR8LA (277-2 X)
Rear line: FR11LC (1376-0 X), FR15MC (1846-1 X)
Battle front is 2 miles long
Spanish front line is 90.10001% over length. Excess strength placed in rear.
Giving 5 experience points to SP11MC for a total of 16
Giving 5 experience points to FR11LC for a total of 13
Giving 5 experience points to FR8LA for a total of 10
Giving 5 experience points to FR15MC for a total of 12
Giving 5 experience points to FR12IN for a total of 9
Giving 5 experience points to FR58IN for a total of 5
Giving 5 experience points to FR22MI for a total of 5
Giving 5 experience points to SP8MC for a total of 16
Giving 5 experience points to SP2LA for a total of 12
Giving 5 experience points to SP2MC for a total of 16
Giving 5 experience points to SP10IN for a total of 15
Giving 5 experience points to SP5IN for a total of 16
Giving 5 experience points to SP15IN for a total of 15
Giving 5 experience points to SP27IN for a total of 14
Giving 5 experience points to SP29IN for a total of 15
Giving 5 experience points to SP28IN for a total of 16
Giving 5 experience points to SP3MA for a total of 13
Firing Segment
Firing strengths: 17273 Spanish and 12439 French
FR8LA loses 37 men and 0 batteries.
FR12IN loses 512 men and 0 batteries.
FR58IN loses 524 men and 0 batteries.
FR22MI loses 321 men and 0 batteries.
SP2LA loses 10 men and 0 batteries.
SP10IN loses 115 men and 0 batteries.
SP5IN loses 112 men and 0 batteries.
SP5IN moves from 6-4 to 4-6
SP5IN fails morale check and retreats
SP15IN loses 100 men and 0 batteries.
SP27IN loses 117 men and 0 batteries.
SP29IN loses 95 men and 0 batteries.
SP28IN loses 117 men and 0 batteries.
SP3MA loses 10 men and 1 batteries.
Melee Segment
Melee strengths: 23356 Spanish and 14438 French
Spanish side wins the melee!
SP11MC loses 64 men and 0 batteries.
FR11LC loses 266 men and 0 batteries.
FR8LA loses 92 men and 1 batteries.
FR15MC loses 357 men and 0 batteries.
FR12IN loses 1270 men and 0 batteries.
FR12IN is unable to rout and is shattered!
FR58IN loses 1300 men and 0 batteries.
FR58IN moves from 6-4 to 7-4
FR58IN fails morale check and retreats
FR22MI loses 798 men and 0 batteries.
FR22MI moves from 6-4 to 7-4
FR22MI fails morale check and retreats
SP8MC loses 66 men and 0 batteries.
SP2LA loses 31 men and 1 batteries.
SP2MC loses 83 men and 0 batteries.
SP10IN loses 352 men and 1 batteries.
SP15IN loses 307 men and 0 batteries.
SP27IN loses 358 men and 0 batteries.
SP29IN loses 292 men and 0 batteries.
SP28IN loses 359 men and 0 batteries.
SP3MA loses 32 men and 0 batteries.
FR11LC moves from 6-4 to 7-4
FR11LC falls back to 7-4
FR8LA moves from 6-4 to 7-4
FR8LA falls back to 7-4
FR15MC moves from 6-4 to 7-4
FR15MC falls back to 7-4
Spanish troops capture Bordeaux!
Total Combat Losses:
French: 5810
Spanish: 2620
Spanish: 404 Victory points after rerun. Many more points were awarded because in the following tac phases the survivors from the battle for Bordeaux were hit again and again and several units still managed to survive to live for another turn to provide even more victory points.
IN this we see that being able to hound a defeated force does lead to a bounty of points. However, winning a battle that is much more decisive than a ‘marginal victory’ does not earn any ‘Laurel Points’. We spend our time congratulating the victor of a major victory; but in NWOL, a major victory provides fewer points than a succession of ‘marginal victories’. Those playing for points will do much better by allowing a defeated force to flee so as to be engaged again and again. Yet this is wrong as a military maxim.
It seems that there also needs to be Laurel points awarded based upon relative numbers in a battle and overall differential of casualties. For Major Victories the added points may have to be greater than the points won in battle.
Robert
This is why...
...I have to admit, I wasn't all that disappointed with the turn re-run, after I saw the extra points. And, you're correct, we got even more after we ran down the survivors instead of getting them all at once.
In fact, I tended to drive through shattered French forces, whenever and wherever I could, actually trying to get them into a French city with supply (we had eliminated the 2 CQs, so they weren't going to get back into supply any other way)...just so we could possibly glean more points from attacking those re-constituted units, even if we didn't get anything for re-shattering them. Alas, the Bourbons started taking those cities, even if we had been successful in "herding" those shattered units ahead of us and back into supply.
Steven Mathena
I am in marketing. I make you buy things you don't need. SGM
Good point
We've discussed this in the past and I've generally resisted changes, but Robert's point that it is better from a VP standpoint to leave enemy units alive so you can fight more battles against them is very convincing. It really should be better to get them all at once.
So if I understand this correctly: The scoring now awards laurel points for battle casualties but not for casualties incurred during shattering. Instead, it should be the case that laurel points are also awarded for casualties from shattering. If a shattered unit is reshattered by an advancing hostile unit, and incurs more casualties in the reshatter, there should be laurel points for that too. If a unit shatters, finds no reforming point, and is destroyed entirely (which usually means trapped in a fort or completely isolated from friendly cities) then there should be laurel points for the entire strength of the unit.
Is that the essence of it? Obviously I will make such a change only between games but it seems to me feasible to do it, though I'd have to check code to be sure about the reshattering bit.
Steve
I am a wizard. I make things using magic. SJS
Another case where vp's should be awarded
Another area where vp’s are not awarded is when a garrison defending surrenders against a besieging force. Traditionally the capture of a fort was considered a major victory for the besiegers. Points should be awarded here even if there was no combat.
This does not happen in NWOL as the following shows:
Siege Morale
French troops capture Besancon!
Besieged garrison of Nantes surrenders!
SP3MA moves to 7-6.
Spanish troops capture Nantes!
FR14MI surrenders.
FR11IN surrenders.
FR44IN surrenders.
FR7MC surrenders.
Robert
battle Laurels
Steve says:
If a shattered unit is reshattered by an advancing hostile unit, and incurs more casualties in the reshatter, there should be laurel points for that too. If a unit shatters, finds no reforming point, and is destroyed entirely (which usually means trapped in a fort or completely isolated from friendly cities) then there should be laurel points for the entire strength of the unit.
reply:
Or, maybe award enough laurel points when the unit shatters so as to ignore hitting a shattered reforming unit over and over again. Likewise, units that rout of a battle should be awarded extra laurel points for the affects of routing are more important than just the loss of the troops involved in the battle.
We have not included loss of army morale when units rout, shatter, fall back or otherwise lose a battle in a strat square. However, it seems feasible to apply a temporary negative morale modifier to all units in all subsequent battles in that strat. Square for the remainder of that turn.
Robert