Le Petit Guerre

[elxaime]

I have a question about the petit guerre in the SYW. I understand the term and what it means historically. But I am wondering what this means in game terms. Does it mean the light units and hussars moving behind enemy lines to alter the military control of areas along their lines of supply? Raiding depots sounds good, but the depots are usually garrisoned so it would seem to take a larger force than a raid. Cities also tend to have garrisons.

I am just curious as to how good players would simulate le petit guerre in this game? It is fun to get the freikorps and other light units, but I am not sure how best to use them other than reconnaissance (which is very useful and necessary).

Thoughts? In particular I am wondering how the Hapsburgs would proceed, since historically they seem to have been masters at it with their Croats and Hussars and the other nations adjusted to them. And of course the Russians have their Cossacks.

[loki100]

I use the bulk of the light cavarlry for relentless scouting. As the Austrians, one big threat is the relative speed and mobility of the Prussians, so the more you know of their moves the easier it is to anticipiate.

Beyond that, you can ensure they move nothing behind their lines without an escort and snip away at their supply lines by taking military control - you can do this to the point of abuse so in our current PBEM we have a house rule limiting this to forces with a leader, but it really hurts them over time.

The light infantry, get into your infantry brigades for the -1 hit chance.

The Cossacks can last 3 turns out of supply with no adverse impact so can run around Berlin et al (at least till snow limits their range).

[Ebbingford]

I always play with a house rule of NO light infantry brigaded with line infantry. That would be Napoleonic organisation. Light infantry should be used independently as they were historically, to put them in brigades with other infantry just seems wrong for the era.

[elxaime]

Thanks - this is quite interesting!

In the PBEM I have had so far, neither of us had really used either of these two tactics, raiding the rear to change military control and/or putting a single light infantry unit in each regular infantry brigade to improve that units' performance in battle.

On the raiding to change control issue, is it the problem that the raiding units can't be brought to battle? Or is it only because the numbers of troops needed to secure the rear areas becomes ahistorical? Why is it a problem that requires a house rule?

On the light infantry brigading with regular infantry, I thought by the Seven Years War that this was becoming a more common practice. Why is it ahistorical?

Is there a consensus on house rules like these? Has someone compiled a more or less "approved" set of house rules so that you can play most historically?

[Baris]

Light infantry can maybe used for "commando operations" with different organization in 7 years wars in America(?) but I'm not sure about the war in Europe.And how far should the skirmishers be detached for house rules?

[Ebbingford]

See Savory "His Britannic Majesty's Army in Germany During the Seven Years War" for details on light troops and their uses.
They were mainly used for raiding and reconnaissance in detached commands. Use them in woods, forests, hills, mountain terrain etc.
If you brigade them with line infantry then you are simulating the idea of skirmishers in front of the line, as in Napoleonic warfare, hence the initiative bonus.

[loki100]

Thanks - this is quite interesting!

In the PBEM I have had so far, neither of us had really used either of these two tactics, raiding the rear to change military control and/or putting a single light infantry unit in each regular infantry brigade to improve that units' performance in battle.

On the raiding to change control issue, is it the problem that the raiding units can't be brought to battle? Or is it only because the numbers of troops needed to secure the rear areas becomes ahistorical? Why is it a problem that requires a house rule?

On the light infantry brigading with regular infantry, I thought by the Seven Years War that this was becoming a more common practice. Why is it ahistorical?

Is there a consensus on house rules like these? Has someone compiled a more or less "approved" set of house rules so that you can play most historically?

House rules, afaik are a matter of taste, usually to remove things that a particular set of gamers find a bit overpowered. I've an AAR on the go (on the Paradox forums) and the first post has the rules we've come up with over a few attempts. They are minimal but help us.

The Hussar/Cossack MC game works as: put them in attack stance/retreat on contact. They take MC if unchallenged and esp with the Cossacks are likely to evade almost any atttempt to intervene. The problem is the Austrian player has so many that by 1758 you can reduce Prussia to swiss cheese (to mix up nations) with this. So what we've decided is a good balance is to use the 1 unit squadrons for recon (evade/evade) and you need a leader (the Russians can form 4 cosscak 'corps', the French have a couple of suitable leaders & so do the Austrians) to take MC. You can still do a lot of damage but the Prussian player has some chance to intervene and repair the impact.

as to light infantry in the brigades. I'll accept the views of anyone who really understands battle tactics in the period, but in my understanding, the Prussians raised light infantry as at Lobositz they found the Austrian Croat battalions a major problem - so they were in the battle line somehow.

