Reconnaissance by leaders

[Eckerslyke]

Fellow Battlers:

A thorny problem has emerged in a battle in which I'm currently engaged.  It is the four-day Waterloo scenario, number 7 I believe.

One of my opponent's leaders has travelled, unaccompanied, far beyond his front line, deep behind my lines.  He is able to determine the strength and deployment of my carefully-concealed defenses from a position to the rear of that defensive line.

The leader is so far to the rear of the my own forces that he has no LOS to any friendly unit, but due to the way our software works, full details of what he can see is transmitted, as if by means of telepathy, to the overall commander of his side.

I could assign two or three cavalry units to follow this leader, in the hope that they might catch him and trample him into the mud as he deserves, but the nearest units I have are at least two turns away.  That leader can easily outrun them, since his movement allowance is double that of cavalry.  The wretch has now taken refuge in a patch of woodland, which I now must surround with my cavalry (probably taking six more turns, since it is that large wooded area to the SW of Gosselies).  They will need to maintain a cordon sanitaire while I send in a bunch of light skirmishers to eliminate him.

All in all, it ties up a minimum of three units.  I have now noticed that he is doing the same with two other officers in other parts of the map.

My opponent is an honorable battler.  We had a lot of fun fighting this same battle on opposite sides last year.  But he seems not to understand how unrealistic, unfair and inauthentic this new tactic appears to be.

Unless I am the one in the wrong, of course.  Perhaps I am the one with an incorrect notion of the appropriate use of leaders for reconnaissance.

So I thought I'd write to the forum here and invite the viewpoints of other members on this topic.

I am contemplating a house rule which would permit an officer to ride ahead of his unit to determine the lie of the land, but with the proviso that he remain within LOS of a friendly unit at all time.  If LOS to a friendly unit is ever lost for any reason, he must immediately move to re-establish it.

Does that seem reasonable?

[Art Ozols]

I always play with the house rules on skirmisher no more than 4 hexes from a formed unit in open terrain. In light of your situation I'll ask that this would apply to leaders as well, or beyond the boundaries of your army

This strikes me as a gamey tactic moving deep into unknown territory with leaders for recon. Are you able to ask him to recall his leaders back to their own lines?

[agmoss99]

It is gamey and unrealistic. If you didn't agree any house rules before you started though, I think you'll have to accept it. It is not uncommon for a Col Anonymous to behave that way. As Art says, and most gamers I've played agree, have some kind of skirmisher leash and that applies to leader units as well unless with a formed unit.

[Eckerslyke]

I always play with the house rules on skirmisher no more than 4 hexes from a formed unit in open terrain.  In light of your situation I'll ask that this would apply to leaders as well, or beyond the boundaries of your army

This strikes me as a gamey tactic moving deep into unknown territory with leaders for recon.  Are you able to ask him to recall his leaders back to their own lines?

We have that house rule, in fact a version more stringent than most - a skirmisher may not go beyond TWO hexes from the parent unit, and only light or guard skirmishers may go up to three.  That's stricter than usual, I believe.

My opponent has always been very fastidious about 'doing things the right way' - for example, we play with the 'no save' option, which on a map so large, means taking chances on losing everything and having to re-do a move.  For example, yesterday my battle laptop lost power, while I was waiting to sort out this problem and with my move ready to send in the hope of being able to come to an agreement about this leader anomaly.  So now, even if we can reach agreement, I will have to take the whole move again.

I have offered safe passage to the three leaders currently out of LOS of their side, and am waiting to hear if that offer is satisfactory.

Thanks for your response.

[Eckerslyke]

It is gamey and unrealistic. If you didn't agree any house rules before you started though, I think you'll have to accept it. It is not uncommon for a Col Anonymous to behave that way. As Art says, and most gamers I've played agree, have some kind of skirmisher leash and that applies to leader units as well unless with a formed unit.

We do have house rules, very extensive ones, which are identical to the ones used when we had this battle (other sides) last year.  This is a new tactic by my opponent, and since it represents a dramatic departure from the style of battling we had last time, perhaps the onus should have been on the innovator to discuss it before we began.  The explicit rules about staying within realistic range of friendly units do not specify leaders, only skirmishers.  So that is a loophole, I guess.  I am disappointed that this omission appears to be being exploited in this case.

I should have had my lawyers look over the agreement before starting, perhaps!  (Being sarcastic there, did you notice?)  And I might have done so if I had not already had a very satisfying battle with this opponent already.

[i]As for accepting this situation, and continuing - we are on turn 19 of a scenario of 389 turns.  How do I feel about spending a further 370 turns chasing swarms of errant officers around the Belgian countryside, instead of getting on with a good battle?  Not happy, I assure you![/i]

Next time, Better Call Saul!  (Well worth watching, if you enjoyed Breaking Bad, BTW)

[rbursch]

Gentlemen:

I see that my opponent had carried the handling of "leader units" in the forum. This is a good idea!

This topic may be a point to the House Rules, not more. But now that this topic has been carried in to the Forum why not discuss it as such? Therefore, kindly allow me to paste my message sent to my honorable adversary with my thoughts to all of you. (English is not my mother tongue)

"...It is true that these games have little to do with the true historical life of those days. This explains the use of house rules to give the game a more realistic appeal.

