 |
| Carnage & Glory II in action over Christmas during our Corunna game |
As you will know from my previous posts I have become and am a very keen user of Carnage & Glory II when it comes to playing Napoleonics and I have often mentioned the granularity that these rules give to the game that doing the same with a paper based set of rules would make cumbersome.
To illustrate why I think these rules are so good, I thought I would share the thoughts of the designer Nigel Marsh who took the time to answer a follow up question on the
C&GII Yahoo Discussion Group about the design concepts and approach needed by players when playing C&GII. In summary, you need to treat your little metal warriors like the human counterparts they represent.
My question was prompted by the thought that I wanted to be able to brief my players, particularly those new to computer moderated games, on the guiding principles they needed to apply when making their command decisions. I think you might find the following response from Nigel very enlightening.
Obviously C&GII is unlike other traditional rule sets where even the
simplest formats require a minimum of accounting, charts and die rolls. In
those the players have a literal eye to the mechanics of the system - this is a
+1, that is a -2 etc. Some gamers need that approach, and that's fine, they
need to measure their chances of success - we don't play to lose.
Some gamers
need dice, and that's fine too, they need to balance their general ship with a
healthy dose of chance, ‘I lost because I rolled badly’ or ’I won because the
dice were with me’. There has to be an imponderable component, nothing should
ever be entirely predictable, and C&GII is no different - behind the screen
the system is comparing factors, rolling multiple dice, and determining the
results. But it's never a simple comparison of numbers balanced to chance.
Morale and fatigue play an incredibly important role in the mechanics of the
system.
Whenever I run a game at a convention when new, and even experienced,
players are involved, during my briefing I will always point out that the
morale and fatigue are represented on a floating scale, and that fatigue is not
merely physical, but mental too. Pointing out that combat stress or mental
fatigue is a very important factor. I then explain that fresh troops will
typically overcome fatigued troops, sometimes regardless of numbers, and
situation. Then I explain that 99% of the time a combat unit is input to the
computer there will be a resulting fatigue loss to that unit. To recover
fatigue a unit needs to avoid movement, avoid fire and combat. With cavalry
I'll explain that the horse may be more physically fatigued than the rider.
With artillery I'll explain that a limbered battery will recover fatigue more
quickly than one deployed for action, explaining that the combat stress of
being deployed is more pronounced than when limbered. The players should not
think of their units as simple inanimate playing pieces, but that they should
perceive of them in human terms, and that the more they do, the more
fatigued they may become.
When it comes to morale, I will explain that a unit will start an
engagement with a certain base morale, based upon the troop classification and
experience. I will point out that the rating on the print out [C-, B+ etc], is
a composite, which in addition to morale classification and experience, also
includes fire and combat ratings. I will then explain that morale can go up,
and that it can go down, it's not a static component. Therefore, even the most
elite unit can be overawed by a less experienced combat opponent, depending on
the circumstances. In some cases, less experienced units, may be more
impulsive, simply because they do not have a veterans perspective of the
inherent dangers of a certain situation - such as charging home on a fresh
battalion or battery. A unit can literally 'get its blood up' by stopping an
enemy charge, or breaking an enemy line, their morale can soar in such
instances. But equally, it can plummet, when it fails to stop a charge, or is
broken by fire action, or evicted from a strong point, and recovery may be
impossible at that point. Essentially, a unit will experience highs and lows of
morale during a game.
Strength losses can be relative too. For example, a conscript unit, may
be more brittle than a veteran unit, and the consequent effect of losing 10%
strength to them is much greater, in a morale sense, that the same losses to a
veteran unit. A crack guard unit may simply hang in there, taking enormous
loss, whilst a conscript militia unit will break to the rear having suffered
less than 5% losses. On average, a typical unit will be capable of sustaining
losses of between 10 and 25 percent. After that the average unit will have 'had
enough'. You may be able to recover it, and get it to 'hold the line', but at
the first 'test', it will probably break and run.
Another important element to the game are the compulsory movement
markers. These are the visual cues the players will have to determine the
relative combat efficiency of their and their opponents units. A white marker
[no advance] reflects possible fatigue, morale or strength loss - the unit is
beginning to show signs of distress - it may recover fatigue, and may recover
morale, but it can't replace losses. The unit's still combat worthy, but it's
being tested. A red marker [halt or retire] reflects increased fatigue, morale
and strength loss - the unit is showing obvious distress, men are voluntarily
abandoning the unit, NCO's and officers are working hard to keep the men in the
ranks. In the case of a retirement, the NCO's and officers may be fighting a
losing battle, as the unit,to some degree of another, is showing signs of
imminent cohesive collapse. Again, the unit may recover fatigue and may recover
morale, but it's can't replace losses, and is becoming less sustainable in the
line of battle. This unit is in trouble, and both sides know it.
The offensive player that does not take heed of these visual cues will
probably lose. A target unit without a marker, either white or red, reflects
that its morale is good, its fatigue is rested, and its losses in men are
slight. That unit has no need to fear a similarly rated attacking foe; they
will typically perform their duty and repulse any attack. Too many gamers will
be too impulsive and simply charge home putting their faith in 'rolling a six',
or 'columns always beat a line'. When they then get decimated in the defensive
fire action, and thrown back in rout, they may cry foul - but the reality is,
they are simply getting what they deserved. They should try that again, when
the defending unit has a 'halt' marker, in which case I will guarantee - and
this is 95 percent predictable - that the halted line will break. The issue for
the attacker is to be in the right spot at the right time to affect the charge
on the 'halted' unit, and the issue for the defender is to ensure that he has
no potential 'halted' units in positions where an attacker can take advantage
of the situation.