So our house rules impose things we believe should be in the game anyway (like bateaux passing under fort guns undamaged), and a few small balancing things were we've found one of us has hit on a tactic that just seems too powerful to be realistic.

[elxaime]

Thanks.

On the military control issue, I assume that even if the Cossack is not engaged if you put a Prussian hussar unit in the area it will also affect MC. So is the solution just to put your own light unit in the same area, also set to offense and retreat on contact? They would not end up fighting each other very much, if at all, but they would counterbalance out the effects of the other. Hence, if a Cossack moves into a Prussian area, you move a Prussian hussar or Freikorps there and it nullifies what the Cossack is trying to do. Is that the way it works?

[loki100]

Thanks.

On the military control issue, I assume that even if the Cossack is not engaged if you put a Prussian hussar unit in the area it will also affect MC. So is the solution just to put your own light unit in the same area, also set to offense and retreat on contact? They would not end up fighting each other very much, if at all, but they would counterbalance out the effects of the other. Hence, if a Cossack moves into a Prussian area, you move a Prussian hussar or Freikorps there and it nullifies what the Cossack is trying to do. Is that the way it works?

basically yes, if MC gain is contested it either won't happen or will slow down. Equally once the Cossacks have gone away, you can take it back fairly easily. The problem is relative numbers. The Austrians have about 8 Hussar style squadrons, the Russians around 20 cossacks, the French 4-5 (not utterly sure but that gives you some idea). The Prussians have 2-3 and very few replacements if they start to take losses. So you can't match it off 1:1 and you may want to put your Hussars into the rear of the Austrian army to scout and see if there any easy targets floating around. So its a rather asymetric part of the game. But a lot of Austrian players will have most of the key routes between the main fronts permanently scouted, which takes away the advantage of surprise if you try to shift and concentrate your armies.

[elxaime]

basically yes, if MC gain is contested it either won't happen or will slow down. Equally once the Cossacks have gone away, you can take it back fairly easily. The problem is relative numbers. The Austrians have about 8 Hussar style squadrons, the Russians around 20 cossacks, the French 4-5 (not utterly sure but that gives you some idea). The Prussians have 2-3 and very few replacements if they start to take losses. So you can't match it off 1:1 and you may want to put your Hussars into the rear of the Austrian army to scout and see if there any easy targets floating around. So its a rather asymetric part of the game. But a lot of Austrian players will have most of the key routes between the main fronts permanently scouted, which takes away the advantage of surprise if you try to shift and concentrate your armies.

I wonder if there is a solution whereby the military control of an area that is strongly loyal to one side or another could be tweaked to shift more slowly. I would assume that, aside from their regular military forces, each side has constabulary and local forces that can defend their own locales, if nothing more. I assume this is why you require a military unit to shift control in the first place. Some of these regions are rather large and well-populated and it is unlikely 400 Cossacks alone could dominate them.

[Baris]

I wonder if there is a solution whereby the military control of an area that is strongly loyal to one side or another could be tweaked to shift more slowly. I would assume that, aside from their regular military forces, each side has constabulary and local forces that can defend their own locales, if nothing more. I assume this is why you require a military unit to shift control in the first place. Some of these regions are rather large and well-populated and it is unlikely 400 Cossacks alone could dominate them.

AFAIK There is no MC shift when there are forts nearby or loyalty as a factor. You have to move units to gain MC again. Cossacks should have historical area limitation where they can have 0 cohesion outside theatre.

[Searry]

I managed to capture the Brunswick depot with 15k cossacks. Too bad the general didn't have the depot destroying trait(**).

[elxaime]

Cossacks should have historical area limitation where they can have 0 cohesion outside theatre.

It sounds like the SYW Cossacks have a similar issue like the Texas Rangers (and other CSA cavalry) in AGEOD's American Civil War. In ACW you typically have Texas Rangers riding all over the north even as far as Chicago blowing up railroads and no one can catch them since the early war Union cavalry is both expensive and inexperienced. Eventually, the northern RR system grinds to a halt.

I know it is very tough to model raiding forces in a game of this scale.

[Baris]

It sounds like the SYW Cossacks have a similar issue like the Texas Rangers (and other CSA cavalry) in AGEOD's American Civil War. In ACW you typically have Texas Rangers riding all over the north even as far as Chicago blowing up railroads and no one can catch them since the early war Union cavalry is both expensive and inexperienced. Eventually, the northern RR system grinds to a halt.

I know it is very tough to model raiding forces in a game of this scale.

Yes it seems they have similar issue, but AFAIK engine can simulate 0 cohesion outside theatre to at least slow their movement and give penalty when fighting rival raider cavalry.

