Military Rules Rewrite

[Ymbert Montgomery]

Dec 7, 2020 1:01:28 GMT Jacques Bougiedure said:

Some errata:

19.3 add “(5 or 6)” after “a bad battle result”


20.2 Replace with “If there are two or more regiments (including frontier regiments) on the same front, they will be grouped into larger formations with their own commanders and adjutants. Brigades consist of 2 Regiments of the same type (infantry or cavalry) commanded by a Brigadier General. If there are an odd number of Regiments assigned to the front, the first brigade will have three regiments instead of two. If there are two Brigades assigned to a front, they will be formed into a Division commanded by a Marshal de Camp. If there are three or more Brigades assigned to a front, they will be formed into a Army commanded by a Marshal de France. Command appointments are made at the start of May”

Sidebar – Should an exception be made to the command appointments being made at the start of May be made for larger formations created in seasons other than May? You mentioned in the March Applications that “there are some open command positions but the only person eligible is Guy” contradicting the last sentence of paragraph 20.2. Or is the exception covered in paragraph 20.7


There are two paragraphs 20.8 which impacts the number of all following paragraphs.

Thanks for the errata!

The exception is covered in 20.7; Guy would be eligible for Brigadier command positions.

Although that does remind me of something I meant to raise. Under the current rules people get no SP for Frontier Commander when the command is over. Should that still be the case or should it be changed?

[Jacques Bougiedure]

Thinking on it, the off-cycle appointment is temporary, lasting only as long as the unit is formed. i.e. a Brigade formed in response to increased hostilities would be disbanded when hostilities drop and its commander would be out of a job. Similarly, if the commander returns to Paris at the end of the season while the Brigade is still active, another commander would be appointed to replace him. Either way, the character is an Echelons Above Regiment (EAR) commander only at the front, not in Paris and hence no SP.

A more complex solution (from a bookkeeping stand point) would be to assign all potential EAR commanders and adjutants in May, 1 Army, 1 Division, and at least 1 Brigade Commander and Adjutant for each Front. They can remain in Paris until their command is activated. In the current month, Brigade commanders for each Front would be required to report to their respective front and the Savoy Division Commander would be required to report as well. In this case, the commanders would receive SP during the months that they are in Paris.

[Jacques Bougiedure]

Troop Balance rules (20.22) always confuses me, the calculation not the concept. I would suggest the following wording:

Different deployments require different ratios of infantry and cavalry, which will be taken into consideration by the Adjutant General and Minister of War when assigning regiments. Front commanders will suffer a penalty to their MA if they don’t have the right troops for the job.

If Infantry regiments make up between 60% and 75% of all regiments at the front, the force is optimized for Siege or Defence. Front Commander suffers a -1 MA penalty if the deployment is Field Operations or Assault.

If Infantry regiments make up 60% or less of all regiments at the front, the force is optimize for Field Operations. Front Commander suffers a -1 MA penalty if the deployment is Siege, Defence, or Assault.

If Infantry regiments make up 75% or more of all regiments at the front, the force is optimize for Assault. Front Commander suffers a -1 MA penalty if the deployment is Siege, Defence, or Field Operations.

Thinkology behind this is Field Ops requires more mobile forces so an abundance of Cavalry is a good thing.  Conversely, an assault requires lots of bodies so more Infantry is better.  Siege/Defense requires enough Infantry to man the battlements or siege work but a mobile reserve.

[Ymbert Montgomery]

I like both of those ideas.

Probably need a few more Brigade Commanders as they're so common at the lower levels.

This is slightly immaterial until next year anyway I suggest!

[Ymbert Montgomery]

I think this should probably only come into play at HL 6 or more. You don't really need a balance of regiments if you're just alert and on patrols! (And before that Assault isn't possible anyway)

[Jacques Bougiedure]

Good point. I hadn't considered if there is only one regiment, presumably the frontier regiment, at the front. Maybe the troop balance rule is in effect only if there are 2 or more regiments at the front? Or at HL 6 and higher? At lower HLs the enemy force would presumably be so small that they would not be able to achieve force balance either.

[Ymbert Montgomery]

Both I think. If the front is understaffed that much at higher HLs it seems unfair to have a troop balance penalty on top of that.

Speaking of which, I'm considering making the possible bonus/penalty for regiment numbers -1 for each number under minimum and +1 for each number over minimum.

What do people think? It leads to more strategic decisions about where to go and more fluctuation in results.

I wouldn't implement this one until the Autumn season as it doesn't seem fair to apply penalties people didn't know about when volunteering!

[Jacques Bougiedure]

I like the modifier for under/above regimental limits. A poor force balance could be mitigated by throwing troops at the problem!

[huillaume]

The problem of troops balance was already discussed a year ago, as the new military rules wre discussed. This wa sposted by myself back in november 24^th 2019 (New Military Rules thread, currently stored as old post in the Rules forum):

Nov 24, 2019 13:27:07 GMT huillaume said:

Troop balance:

While I see this logical for Field Ops (where Cavalry was vital) and even for siege (where cavalry was used as scouts/foragers for the bessiegers ,but most work was for infantry, I see no point to need Cavalry for an Assault (where it was most a hindrance than an asset, as they had to fight as Infantry) nor Defense (the only reason I find to allow Cavalry on Defense is that they are trapped in a Fortress ,and are also l ikely to fight as Infantry).