What I am missing in the campaign scenarios of many hundreds of turns is the point of “information and communication”. Let me explain to you my idea.

In the days of Wellington and Napoleon scouting was vital. Scouts were sent out -out of LOS-, even until a day, if necessary, to recon the area reaching as far as hiding out in enemy territory where they would hopefully not be seen. (In our games you can see any unit which is in reach of LOS.)

The units I send scouting are leader units ranking as colonels with a wider range of MP than regular units. I have chosen the “colonels” as scouts because there do not exist any scouts at all in our napoleonic games.

Who else in our games could be more suitable to scouting than a “Leader” unit. Skm are not a solution as they count some 100 to  150 men per unit which is too large of a number for scouting and apart from this is not even historical. Cav squadrons in obstructive terrain remain “disordered” apart from their quantity of up to 100 men or more per unit - not so with leader units. Unfortunately, the lowest ranking officer is a colonel as a leader unit. Historically I would consider  scouts to be qualified soldiers not more than a handful of 3-5 men. They would be hiding wherever they would be safe enough not to be detected nor caught by the enemy. This little bunch to my view is well represented with a leader unit and therefore not necessarily to be mentioned in quantity.

In our Waterloo campaign, I am introducing the large numbers of colonels available on both sides to a more important role of information than just rallying the routed and disordered units. To my point of view, scouting gives them a more gaming and even a realistic aspect improving tactical and strategical manoeuvring by information. The argumenti of reporting or communication to HQ, I would explain in the sense that “leader units” are not more than 1-3, maybe 4 turns away from their main body. (I think a turn is about  15 minutes, or less). Time well enough to report back to HQ. The responsible leader of the bunch would send one of his men to report to HQ while he stays with the rest beyond reach of the enemy.

So you see how important I regard “information and communication” in a most realistic way as good as possible.

Therefore, I would want to keep the idea of the use of “Leader units” as scouts. I could imagine -unless you do not have an other proposal- a compromise in the sense of scouting officers not to be higher ranking than colonels and maybe not move more than a couple of turns away (still to be determined) from their main mother body. I could imagine also to determine how many "leader units" may be used to the purpose of scouting in a scenario.

Do you not also agree that “information or communication” should be a more important aspect in the games of HPS and JT of the napoleonic aera? It is a pity that this option which has been so typical for those those days has not been taken in consideration by the producers."...

Gentlemen, I agree to the idea of using "leaders" as scouts does not sound popular of what we all expect of a leader or an officer to be of. But how shall I then make "scouting" useful and close to realism other than by leader units in HPS and JT campaign scenarios of many hundreds of turns?
I would never reject the use of skm nor cav squadrons going scouting but they are never as effective as "leader units" are (see my arguments to this above) and not more realistic neither. Honestly, I would not bother having an enemy leader scouting in my affairs. I certainy would not dispatch any troopers to chase him unless it would spoil my whole setup. (Some general once said that battles are never carried out as they are planned, I think it was Nappy) I  am open to any compromises how to handle "scouting" in campaign scenarios if desired.

I would think that if scouting were not to be considered at all then I should be mentioned as siuch in the House rule. Warfare has always been the key to technical development of mankind. Why not also in our games?

I wish to you all a good day :) and alof of fun in our games.

regards,
Raymond Bursch, Southern Germany

[Chosen Man]

Hi Ray

Not a problem in our game, they are very tasty those "scouts"

[KG_RangerBooBoo]

I could agree with the need for scouts but that is what light cavalry is for at this level I believe.  I've read of the British using "scouting officers" in Spain but no where else.  I could even go along with your argument for "scouts" if it wasn't for the fact that they have instant communications with the army which wasn't possible.  If you could program it that the positions those scouts saw could be shown when said scout ran back to the army and reported to a Corps officer that would be great.  Of course it would be old information but that would be historical.

[BigDuke66]

I wouldn't use leaders to recon, at best you can use them as messengers to add some kind of orders delay.

You also have to consider some things here:
1. Recon is always too good in this game series, usually information about units beyond 2km away would likely just be "there are some" and not like we have it here with unit type(infantry/cavalry), unit art making it possible to identify the unit, strength, etc., personally I would like to see the FoW flipped around compared to the way it is now so that we only get good information if we are really close to the enemy.
2. View range is always too big making it easy to spot so far out that in reality any enemy there would likely have slipped the spotters attention.
3. The gods eye view with instant spotting results gives no delay of informations that in reality took some time to reach the CO if it did at all.

Looking at this I think using squadrons a light cavalry is better because:
1. They are slower than leaders and can be intercepted.
2. They have some combat power and so are unlikely to be risked just to take a glimpse behind the enemies line.
3. They unlike leaders are effected from being detached what makes them even more vulnerable.
All these points compensate at least a bit the much too good recon results I listed above.

[-72-]

"1. They are slower than leaders and can be intercepted." (Than light cavalry)."

That's dependent upon what movement points have been assigned to leaders in the PDT - leastwise it is in the Musket and Pike engine- I doubt the NB engine handles it differently.

In other words-that aspect is scenario designer discretion, just as is the number of leaders available in any given oob file.