Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
14 Posts

Commands & Colors: Napoleonics» Forums » General

Subject: combined arms unrealistic? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
sam faraci
Australia
melbourne
victoria
flag msg tools
Just seems unrealistic to me that an artillery unit would fire at enemy thats in melee with a friendly unit.I'm not knocking the rule im just trying to understand the reasoning and reality behind it .
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kris Van Beurden
Belgium
Leuven
Vlaams-Brabant
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
What is melee? Is it really bayonet-to-bayonet, or is it simply "firing muskets from close range"? This game tries to simulate "for effect". A unit of line infantry + a unit of horse cavalry combined-attacking an enemy unit is probably a fine simulation of Friedland...

Also, these units are not one big mass (usually). As they often represent entire regiments, they would be divided in several fighting units, one of which could be in bayonet contact while the other is under fire by artillery.
7 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michal K
Poland
Otwock
Mazowieckie
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Look at this as really combined attack.
Not simultaneous, combined!

So you doing the artillery barrage and immediately after this, when enemy is in shock, you attack at close range (firing and melee).

The concept shows that different types of weapons, when used together, can use the synergies - it is much easier to attack enemy after artillery barrage then just advance with infantry or cavalry.

You may now ask why then artillery hits at sabers? Because combined attack of infantry/cavalry and artillery is much more efficient – after artillery barrage, it is much easier to inflict the causalities by infantry/cavalry. Games shows this in such a way: artillery hits of sabers. This is of course simplification, but for me, convincing one.
15 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Dippel
Germany
Rheinhausen
Baden-Württemberg
flag msg tools
I am from Bavaria
badge
King Ludwig II of Bavaria
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Quote:
Just seems unrealistic to me that an artillery unit would fire at enemy thats in melee with a friendly unit.I'm not knocking the rule im just trying to understand the reasoning and reality behind it .


The complete C&C is a complete simple, but also abstract game system of the rules.
And it can happen, that you will find some more rules, which are not "logicial", especially you come from other, more complex game systems.

Therefore all players, who found 3 or more rules, which they want to change, they should ask itself, if the C&C game system is the right one to play
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark McG
Australia
Penshurst
NSW
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
cutter3377 wrote:
Just seems unrealistic to me that an artillery unit would fire at enemy thats in melee with a friendly unit.I'm not knocking the rule im just trying to understand the reasoning and reality behind it .


Infantry in a line under artillery fire take small losses if facing the artillery.
However, if they face another enemy and present a flank, the artillery shot traverses obliquely down the line...
http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/artillery_tactics.htm#_obl...



see the historical incident from Leipzig
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Thom Brennan
United States
Louisiana
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
As much as I like Commands & Colors: Napoleonics, it's not an accurate simulation. Nor does it really pretend to be one. There's a lot of basic Napoleonic tactics missing from the game... line and column formations, just for starters... that were integral to the battles of the time.

As noted by others, the combined arms attack is simulation of multiple attacks on the same unit, and the "bowling ball effect" of cannon balls impacting a mass of troops. I've played other Napoleonic games where the cavalry-infantry-artillery relationship was handled differently, but they all capture the essence of the times. That is, Napoleonic tactics is very much a rock-paper-scissors thing.

4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Taylor-Smith
Canada
Okotoks
Alberta
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Grondeaux wrote:
As much as I like Commands & Colors: Napoleonics, it's not an accurate simulation. Nor does it really pretend to be one. There's a lot of basic Napoleonic tactics missing from the game... line and column formations, just for starters... that were integral to the battles of the time.


When I started Napoleonic gaming (miniatures) in the 1960's my knowledge and experience derived from rulebooks and rudimentary non-fiction books about the period. I found myself more interested in the uniforms and how to paint the figures than close study of operational tactics. I just assumed the (apparently) detailed rule systems were well researched and accurate. After 50 years I've found that even the most detailed games can have faulty assumptions built in, let alone bad background research. They may appear as accurate simulations because they fit modern preconceptions and Hollywood depictions.

A lot of early Napoleonic wargames focused on the minutia of line vs column, 2 rank lines vs 3 rank lines, maximum range effectiveness of the Brown Bess musket, etc. forgetting all of that had little importance in deciding victory in battle. The line vs column debate is a classic. Charles Oman propagated the idea that the French attacked in heavy columns (files longer than ranks, densely packed) which isn't quite right, the 'columns' were actually more akin to waves of spaced line formations one after each other (ranks much longer than files). But it's far easier to show in miniature games columns as a close pack of figures with files longer than ranks. This error continued into board wargames. It's also far better to think of the average Napoleonic period infantryman as a spearman (bayonet on musket) rather than a 'rifle'man. Knowing this might change a host of modern wargamer preconceptions. In other words a operational level wargame such as Commands & Colors: Napoleonics doesn't need to bother with rules depicting lines and columns as long as it can demonstrate the power of concentration of force. I've found the game to be a pretty accurate simulation bearing in mind it's use of modular units, terrain, and fixed board size.