And Louis XIII answer:

Nov 25, 2019 12:19:26 GMT Ymbert Montgomery said:

Troop balance:

While I see this logical for Field Ops (where Cavalry was vital) and even for siege (where cavalry was used as scouts/foragers for the bessiegers ,but most work was for infantry, I see no point to need Cavalry for an Assault (where it was most a hindrance than an asset, as they had to fight as Infantry) nor Defense (the only reason I find to allow Cavalry on Defense is that they are trapped in a Fortress ,and are also l ikely to fight as Infantry).

Because there's more to a siege than just sitting outside a fortress. Cavalry are being used as support troops, not as defenses from within. The "forced to fight as infantry" thing is treated abstractly; it's part of a bad BR.

And it's already the case that there's a bias towards cavalry on field ops.

As per movement rules, if you really want to implement some, I'd just set them as Regiments can only move to an adjacent section and fight in the same month.

So, from Paris, one ca ngo everywhere, but if you are at Flanders front and a sudden lowering of hostilities makes some regiments to spare that are needed in Spanish Front where HL raised, any Regiments moving would not fight this month (whith the risk of eihter the Spanish front HL lowering or Flanders increasing again).

Of course, we should better define the provinces map and which ones are included in each front (e.g. I guess Spanish Border would include both provinces of Gascony and Languedoc, while Italian one would include Provence, Lorraine will include burgundy and Flanders, Picardy)

[Ymbert Montgomery]

Dec 7, 2020 19:42:13 GMT huillaume said:

The problem of troops balance was already discussed a year ago, as the new military rules wre discussed. This wa sposted by myself back in november 24^th 2019 (New Military Rules thread, currently stored as old post in the Rules forum):

Having seen the rules in action more now, I think I've come round to your way of thinking on this. Especially as coltredhead's proposed changes are an elegant and balanced way of implementing it, more than just dropping requirements.

As per movement rules, if you really want to implement some, I'd just set them as Regiments can only move to an adjacent section and fight in the same month.

So, from Paris, one ca ngo everywhere, but if you are at Flanders front and a sudden lowering of hostilities makes some regiments to spare that are needed in Spanish Front where HL raised, any Regiments moving would not fight this month (whith the risk of eihter the Spanish front HL lowering or Flanders increasing again).

I don't mind implementing these or not, but if people would like them yours seem solid.

Of course, we should better define the provinces map and which ones are included in each front (e.g. I guess Spanish Border would include both provinces of Gascony and Languedoc, while Italian one would include Provence, Lorraine will include burgundy and Flanders, Picardy)

I'd appreciate help with that as my French geography sucks! So maybe go with your list here.

A few more alterations I think will have general support.

Summer campaigns are now in the areas with the highest HL at the time the armies are declared. It makes no sense that the Minister of War would start a war in a peaceful area when Flanders is being available.

No volunteers in the third month will take place. With the rules as current, I suddenly realised that PCs could be forced to the front when they can't take place in the battle which isn't the intent!

[huillaume]

One point that already was in the rules 1.3:

I cannot find the benefits table (SP, pay, ets) for generals (brigadiers and up)... In original rules was just following the regimental one (and I guess those original ones are kept).

[huillaume]

Dec 7, 2020 21:41:49 GMT Ymbert Montgomery said:

Of course, we should better define the provinces map and which ones are included in each front (e.g. I guess Spanish Border would include both provinces of Gascony and Languedoc, while Italian one would include Provence, Lorraine will include burgundy and Flanders, Picardy)

I'd appreciate help with that as my French geography sucks! So maybe go with your list here.

Skematic map of French Provinces as game defines them:

 

Britany                               (no Front)	Normandy                                    (no Front)	Picardy                            (Fladers)
Aquitaine (no Front)	Paris (no front)	Burgundy (Lorraine)
Gascony (Spanish1)	Languedoc (Spanish1)	Provence (Savoy/Italy)

Note 1: this makes the Spanish border wo provinces, unlike the other ones. If you wan to keep it at only one province, I'd suggest (despite Huillaume's interests) to make it Languedoc, as most combats historically occur i nthe orinetal Pyrinees at the Thirty Years Wars,as they are easier to cross and Spain had territoris north of them (the Rousillon).

This map is in fact quite missleading, as Paris is not in the center of France, but quite north, but as most good roads are (and already were) radial from it, we can assume it is in travel time needed.

As Gaston suggested, you can move in a week to any adjacent province (even diagonally), and for military matters, I'd set at you can either move and fight to an adjacent province, or move to any non-adjacent province and fight the following month.

So, if your troops are fighting in Languedoc and the front clams down there so that they're no longer needed, they can move the folloing month to either Savoi front or Lorraine one and fight this month, but if the only fron needing troops is Flanders, they will need a full month of movement and will not fight unti lthe next one.

I hope that helps...

[Ymbert Montgomery]

Dec 8, 2020 4:05:55 GMT huillaume said:

One point that already was in the rules 1.3:

I cannot find the benefits table (SP, pay, ets) for generals (brigadiers and up)... In original rules was just following the regimental one (and I guess those original ones are kept).

Yep, the original ones are kept but I'll add it.

[Ymbert Montgomery]

Hulluame has brought up an interesting question (one not covered by the original rules either!).

Do brevet BGs get aides?

The options are:

No, only full.

Yes in all cases.

Only if in a BG appointment.

I'm inclined towards the last but only very mildly.

[Jacques Bougiedure]

Agreed, only if in a BG appointment.