Saturday, December 29, 2012

4X4 Leadership Ratings

What are we trying to model?


We want to provide conditions and ratings that try to model the actual "leadership" of the commands involved in a manner that reflects their historical actions given the conditions of the terrain and darkness.

My personal opinion is that we can use Leadership to model the darkness, confusion and caution. If this were a battle in broad daylight, I'd raise the Leadership values shown here and have different logic behind the ratings.

What levers do we have?

Field of Battle gives us two distinct levers:
1.       The Leadership rating of the individual commanders
2.       The Leadership rating of the Sequence Deck

What specific goals do we have for each command?

Confederates

For the Confederate force, I think we want to have an Average Sequence Deck. Other than caution, I do not feel that the Confederate command was particularly good or bad. We’ll give Johnson, the division commander a D8 Leadership rating. This may reflect his caution by providing the conditions for smaller differences in impetus points.

Steuart’s command made the most movement and progress. Let’s give Steuart a D10 Leadership rating. 

For the remaining Confederate brigades, we’ll assign a D8 Leadership rating. In the battle, these forces went in against the works and tied down the Yankees there for a bit, nothing spectacular. If the Confederate player wishes to use these forces in a different manner, the lower Leadership will help to model the caution and darkness.

Should any commanders fall and be replaced, all replacement commanders will be a D8.

Federals

The Federal army should have a Skilled Sequence Deck. The overall Federal command on the hill fell to Wadsworth: a capable man with a battered command. If we retain the notion that smaller impetus variances may model this action best we should rate him as a D8 Leadership. This may feel like a slight to the man, but let’s default on the side of the scenario design objectives. I feel we can justify a D8 rating based upon the condition of his command, the condition of the terrain and darkness and the critical importance of this sector of the line.

Greene’s men fought stubbornly, able to refuse the flank and hold on. If we give Greene a D12 Leadership rating, his men will be better able to maneuver and rally, giving the model soldiers an opportunity to repeat their actual performance.

Likewise, Cutler and Meredith had an elite force that was able to send some help to the other end of the line. Let’s give both of these commanders a D10 Leadership rating.

As for the Flying Dutchmen, I think a D8 Leadership rating for their commander will help them maneuver less and rally less.

Like the Rebels, all replacement commanders will be a D8.

Summary

Well, play testing will discover the truths of course, but for the starting point, here is what we have…
Commander
Leadership
Side
Command Level
Johnson
D8
CSA
Division Command
Steuart
D10
CSA
Brigade Command
Williams (Nicholls)
D8
CSA
Brigade Command
Jones
D8
CSA
Brigade Command
Wadsworth
D8
USA
Division Command
Greene
D12
USA
Brigade Command
Amsberg
D8
USA
Brigade Command
Cutler
D10
USA
Brigade Command
Meredith
D10
USA
Brigade Command

Next up? Special rules for the scenario. Should there be any? What are they? I think possibly, this is a key design element and can give conditions that the players must manage and enhance the challenge to them.

4X4 Union Unit Strength Determination

I know I said "leadership" would be next, but, I wanted to close the loop on the infantry forces by addressing the Union command for the scenario.

The Yankees have a nice mix of men defending the hill. Well, nice from a wargamer's perspective as it offers a rich palette. From the perspective of the Union high command, it is a little frightening actually.

Let's not forget that the hill not only guards the right flank of the Union army and its loss would unhinge the excellent position of the remainder of the army, but, the hill also guards the Baltimore Pike. Vital for supplies and men arriving on the field.

By the time of the Confederate assault at dark, the only troops available to defend the hill are a mix of:

  1. Superb units that were mauled on July 1. Meredith's (Iron Brigade) and Cutler's units suffered in the range of 47% to 77% losses on the first day.
  2. Greene's brigade of New Yorkers, just arrived earlier in the day and led by the oldest soldier in the United States Army - who, until 1862, was out of the army for 25 years.
  3. Nearby and able to move up in a time of need is Amsberg's brigade of "Flying Dutchmen". Ridiculed in the army for their flight at Chancellorsville and their flight through Gettysburg on July 1.

Earlier in the day, the hill was much more strongly defended. But XII Corps was ordered to vacate their defenses and move to support other areas of the line under attack. Greene's brigade was left to defend a portion of the line, but the area by the lower knoll of Culp's Hill was "in the air".

I think that the Federal army was quite lucky that the attack here did not begin until darkness. I believe that a battle lost is a lot like a football game lost. Seldom can you attribute it to one play or one event. It is the collection of events, added together, that make the loss or the victory. "In war, events of great importance are the results of trivial causes" said Julius Caesar.

Having lost Culp's Hill would have made for a much more difficult July 3rd for the Federals!

OK onto the Yankees...

