Suggestion/petition: make units face hex sides (not hex corners)

Forum for the Napoleonic Battles games series
Mowgli
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2022 8:56 pm

Suggestion/petition: make units face hex sides (not hex corners)

Post by Mowgli »

Preliminary note: Despite my posting two detailed critiques of game mechanics in a short time span (this one and the one on cavalry), I want to express my love for the game series. It's just that there are some points that really hamper my enjoyment of this particular game series. And I believe that some of these points might find consent by the broader community. Let's find out. :)

What bugs me is that units in the Napoleonic series (unlike in the sibling American Civil War series) are always facing hex corners, not hex sides. Thus they end up with a front angle of just two hexes. The front affects all kinds of things: 1) the unit's fire angle, 2) the angle from which the unit gets flank-charged, 3) the unit's zone of control (where it stops enemy movement), 4) the units retreat path (units can't retreat to either of their front hexes when they get defeated in close combat), 5) the unit's threat angle. Also, it should affect 6) the enfilade modifier for incoming fire, but I'm not sure if that's working in the Napoleonic series (it's hard to tell by the modifiers listed when you use "offmap" results for fire casualties).

The fundamental flaw with the very narrow front angle is that you CANNOT face your units in certain directions.

Have you ever tried to make an artillery unit face "up/north"? You can't. You can either face it up-right or up-left. And now the enemy approaches - of course directly from the north, wiggling his units right and left by one hex to jump out of your artillery's fire angle, forcing the artillery to constantly change its facing (non-horse artillery - even lousy threepounders - can't fire after changing its facing). The "jumping around" fire angles is very gamey and immersion-breaking. It's not what I want to be thinking about when playing a napoleonic battle.

In the same vein, you cannot build a solid line of units facing up or down, unless that line is running diagonally across the map. If you build a straight line facing north or south in the current version of the game, your units have open flanks that can be flank-attacked by the enemy (that is: by game design - you cannot prevent it).

Letting units face a hex side and making their frontage 3 hexes instead of 2 would solve all of these issues. Indeed it would improve my fun a lot. Right now, I spend a considerable amount of play time on checking my units' tiny facing, often resignating that I can't prevent very weird flank charges. It's no fun. And I can't see any grave new issues that would spring up with a more generous front angle (also, it's already working in the ACW series). A few thoughts:
  • By increasing the frontage from 2 to 3 hexes, there will be more threat overall. This is something to consider. But the the threat mechanic is under scrutiny anyway.
  • By opening up the front angle, long range weapons (artillery) will have an easier time concentrating their fire on a single point. This becomes particularly dangerous at medium distances, where the effect of the fire increases. So it might indeed require some reduction of artillery fire power (or a malus for oblique fire, i.e. when shooting at a target at the very borders of the fire angle, if that is possible). The same is true of shorter ranged weapons (muskets and rifles), of course. But their fire effect is not that big at ranges greater than 1 anyway.
  • It will be harder to flank units for the *1.4 melee bonus. I don't think that this is a problem. If a compensation is required, the column melee bonus could be increased.
Last edited by Mowgli on Sun Sep 04, 2022 10:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Christian Hecht
Posts: 53
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2022 1:57 pm
Location: Bouches-de-l’Elbe
Contact:

Re: Suggestion/petition: make units face hex sides (not hex corners)

Post by Christian Hecht »

Don't want to break your right away but I think it was a very conscious decision to make it not like in the CW series. Maybe Rich or some others that were there when the series started can give some more information about this.
Général Christian Hecht
Commandant en Chef de la Grande Armée
Comte et Baron de l'Empire

Image
Napoleonic Wargame Club
User avatar
Cédric Monget
Posts: 165
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2022 2:56 pm
Location: Bordeaux

Re: Suggestion/petition: make units face hex sides (not hex corners)

Post by Cédric Monget »

The points made by Mowgli seem to me all valid, but I still don't like the facing towards hexide. It gives a too wide front and you can't align your units side by side (which gives an advantage).

In fact, the problem seems to be only the isolated guns. Facing a line of guns, the problem does not really arise.

