Pages

Monday, 21 March 2022

More thoughts on Campaign Games (#3)

More Thoughts on Campaign Games.

Casualty replacements.
In part 2, under "Forces" I gave quite a simple view on casualty replacement
"Many campaign rules intend for the initial forces to be just a start, with continual growth as new recruits are raised and reinforcements sent to the front. These campaign rules are unusual in that I've taken the opposite view -that the forces involved are assumed to represent the maximum force a nation can commit to a specific theatre. Unless all sides agree, this maximum cannot be exceeded.

This assumption leads to a situation where, instead of increasing, each players armies and resources are growing ever smaller and more precious and is intended to get players really thinking about their forces and trying to keep them intact rather than squandering them on what they think are heroic actions. Lines of communication and supply suddenly become very important as they maximise the chances of receiving reinforcements and minimizing desertion/losses."

On reading this through I feel as though it requires further explanation and, like other aspects of my rules, has developed.

Initially, no unit or formation could receive more than 90% replacement of casualties/stragglers etc, which meant that forces were ever smaller, with further reductions to the replacement rate based on situation -whether the force was in supply (linked to its magazines by a secure route) or out of supply, whether adverse weather (heat, cold, heavy rain etc) is affecting movement, whether the terrain is favourable to movement and the condition of the troops/horses themselves, in that tired/exhausted troops will be less likely to return to the colours than fresh ones. Furthermore, some armies -most notably the Spanish, had a most remarkable ability to recover troops swiftly after almost complete destruction/ dispersal.

This isn't to say that the troops who were defeated return to the colours without any loss of ability, just that their numbers are restored at a higher rate. This is because of  the Spanish people constantly feeding men into the military. Such units suffered a loss in quality as trained or experienced troops were replaced at least partially by raw, inexperienced or untrained recruits, so that any re-formed unit would be classed as at least 1 training/experience class lower than it had been before its dispersal. To simulate this, the Spanish forces should receive their complement of replacements in a shorter time than their opponents and at a higher rate. Similarly, armies such as the British in the Peninsula/Americas, French in Egypt/Indies should receive replacements at lower/slower rates due to distance from the field of conflict, whilst replacements to French/auxilliary forces in Spain would take perhaps twice as long to reach their destination.

So, does the army as a whole restore casualties at the same rate across the board, or does each unit that has taken casualties regain them at  a different rate?  Perhaps the best way would be to dice for each unit, with the highest training/experience groups (elites) dicing first for their part of the total replacement pot -upto the % replacement limit. After these would come the veterans, trained and raw units. this could lead to situations where the better class units take up all the replacement figures whilst those who would have been last to dice receive none. This reflects the greater likelihood of elite/veteran troops returning to the colours and that of the less well drilled and experienced to desert. In these cases, it should be assumed that the best troops from inferior units are reassigned to better ones, so that it is the worst units that shrink the fastest. I'm not going to suggest replacement percentages -we will all have our own ideas of what each circumstance would do to replacement levels.

The ONLY way to restore a unit to its full complement of troops in my mind is the amalgamation of battalions/squadrons/regiments that have fallen below viable numbers for purposes of the game, ie. too low in base morale. Amalgamated units -bataillons de march, provisional regiments, battalions of detachments &c are of necessity of lower class than the highest training class involved, ie. if a veteran and a trained unit amalgamate, the result would be a trained unit, if a 3rd, raw unit was added, the resulting unit would be "Raw." This allows for the amalgamated unit to need time to "gel" as a unit and for the better trained members to gain trust in their new, less well seasoned comrades. Again, I'm not going to suggest training levels for each variety of amalgamation (Yet?). It should be fairly obvious from the makeup of each battalion of detachments what their new training level should be. 

Amalgamated units regain training classes in the same way as any other unit, but do so at an enhanced rate. Usually, a unit will gain one class for every three battles in which they fight, but amalgamations progress after only two -Until they reach the training level of the highest rated element, after which progress is as normal. This system ensures that a given army doesn't simply improve until ALL non-elite units are "veteran" but that they always retain elements of untrustworthy "raw" troops.

I'd be interested in other peoples input on this.



No comments:

Post a Comment