GREENE
Strength         
Combat
Defense
60 NY
313
D10
D6
78 NY
202
D8
D4
102 NY
248
D8
D4
137 NY
456
D12
D8
149 NY
319
D10
D6
CUTLER
Strength         
Combat
Defense
7 IN
434
D10
D8
76 NY
141
D8
D4
84 NY
101
D8
D4
95 NY
126
D8
D4
147 NY
82
D8
D4
56 PA
122
D8
D4
MEREDITH
Strength         
Combat
Defense
19 IN
98
D8
D4
24 MI
133
D8
D4
2 WI
69
D8
D4
6 WI
176
D8
D4
7 WI
186
D8
D4
AMSBERG
Strength         
Combat
Defense
82 IL
204
D8
D4
45 NY
151
D8
D4
157 NY
202
D8
D4
61 OH
200
D8
D4








The above numbers show the strengths of the units at the time of the action on Culp's Hill. The numbers for Amsberg, Cutler and Meredith have been adjusted to reflect the losses from July 1.

These ratings are based upon the ratings guidelines from the previous post. So you can see that the superb men from I Corps are pretty worthless in FoB game terms. Also, those are some really small units. So, let's manage the scenario!

We'll converge some of the individual units into "game units", this will work fine and be more correct in terms of unit frontage and all that jazz. Also, I have read that even though these units were hammered, they still had a high fighting spirit. So, we'll adjust the Defense values upwards.

Greene's men are easy, we need make no adjustments as they are newly arrived on the field and have not been bloodied.

Amsberg's men were bloodied on July 1, and once again trounced by the rebels. If they were at full strength, we'd be reducing their Defense values. They're good to go as they are.

There are a couple of Yankee artillery batteries available too, but they'll be range challenged by the darkness.

So, if you compare the two infantry forces, the Yanks will be challenged! Thank goodness there will be some works to hide behind along a portion of the line! As a player, isn't a challenge what you want? I know it is for me. The Rebs will be challenged by the terrain and by the confusion of a night assault.

Here are the final values...

GREENE
Strength         
Combat
Defense
60 NY
313
D10
D6
78 NY
202
D8
D4
102 NY
248
D8
D4
137 NY
456
D12
D8
149 NY
319
D10
D6
CUTLER
Strength         
Combat
Defense
7 IN
434
D10
D8
Converged NY
368
D10
D8
Converged NY/PA
204
D8
D8
MEREDITH
Strength         
Combat
Defense
Converged IN/MI
231
D8
D8
Converged WI
431
D10
D8
AMSBERG
Strength         
Combat
Defense
82 IL
204
D8
D4
45 NY
151
D8
D4
157 NY
202
D8
D4
61 OH
200
D8
D4

















OK, leadership really is next.





Friday, December 28, 2012

4X4ing: Unit Strength Determination


This post continues on the 4X4 scenario idea. The topic is a method of determining the combat and defense ratings for the forces involved in a given historical scenario.

The premise of the post is that while I enjoy the rating system laid out in the Field of Battle rules, I’d like to apply something a little more “scientific” to the rating of the units involved in these scenarios. This is particularly true for scenarios where there is good muster data around the units involved.

I am going to state here that the goal is to rate a unit based upon its potential as an instrument of battle. The potential of the unit has these characteristics:

The armament of the unit
Field of Battle has a Musket and a Rifle category. My thought is that this adequately manages this aspect for me and this characteristic of a unit does not need to influence the ratings.

The size of the unit
The size of the unit is a big factor. The number of guns and bayonets that a unit can focus on the enemy is a valuable figure. A unit of 200 men will theoretically throw less lead than a unit of 400 men given similar conditions. In a pure weight of numbers match, the larger unit has an advantage in close combat power. Similarly, a larger unit could have more staying power reflected in the ability to sustain losses more efficiently than a smaller unit.

These are the premises which with to begin the ratings. These are simply the “cold and impersonal” numbers portion of the ratings. Upon these factors we will generate a “base rating” value for both combat and defense for each unit.

I don’t believe that there is any need to manipulate the Unit Integrity (UI) values of units in this modeling exercise. First of all, why worry about which unit has how many UI? Let’s just let UI be the measuring stick for the effectiveness of enemy action against the unit. The ratings of the units will properly influence the outcome of the die rolls by adjusting the size of the dice used.

The élan of the unit
Élan encompasses a lot of concepts. You could consider the training of a particular regiment. You could consider the past battlefield experiences to say that a unit is “veteran” or that it is “green”. What I am suggesting we consider – within the context of writing a wargame scenario around a slice of historical action – is this: the actual performance of the unit in the action itself.

Accounts of battle are loaded with the exploits of various units and their bravery under extreme stress. The opposite is also true, where units broke quickly even after only light casualties.

So, if the accounts of a battle call out particular units for their performance – for good or for ill – allow that to guide you in modifying either the combat or defense rating, or both, for those units.

Statistics

So with that in mind, let’s look at some statistics. One of my favorite books is Regimental Strengths and Losses at Gettysburg. The amount of detail about the various units at the great battle is simply astounding. I’ll gladly let that guide my thoughts…

The armament of the unit
Of 238 Union infantry regiments present, 27 (11.3%) went into the Battle of Gettysburg at least partially armed with smooth bore muskets. Of these, 10 (4.2%) were seemingly fully equipped with smooth bore muskets.