Otherwise, I remember an old sci-fi spaceship wargame where you could facing corner or hexide (12 directions !). But it was... well... weird :D
Excelsior
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2022 8:37 am

Re: Suggestion/petition: make units face hex sides (not hex corners)

Post by Excelsior »

The rigidity of the line formations during this time period (also SYW and EAW) is the main reason for the corner facing rather than the side facing. If I remember correctly, I read this in a very early JT manual (I think during the HPS years).
Mowgli
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2022 8:56 pm

Re: Suggestion/petition: make units face hex sides (not hex corners)

Post by Mowgli »

I don't get it why the rigidity of line formations should be represented by making it impossible for units to face a certain direction, resulting in chaotic flanking, facing chaos and gamey "fire angle evasions".

If rigidity is the goal, I'd rather increase the movement cost for facing changes, rearward/sidewards movement or enforce the movement disruption rules for units moving in line formation. These are much better means to that end, and they're already available in the engine. I would even argue that the small front leads to the opposite effect: the constant need to change facing. Units move and wiggle much more, not less because of it.
User avatar
Verdun1916
Posts: 279
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2022 8:42 am
Location: Hässleholm, Sweden

Re: Suggestion/petition: make units face hex sides (not hex corners)

Post by Verdun1916 »

Mowgli wrote: Sun Sep 04, 2022 5:42 pm I would even argue that the small front leads to the opposite effect: the constant need to change facing. Units move and wiggle much more, not less because of it.
But the thing is that during the timeperiod in question a batallion in line would have a pretty narrow field of fire to their front due to the formations they used. There is only so few degrees to the left or right you could aim your muskets to acuire a target. If a unit wanted to fire on an enemy outside of their narrow arc or fire the entire batallion, brigade or larger unit would have to change facing. And because of that there was alot of "move and wiggle" as you put it every time a unit, not to mention an entire battle line of brigade, division or corps size advanced or changed facing to deal with new threats.
The tactics, formations etc. simply put was far more strict and cumbersome than compared to how linear warfare was applied during the American Civil War half a century later and on a different continent.
What you describe is actually one of the factors that makes this game series more historically accurate for the time period it's set in.
krmiller_usa
Posts: 63
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2022 1:16 pm

Re: Suggestion/petition: make units face hex sides (not hex corners)

Post by krmiller_usa »

Been board wargaming for over 50 years, miniature wargaming for almost as long and pc wargaming since the 8 bit Commodore and Atari days. Lost count of the number of miniature systems I've played for the era of line maneuver but one thing all of them had in common was the 45 degree arc of fire. This might be because it makes it easy to check, place a straight edge from the last figure on the edge of the line to the one in the second rank to the right or left and you have your arc of fire (today much easier with a laser line pointer). This gives you a 90 degree arc of fire, the current Nappy system gives you a bit less, a 60 degree arc of fire while the ACW system provides a larger 120 degree arc of fire.

Personally I think the facing the corner is the better system, looks more like a miniature display with the lines next to one another and is probably more realistic.
Ken Miller
Mowgli
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2022 8:56 pm

Re: Suggestion/petition: make units face hex sides (not hex corners)

Post by Mowgli »

I need to point out that the issue I'm bringing up is NOT primarily the 45° of fire. I don't have a problem with a 45° arc of fire and I do think it's historically accurate. What I have a big problem with is that units in this game cannot - by game design! - face into particular directions (up, down). If the opponent approaches directly from the north/up or south/down, he can in a very gamey manner wiggle right and left one hex to evade your units' arc of fire. That's NOT historically accurate. In the same vein, any formation you build that faces north/south has gaps for the opponent to exploit - if you let it face northwest, it can be flanked from the northeast. If you let it face northeast, it can be flanked northwest. Given that a column can move 5 hexes in the open, the enemy can easily pick the side of his attack. And NO, you cannot cover your flank with a neighnouring unit, unless you build a line that runs diagonally (rather than straight east-west). The only way to prevent a flank charge in this circumstance is to put two columns into a hex and let them look in different directions diagonally, which is rather odd.