Battle of Salamanca is a example of a wargame that uses lots of detailed tactical formation rules, specific units and gaming board/map but the combined result is horrible at actually depicting the historical event. Wellington's Victory: Battle of Waterloo Game – June 18th, 1815 is another example of a (monster sized) detailed board wargame that is awful at recreating the actual battle. All because of the designers false preconceptions (and...well, lack of playtesting).
16 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls

Minot
North Dakota
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Grondeaux wrote:
As much as I like Commands & Colors: Napoleonics, it's not an accurate simulation. Nor does it really pretend to be one. There's a lot of basic Napoleonic tactics missing from the game... line and column formations, just for starters... that were integral to the battles of the time.


flapjackmachine said it well, but I will also like to piggyback that most Napoleonic (and ACW) rules systems give players way too much control and do a very poor job of representing the "friction" or "fog" of war. As near as I can tell as a student and amateur historian, the ability to make correct decisions in the face of chaos was most important aspect of successful battlefield command, and something most rule systems (besides C&C) do not simulate.
7 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Thom Brennan
United States
Louisiana
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Agreed. I've sometimes heard it said that most wargames give the players god-like powers, in that your troops do exactly what you want them do do, all the time. I find C&C:N a breath of fresh air in that your troops can't do exactly what you want them to do all the time. The times I've wished I had just the right card to take advantage of an opportunity! Which is, I feel, much more "realistic."

Lest anyone get the wrong impression, I think C&C:N is, overall, the best wargame I've played in my rather advanced lifetime. It may not be a 100% accurate simulation... witness this thread about Combined Arms attacks... but the overall feel of the game is superb.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls

Minot
North Dakota
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Grondeaux wrote:
It may not be a 100% accurate simulation... witness this thread about Combined Arms attacks... but the overall feel of the game is superb.


No its not, but then nothing but convincing a couple thousand of your closest friends to dress in wool uniforms and shoot lead balls at each other would be. Even re-enacting suffers from a lot of "realism" problems.

On of the things I think this game does better than a lot of so called "realistic" wargames is that it really minimizes "gamey" exploits. I feel the player is, for the most part punished for trying to exploit the system to do goofy things (the Spanish guerilla/grand maneuver/bombard combo may be the one exception). So many other games seem to reward counting combat points, measuring facing, and taking 15 minutes to split your attacks into the best possible odds combinations. Those may be enjoyable gameplay mechanics for some, or even many, but not realistic. While over simplified, real battles were much closer to saying "you guys, go over there and hold that spot for a while" then "I want Company A to proceed exactly 525 meters forward, then oblique right 30 degrees, and engage only the 3 right flank companies of third enemy regiment from the left."
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Dippel
Germany
Rheinhausen
Baden-Württemberg
flag msg tools
I am from Bavaria
badge
King Ludwig II of Bavaria
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Nobody must play any C&C game, if he don´t like this simple and abstract rules, there are dozens of other games with more historical correct, but also complex rules.

The familiar C&C players love this game system, because it is, as it was done!
Simple, Simple and again Simple.

The same would happen, if i would play any complex game system, and if i would complain about all the complex rules then.

Therefore all discuss about not historical correct rules are redundant in my mind whistle
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kandras 78
Hungary
flag msg tools
Grondeaux wrote:
As much as I like Commands & Colors: Napoleonics, it's not an accurate simulation. Nor does it really pretend to be one. There's a lot of basic Napoleonic tactics missing from the game... line and column formations, just for starters... that were integral to the battles of the time.


As others already have indicated C&C Napoleonics is succesfully capturing the feel and spirit of warfare in the era while many of those so-called simulations fail to come close.

I also would point to the fact that formations while seemingly not represented in the rules are indeed present in the system at an abstracted level. National charts with combat modifiers incorporate various factors like distinctive combat drill and doctrine (including formations) as well as differing command structure. So French infantry (assaulting in column) is superior in melee while the English deploying in 2 rank deep line firing the Brown Bess excel in musketry...
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Guillaume Gleize
France
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
NimitsTexan wrote:
[q="Grondeaux"] ... So many other games seem to reward counting combat points, measuring facing, and taking 15 minutes to split your attacks into the best possible odds combinations. Those may be enjoyable gameplay mechanics for some, or even many, but not realistic. While over simplified, real battles were much closer to saying "you guys, go over there and hold that spot for a while" then "I want Company A to proceed exactly 525 meters forward, then oblique right 30 degrees, and engage only the 3 right flank companies of third enemy regiment from the left."


Exactly! TY very much Robert & Nimits: I think exactly the same with my (very humble) experience as infantry officer on foreign operation: THE MAIN WORK OF A LEADER IS TO ASK HIMSELF: "I KNOW all our plans are gonna be a mess in 5 minutes because of the hazards of war but: WITCH WAY? And what are my B, C and D plans to counter all that mess?"

Does my order will arrive? How to give more chance to those orders to arrive? Does my officers will obey the good way? What if they act wrong or even don't receive the orders? A good leader must be a MESS MANAGER! LOL

Yes to be HASARDOUS AND FAST is NOT a default for a wargame because the REAL BATTLES are often FAST AND HASARDOUS!

zombie

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
sam faraci
Australia
melbourne
victoria
flag msg tools
Wow ,thanks for all your informative answers.I love the c and c system i was just confused about the reasoning behind the rule but thanks to you guys thats been answered.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.