A relatively accurate breakdown of Confederate infantry armament is seemingly not available for the Battle of Gettysburg. So, we’ll simply invent a workable estimate that is acceptable for war gaming the 1863 period. Let’s say that 30% of the infantry regiments and battalions would be at least partially equipped with smooth bore muskets and that 10% would be fully equipped with smooth-bore muskets. This is nearly three times the rate of the Army of the Potomac.

The size of the unit
The Army of the Potomac had 238 infantry regiments available for the Battle of Gettysburg while the Army of Northern Virginia had 170.

The average size for a regiment in the Army of the Potomac was 301 men. In the Army of Northern Virginia, the average infantry regiment size was 338 men. Generally speaking, for both armies at Gettysburg, the percentage of infantry units that were within approximately 50 men of the above numbers is about 30%.

So, I devised this chart with which to give my initial ratings values.

Strength         Combat Defense
250 or less D 8 D 4
251-350         D 10 D 6
351-450         D 10 D 8
451+ D 12 D 8

I think that this gives a good, basic representation of a unit’s theoretical effectiveness as an instrument of battle.

Let’s look at the forces involved on the Confederate side of the July 2nd Culp’s Hill action.

Steuart’s Brigade
                        Strength Combat    Defense
1 MD Bttn 424 D 10 D 8
1 NC 401 D 10 D 8
3 NC 582 D 12 D 8
10 VA 293 D 10 D 6
23 VA 266 D 10 D 6
37 VA 281 D 10 D 6

Williams’ Brigade
                        Strength Combat    Defense
1 LA 183 D 8 D 4
2 LA 251 D 10 D 6
10 LA 240 D 10 D 6
14 LA 298 D 10 D 6
15 LA 198 D 8 D 4

Jones’ Brigade
                        Strength Combat    Defense
21 VA 251 D 10 D 6
25 VA 297 D 10 D 6
42 VA 281 D 10 D 6
44 VA 241 D 10 D 6
48 VA 281 D 10 D 6
50 VA 254 D 10 D 6

The élan of the unit
Here is where we have a great opportunity for adjusting the values of various units. For the Confederate side, I have no read of any especially heroic or less-than-heroic acts by the units involved. I do know that the losses reported by the units involved were generally large. The First Maryland Battalion reported a 47% loss of men at Gettysburg. Some of these losses surely occurred on July 3rd but we can be safe in saying that the battalion participated in some pretty rough action. While I don't think that we can make a blanket statement that high losses indicates a stellar performance - we may be able to say that is certainly does not indicate a lack of willingness to engage the enemy.

So, for the Confederates, I’d be inclined just to leave the base ratings as they are. When we get to talking about the Union forces, we have some interesting conditions to consider. The 137th NY Volunteer Infantry seemingly performed very admirably, nearly in the same vein as the 20th Maine on the opposite end of the Union line. While the actions of the 137th NY are not as flamboyant as those of the 20th Maine, there is no doubt that their actions contributed heavily to saving this flank of the Union army. I am sure that we should consider upgrading their ratings to reflect this.

Also, several of Wadsworth’s units had been mauled on July 1st but still had a high fighting spirit. For example, the 7th Wisconsin began the great battle with 364 men and reported 48.9% losses during the three days. Let’s assume that most of those losses occurred on July 1st and theorize that the regiment has about 200 men available on July 2nd, purely hypothetical. This would, using our base rating system, give this regiment a Combat rating of “D8” and a Defense rating of “D4”. This is down considerably from a July 1st rating of “D10” and “D8” respectively. Given the reported “fight” that remained in the unit, maybe we should adjust the July 2nd rating back to a “D8” defense die. The quality and élan of the unit remains although they have fewer muskets.

Leadership at the regimental level is often a cause for these adjustments. Was the 20th Maine made up of men that were more superior to the men in other Union regiments? Unlikely. The unique combination of events, timing, and immediate leadership converged to create a superior result!

Lastly, we could always adjust the ratings for a unit that could be considered "elite" or "green". But, I think the performance of the unit on the field overrule this factor. How many green units stood and fought because they did not know when it was time to skedaddle? How many veteran units retired because they knew they could not win and the loss of life would be without gain? Our gaming notions of green and elite are not always aligned with events.

So, we should allow the history of a unit to modify the combat and defense ratings upwards or downwards as appropriate for a given scenario.

What If

Taken together, this provides us with good ground for “what if” variations on scenarios. What if the 1st Minnesota was a really crappy regiment on July 2nd? What if the 20th Maine was led by a less able man?

This is a whole different angle than “what if Hood had gone around the right” on July 2nd.


Next

Next up, we’ll talk about Leadership ratings. My inclination is to lower overall Leadership to reflect the confusion of nightfall. This would result in a little less movement segments and more difficult rally actions. The trick is not to lower Leadership too much; the terrain will do some of that for us. Also, the Sequence Deck will be a great tool for modeling the Leadership difficulties.

I really enjoy the Field of Battle system, it gives us so many levers and switches we can pull to adjust circumstances!