Casualties are not exact. They are abstractions: KIA, wounded, those helping the wounded, fatigued, shirkers and those drifting to the rear. There was a thread on BGG a few years ago trying to argue that the Hexasim Eagles of France system had ahistorical casualties. It was a ridiculous argument as the losses are an abstraction. Now can argue that a unit wears down too quickly, but cannot calculate dead and wounded from a unit step-reduction (flipping the unit).
@@kenx8176 Command/control system the main change and more complex. Fire/shock more or less the same. Cavalry charges similar, but expanded (primary/secondary charge zones). You would recognize the system, but modified. Other small changes: skirmisher restrictions, DIS is not a formation (ie can have a DIS square), little morale modifiers, etc. I enjoyed Winters Victory but it has added complexity. I have made some play aids that I am still working on and will publish with NES permission some time. Also starting a VASSAL 4-player game soon.
A interesting game, some holes to be sure. Morale loss has Always been my least favorite rules. No other system penalizes for skirmishers doing what they were designed to do. Unless changed...this might explain why units can breakdown the whole unit to skirmishers! Fusiliers were good but not trained to the style of...le petite guerre...lol. Silly rule. Still, awsome discussion, love listening n have so since phoenix. Thanks
My take on victory conditions. They are going to be wonky because this battle was the sideshow on the first day. Wellington didn't want to defend there but felt compelled to give Blucher some vague type of support. Did you consider not defending so far forward and instead go with a delaying force? This should make it harder for the French to demoralize the Allies quickly but perhaps give the French a better chance to take the town, more like what happened in the actual battle.
I would have liked to have seen a bit more. Perhaps they should have used the term army exhaustion rather than demorilization. Re victory conditions I think they make sense. Put the battle of QB in the context of the day. Ligny was the main battle. Ney had a mission. Keep Wellington away from the Namur road and keep him busy. Ironically he would have been able to do better had not Napoleon not taken away one third of his Corps. Gerard's Division!.
On Victory Conditions, I think they are actually fine. The French are only one reinforced corps, with a mission to hold the British and divide them from their Prussian allies east along the Namur road. The historical result is that the British held the crossroads handily. The French might have been flirting with demoralization but likely pulled back a bit before that happened. On a demoralized French army holding QB and being across the Namur road, because of the late British reinforcements and how brittle a "worn" army gets after it is demoralized, it is unlikely unless the demoralization is a "just barely and only at the end" thing. Understand, the French are only attacking because they start with odds; by the end of the day the British have odds on them - by about 1.4 to 1 actually. The only arm the French are longer in all day is cavalry, because the Allies have very little (the DB cav and the Brunswicker cav, that's it; once the French Cuirassiers arrive they have a lot more - and better - than that). Why would hurting the British then pulling back help them? Because the Brits aren't in any shape to help the Prussians down the Namur road to Ligny. Also, the French have another entire corps behind them - D'Erlons I corps - so there wasn't any British operational victory available charging south after a retiring Ney, while the Prussians were getting whipped the same day a few miles down the road.
@@calandale But there most definitely was a counterattack on the actual day of battle. Once the British Guards arrived from the west, they swept into the Bossu Wood and drove out Jerome’s French light infantry. When they were reaching the southern edge, Wellington launched a general advance all along the line and the French retired, falling back to D’Erlons I corps and the south edge of the depicted battlefield. This whole battle is meant to have two stages, not one - just like a battle of the bulge scenario includes Patton’s counterattack or a 1942 Russia scenario includes operation Uranus. The VCs are set up so that the French can get a draw if they ever demoralized the British, but to win they need to take the crossroads *and hold it* - or cross the Namur road in force to the NE, thus severing any possible connection between the British and the Prussians off map to the ESE. I’ve played this battle well dozen times in at least 4 different game systems. I’ve had a complete French victory by breaking the Allied army around the time they had only the Dutch-Belgians, Picton, and the Brunswickers on the field with an utter rout, leaving the French strong enough to hold the crossroads against all later comers - arriving piecemeal from two directions and unable to coordinate. That was in a derivative of this system on the computer BTW - Prelude to Waterloo from Talonsoft, specifically. But you can also just barely drive the Allies to a demoralized limit early without taking the crossroads. If that happens then you are supposed to use their lower morale and harder rally from rout to follow it up and take the place before their reinforcements arrive to save them. That’s marginal at best and draw still possible for the Allies at worst, if the later forces from the ENE can recover the battlefield or demoralize the French in turn, or both. This isn’t GBoH where once any army hits its global morale level that’s it; battle over; victory decided. These are only engaged forward guards of much larger armies that are going to keep fighting over several more days and other pitched battles. It’s not one hour set-piece for possession of Asia by Alexander vs Darius, where the first one to run loses to whole shebang. That’s just not the operational situation, at all.
