Friday, October 7, 2016
Kolin. The refight with Maurice: Part III, the analysis.
To analize the replay, in order
to compare the same battle played with three different rules (Maurice, Volley
and Bayonet and DB-Hx), I’ll try to answer to these questions:
1) How many “3”x1.5” bases the
scenario needs?
2) The replay replicated a global
situation in some sense comparable to the real battle, or developed in a total
different way? The final result
was a plausible one with respect of the historical data?
3) There are some parts of the
scenario (troop numbers and quality, terrain, special rules) which are too
heavy and drive too much the final result?
4) There was in the replay any unlikely
or awkward situation generated by the rules or by the scenario itself?
5) The playing area was adequate? Too
small with crammed troops or too big allowing for unlikely maneuvers.
6) With this Rule the scenario
replay playing went smooth?
7) With this Rule the scenario
was funny to play?
As you’ll notice, I never
mentioned “historicity”: I already said that this argument is out of discussion
whenever we move models on a table. I prefer to deal with the matter as pointed
out in question 2).
A typical after-battle discussion
Going into the specific, when the
battle of Kolin is played with Maurice we can observe that:
1) Austrians 41 bases, Prussians 27
bases. 1,51 Ratio.
2) Yes. I decided to follow the
historical pattern for the Prussian attack, and the following situations were
similar to the historical ones. The Cavalry battle was inconclusive. The
Prussian attacked gaining local successes but hammering to the pulp their
infantry. The Prussian committed two main errors, the first was to lose too much
time with the cavalry battle and the second was that the infantry attack was not
supported by any kind of reserves. The Prussian right and the Austrian left remained
unengaged. The global historical results with, of course, local difference in
the battle development.
3) No, the special rules and the
National Advantages are not intrusive. The only thing I noticed is that the
Austrian superiority could make the difference if in the final phases of the
battle the morale are close to the breaking point for both armies.
4) No. In fact there were a
couple of lulls in the development of
the battle and I noticed also that the most diffucult thing to achieve
was to maintain the attack momentum, two things that appears “realistic” and
ask to the player a good deal of planning.
5) The playing area was 150 cm x
112.5 cm, not cluttered with towns or too much difficult terrain. There was
room to maneuver and no terrain represented an insormontable barrier. The
scenario represented adequately the area were the battle was fought, given the
scale and the nature of the rules. To measure the “clutterness” i take the
ratio between the area of the bases and the total area which, in this case, is approximately 10%.
6) The replay went smooth, with
no complicated bookeeping or nasty calculation. Even the die-roll procedure was
easy to deal with. In this sense the Rules are enough “intuitive” making the
game easy to deal with.
7) Yes, absolutely. I like these
Rules.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Huzzah! I'm a great fan of Maurice. "Feels" right, for period, loads of fun, and resolves in a reasonable time.
Thanks for all your recent posts on Maurice. I have enjoyed reading your experiences and enjoyment. It's been an inspiration to do more Maurice games. They have become our favourite rules for the era.
cheers,
Tom
Is there a way to post a picture to comments? I would add my map for Kolin "Warfare in the Age of Reason" scenario.
Hi Kronos,
nice to hear from you again. I don't know if it is possible to post a picture in a comment. However if you could send me the map file I'll provide to post it in my blog, giving proper credit. My e-mail is davi@univpm.it.
As ever
Fabrizio
Post a Comment