So it's not enough to say: Well, it was all rigid back then, so a small fire angle angle is okay. If you'd actually consider the ingame implications, there are a lot of problems with it. Sure, facing to corners might look better, but it's mechanically broken. I'd rather take a rugged looking line that works than a beautifull line that doesn't. And again, if it was about rigiditiy of linear warfare, there are much, much better ways to handle this mechanically (movement threat, line movement disorder, greater movement costs for pivots/backwards/sideways movement). Also, there could be a fire power malus for units that fire obliquely (to the outer edges of their fire arc).

So it's not the fire angle per se. The problem is caused 1) by the very few orientation choices (you can't point your small fire angle where you want it to) and 2) by the fact that there are many aspects linked to the fire angle (flank/enfilade modifiers).
User avatar
LarkinVB
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2022 5:28 am

Re: Suggestion/petition: make units face hex sides (not hex corners)

Post by LarkinVB »

So what is your conclusion? Are you expecting a complex redesign?
Mowgli
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2022 8:56 pm

Re: Suggestion/petition: make units face hex sides (not hex corners)

Post by Mowgli »

My conclusion is as stated in the title: make units face hex sides rather than corners, like in the ACW titles. I'm not expecting, I'm suggesting.

If that leads to a system that seems too generous for the allegedly rigid Napoleonic warfare, there are easy (as in: already part of the game) and better ways to adjust this: movement threat, line movement disorder chance (should include facing changes and changes of stacking order in the hex), increased extra MP costs for side/rear movements while in line. The only new suggestion I make is to put a malus on oblique fire (i.e. when firing at targets at the very edges of the now enlarged fire angle) particularly for artillery.

In fact you could even argue that an increased front sector rewards cohesion and rigidness, as it will easier to concentrate your units' fire power (without changing their facing first and losing 50% firepower). Thus, with 3 front hexes, two adjacent units facing in the same direction can "cooperate" more easily. This encourages you to deploy your units in a cohesive line in the first place. If you don't wiggle around and keep your facing straight, you are rewarded by increased fire power. By contrast, with a front of just 2 hexes, you are often forced to change facing/move in order to fire on a unit, even if you have a neatly arranged line of units. So in the end, the single enemy unit that moves a lot had almost the same fire power as the units in your assumedly cohesive, stationary line. (Okay, not the same fire power, but the difference in effect is much smaller). In other words: If you move a single unit into a cohesive line of multiple enemy units, it will be punished more harshly if units have a 3-hexes-front. Thus I'd say that a 3 front hex rewards cohesive deployment, i.e. makes the game more rigid. With just two hexes, the frontage is so retrictive that units cannot reliably cooperate, there are only small rewards for "cohesive" play, units act in an isolated way. Mechanically, there is no difference between 1) two units that are 3 hexes open terrain apart and 2) two units that are adjacent to each other facing the same direction. If one of the two units gets engaged, the other unit needs to move (3 hexes or facing change due to the small front angle) and thus suffers a 50% fire power reduction. Only if movement threat is active (and strong) is there some risk involved fro the non-cohesive deployment - but the fire output is the same. With a front of three hexes, by contrast, the engaging unit might trigger additional opportunity fire, has a higher risk of suffering movement threat disorder (if active) and can be taken under fire stationarily (100% fire power) by both units.
TLDR: The current small front sector actually rewards isolated, non-cohesive, chaotic play. Because the angles are so small that cohesively deployed units hardly enjoy any advantages. Despite their cohesive deployment, they still need to turn to fire at enemy units, suffering the "-50% for fire after movement" malus.

------
On a sidenote, I don't believe that on a tactical scale ACW warfare was much different from Napoleonic warfare. It's still napoleonic warfare adjusted to the american circumstances (terrain, comparatively little threat of cavalry, long stationary stalemates -> fortifications). I mean a large group of men in rank and file manoeuvering over a battlefield is a large group of men in rank and file manoevering over a battle field. There is not a lot of room for "improvement" of flexibility here? Hence I also see no reason why there should be different front/fire angles.

Weapons-wise, the common use of the rifle is not as big a technological innovation as people tend to make of it. It gives the infantrymen a weapon to snipe at artillery at longer ranges. If you want to identify a turning point, it's probably 1866 (Austro-Prussian War) and the breechloading needle gun. It shifted tactics in favour of fire power (up until this point, the Austrians were still relying on napoleonic-style attack column bayonet shock action). The battles of 1870 really start look differently.
Post Reply