So, there's some point at which an army can no longer be effective. It looks like WV handles this well. This one? Not so much. A general - and certainly one as good as Wellington, would NOT launch some headlong attack with a broken army at a stopped enemy in the hopes of demoralizing the enemy, at any cost (there are no penalties at this point for the allies in VC) to get a game 'draw'.
@@calandale If there is no prospect of retaking the terrain objectives, I agree a Wellington would not conduct such a counterattack. If his army is truly broken, not just 1 point past an artificial and arbitrary threshold as it applied before a major reinforcement arrived, it also wouldn't be able to conduct such a counterattack successfully. But I think the lion's share of empirical cases where anything like an Allied counterattack after they hit their loss threshold will represent that "not" clause above. Those that don't will take care of themselves, as the victorious French rout the demoralized piecemeal late Allied attacks.
What, at a random location? That's the point here. I was used to playing either on campus or at coffee shops, where there weren't such. Figured it's a reasonable point to help remind folk who often play in similar situations.
Casualties are not exact. They are abstractions: KIA, wounded, those helping the wounded, fatigued, shirkers and those drifting to the rear.
There was a thread on BGG a few years ago trying to argue that the Hexasim Eagles of France system had ahistorical casualties. It was a ridiculous argument as the losses are an abstraction. Now can argue that a unit wears down too quickly, but cannot calculate dead and wounded from a unit step-reduction (flipping the unit).
The new game from New England Simulations, “Winter’s Victory” (Eylau), is based on the Wellington’s Victory system.
I really hope they get rid of the SoP for it - it definitely doesn't belong there.
Winters Victory has an asymmetrical SoP also. It works well. I recently played.
How much was changed between Wellington's Victory and Winter's Victory?
@@kenx8176 Command/control system the main change and more complex. Fire/shock more or less the same. Cavalry charges similar, but expanded (primary/secondary charge zones). You would recognize the system, but modified. Other small changes: skirmisher restrictions, DIS is not a formation (ie can have a DIS square), little morale modifiers, etc.
I enjoyed Winters Victory but it has added complexity. I have made some play aids that I am still working on and will publish with NES permission some time. Also starting a VASSAL 4-player game soon.
Not enough markers?
Sounds like an old DG game...
A interesting game, some holes to be sure.
Morale loss has Always been my least favorite rules.
No other system penalizes for skirmishers doing what they were designed to do.
Unless changed...this might explain why units can breakdown the whole unit to skirmishers!
Fusiliers were good but not trained to the style of...le petite guerre...lol.
Silly rule.
Still, awsome discussion, love listening n have so since phoenix.
Thanks
1st edition NBS had the same morale issue for skirmishers
My take on victory conditions. They are going to be wonky because this battle was the sideshow on the first day. Wellington didn't want to defend there but felt compelled to give Blucher some vague type of support. Did you consider not defending so far forward and instead go with a delaying force? This should make it harder for the French to demoralize the Allies quickly but perhaps give the French a better chance to take the town, more like what happened in the actual battle.
I thought the stream would work out to be an advantage. It wasn't.
I would have liked to have seen a bit more. Perhaps they should have used the term army exhaustion rather than demorilization.
Re victory conditions I think they make sense. Put the battle of QB in the context of the day. Ligny was the main battle. Ney had a mission. Keep Wellington away from the Namur road and keep him busy. Ironically he would have been able to do better had not Napoleon not taken away one third of his Corps. Gerard's Division!.
As I've said elsewhere - explain the massive allied counter-attack that would happen, AFTER their army is demoralized.