[Narwhal]

Bosting the "detect land" value of hussars to above the hide value of cossacks and other light cav +3 would mean that except in poor weather and difficult terrains, light cavalry could always be spotted and intercepted, making a deep raid a dangerous venture.

[goodpoints]

I have a question about the petit guerre in the SYW. I understand the term and what it means historically. But I am wondering what this means in game terms. Does it mean the light units and hussars moving behind enemy lines to alter the military control of areas along their lines of supply? Raiding depots sounds good, but the depots are usually garrisoned so it would seem to take a larger force than a raid. Cities also tend to have garrisons.

I am just curious as to how good players would simulate le petit guerre in this game? It is fun to get the freikorps and other light units, but I am not sure how best to use them other than reconnaissance (which is very useful and necessary).

Thoughts? In particular I am wondering how the Hapsburgs would proceed, since historically they seem to have been masters at it with their Croats and Hussars and the other nations adjusted to them. And of course the Russians have their Cossacks.

I've been using irregulars similarily to how I play the French in WIA French & Indian War, setting RoE to assault + probe or cautious and evade combat and hitting supply sources. Seems to have less impact in RoP than WIA where the French can completely decimate the Iroquois in the first 2 years by razing all the settlements with Indians/Coureurs, especially as the RoP AI seems to highly prefer building camps over depots. Unfortunately, the Ageod logistics system is just far too abstracted/permissive/painless and the "irregular" units far too regular to adequately simulate the petite guerre/kleiner krieg of the 7YW and interdiction in general. The extreme durability and permanence of the resources and infrastructure of regions fails to impart on the players anything analogous to the widespread and long-term economic devastation that totally ravaged central Europe and exhausted and virtually bankrupted most of the involved states for years afterward.

Ok, light calvary (but not light infantry...) can block supply throughput in a region, maybe they'll pillage it. So what? Just kick them out and the wagons keep on rolling and wait a few turns for the crops to regrow. Ideally, the game could have used some similar mechanics as the superb 7YW boardgame Clash of Monarchs where regions (roughly the same as RoP's Political States) have varying finite resource capacities which accumulate permanent damage from forage/supply raiding that will gradually negate the region's contributing logistical/economic resources and reduce the entire nation's capacity to recruit, replenish and sustain forces for the rest of the war as well as significantly increasing attrition in those regions. The one logistical aspect I think RoP does really well is the lack of automatic garrisons that seemed to have become the norm in later games. This makes you really feel the expense of maintaining secure supply lines in hostile territory and so wonderfully tempts one to put their manpower into frontline units instead and risk disaster. Or at least I like to pretend it's that crucial since, as you point out, raiders have to actually eject the entire garrison out of a depot to actually burn/loot the supply since the wagon trains apparently fly from region to region. RoP actually has so much missed potential to include some real interdiction due to it's smaller map scale (versus the enormous regions of Napoleon's Campaigns that turns the grand maneuvers of 1813 into the Whack-a-Mole of Nations), and yet the bridges are fireproof.

I really hope RoP is eventually revisited (I'm very glad that it was updated with Austrian Succession scenarios), and at the least includes some of the later improvements to the system, particularly those in RuS where sabotaged railways literally stop armies in their tracks and supply sources are so spread out and depot building so costly that blocked supply lines really do hurt.

Or perhaps I am alone in dreaming of manuals with at least 50% of the contents devoted to logistics.

[JacquesDeLalaing]

Hey, goodpoints. We seem to think along similar lines. Supply and, connected to it, Small War is something that RoP does not handle particularly well, partly because of the big scale chosen for the game (both in terms of quantity and turn intervalls). Plus it seems that the importance of Small War is often forgotten or rather overshadowed by big battles and old Fritzs (who was not old at that time) genius when people think about the Seven Years war.

You might be interested in some topics on that issue that I've set up when I was trying to mod the AWS-scenarios in a way to make small war and detachment warfare count.
http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?29503-Light-troops-and-petite-guerre-discuss!
http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?35358-Silesia-Inrupta-work-in-progress-mod&p=313128&viewfull=1#post313128

Unfortunately, I've run into a few issues on which I'd need more information before I can continue - especially more information about the workings of supply (e.g. IF there actually is supply generated in the regions in RoP? I ran lots of tests, but it was impossible for me to come up with clear/consistent results), how evasion works, and I still had that odd spawning-issue in siege-resolutions (I've made sieges less random by letting siege-units spawn siege-"items" - first/second/third circumvallations). Unfortunately the devs are not very active on the more complicated questions in the modding-board (which is understandable though).