Doesn't your pipe taste like fuel? I mean, after you light it with the zippo?
I like fuel
On Victory Conditions, I think they are actually fine. The French are only one reinforced corps, with a mission to hold the British and divide them from their Prussian allies east along the Namur road. The historical result is that the British held the crossroads handily. The French might have been flirting with demoralization but likely pulled back a bit before that happened. On a demoralized French army holding QB and being across the Namur road, because of the late British reinforcements and how brittle a "worn" army gets after it is demoralized, it is unlikely unless the demoralization is a "just barely and only at the end" thing. Understand, the French are only attacking because they start with odds; by the end of the day the British have odds on them - by about 1.4 to 1 actually. The only arm the French are longer in all day is cavalry, because the Allies have very little (the DB cav and the Brunswicker cav, that's it; once the French Cuirassiers arrive they have a lot more - and better - than that). Why would hurting the British then pulling back help them? Because the Brits aren't in any shape to help the Prussians down the Namur road to Ligny. Also, the French have another entire corps behind them - D'Erlons I corps - so there wasn't any British operational victory available charging south after a retiring Ney, while the Prussians were getting whipped the same day a few miles down the road.
I'm worried about an allied counter-attack more than anything else. It feels wrong
@@calandale But there most definitely was a counterattack on the actual day of battle. Once the British Guards arrived from the west, they swept into the Bossu Wood and drove out Jerome’s French light infantry. When they were reaching the southern edge, Wellington launched a general advance all along the line and the French retired, falling back to D’Erlons I corps and the south edge of the depicted battlefield. This whole battle is meant to have two stages, not one - just like a battle of the bulge scenario includes Patton’s counterattack or a 1942 Russia scenario includes operation Uranus.
The VCs are set up so that the French can get a draw if they ever demoralized the British, but to win they need to take the crossroads *and hold it* - or cross the Namur road in force to the NE, thus severing any possible connection between the British and the Prussians off map to the ESE.
I’ve played this battle well dozen times in at least 4 different game systems. I’ve had a complete French victory by breaking the Allied army around the time they had only the Dutch-Belgians, Picton, and the Brunswickers on the field with an utter rout, leaving the French strong enough to hold the crossroads against all later comers - arriving piecemeal from two directions and unable to coordinate. That was in a derivative of this system on the computer BTW - Prelude to Waterloo from Talonsoft, specifically.
But you can also just barely drive the Allies to a demoralized limit early without taking the crossroads. If that happens then you are supposed to use their lower morale and harder rally from rout to follow it up and take the place before their reinforcements arrive to save them. That’s marginal at best and draw still possible for the Allies at worst, if the later forces from the ENE can recover the battlefield or demoralize the French in turn, or both.
This isn’t GBoH where once any army hits its global morale level that’s it; battle over; victory decided. These are only engaged forward guards of much larger armies that are going to keep fighting over several more days and other pitched battles. It’s not one hour set-piece for possession of Asia by Alexander vs Darius, where the first one to run loses to whole shebang. That’s just not the operational situation, at all.
So, there's some point at which an army can no longer be effective. It looks like WV handles this well. This one? Not so much. A general - and certainly one as good as Wellington, would NOT launch some headlong attack with a broken army at a stopped enemy in the hopes of demoralizing the enemy, at any cost (there are no penalties at this point for the allies in VC) to get a game 'draw'.
@@calandale If there is no prospect of retaking the terrain objectives, I agree a Wellington would not conduct such a counterattack. If his army is truly broken, not just 1 point past an artificial and arbitrary threshold as it applied before a major reinforcement arrived, it also wouldn't be able to conduct such a counterattack successfully. But I think the lion's share of empirical cases where anything like an Allied counterattack after they hit their loss threshold will represent that "not" clause above. Those that don't will take care of themselves, as the victorious French rout the demoralized piecemeal late Allied attacks.
Coins? Who carries coins?
lol - but there are often some around. Just buy $1 worth from the cash register
First!
Second!
I generally have extra counter tokens for these occasions.
What, at a random location? That's the point here. I was used to playing either on campus or at coffee shops, where there weren't such. Figured it's a reasonable point to help remind folk who often play in similar situations.