lutzen 1632 *obsolete*
Moderators: rbodleyscott, Slitherine Core, Gothic Labs
lutzen 1632 *obsolete*
For those who know my work in FoG, the design language will be familiar; for others, it will be a shock.
the only thing missing is a bsf (?) file which simply sets the turn limit to 20. if somebody can do that for me and attach it here, it would be great.
Extensive designer's notes coming...
Last edited by fogman on Fri Apr 17, 2015 1:02 am, edited 2 times in total.
Re: LUTZEN 1632
Designer's Notes
did you know you get timed out on this forum?
so I just spent two hours writing the designer's notes and what happened? i hit the submit button, was sent to the login screen and just like that everything i had written had disappeared. bs.
did you know you get timed out on this forum?
so I just spent two hours writing the designer's notes and what happened? i hit the submit button, was sent to the login screen and just like that everything i had written had disappeared. bs.
Re: LUTZEN 1632
Those who play FoG will recognize my map overlay technique (using deep water tiles) to delimit distinct areas of action. There are 4 here: left, centre, inner right, outer right. The Protestants attacked simultaneously on all 4 fronts. Bernhard of Weimar led 6 cavalry regiments into the gap between Lutzen and the windmills battery; 4 infantry brigades surged up the middle; the 8 first line cavalry regiments on the right split into two groups, Stalhanske went on a wider flanking march while Gustaphus Adolphus took a more direct route after finding a gap through the ditches.
Last edited by fogman on Sat Mar 21, 2015 5:38 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Re: LUTZEN 1632
Of particular note:
1. all imperial units of the first line are unitsize 700 (not the standard infantry 600), have AP of zero. In addition, the 4 units of the Wadstein and Comargo regiments are given regimental guns to represent the batteries they defend. Actual artillery units are not used in the design.
2. all infantry units in the game are rated superior, except two: the old blue and the yellow brigades which sustained over 60% casualties in the battle (an opposing officer opined that they had 'forgotten how to retreat')
3. this shot represent the opening turn and illustrates another design technique: the cut-to-the-chase setup. The relative position of the Protestant brigades relate to the timing of the coming into contact with the imperial line.
4. the strange orientation of the yellow brigade (AP 4) prevents the player from initiating melee on the first turn (or retreating) and exposed it to the withering fire from the 3 imperial regiments that historically mauled it. As well one of the unit of the Swedish brigade is caught in a pinned position. more on this later.
5. note also that infantry are normally given AP of 6 to half movement, except aforementioned exceptions, and given arquebuses in lieu of muskets to reduce shooting range to 2. In addition, to reduce firepower further, % of firearms are at 60% and 50% for Protestant and Imperial infantry respectively.
6. there is no 'salvo' advantage.
Re: LUTZEN 1632
The typical Protestant cavalry are of two types: the blue flagged ones are impact and melee pistols (except Finnish horse) while the red flagged ones are melee pistols. The Swedish horse of the first line right wing are above average or superior.
Re: LUTZEN 1632
the German horses are average or above average (one notch down from the Swedish horse on the other flank).
Musketeers support for cavalry is dealt with by assigning carbines (100%) to some Protestant units, 5 on the right, and 3 on the left (the other two 'sleeves' are fighting with imperial musketeers in the Lutzen gardens in a peripheral struggle that is not portrayed). The 100% carbine allows them to have fire superiority over Imperial harqubusiers who are only given 50% carbines.
cavalry units are standard unitsize 400.
Re: LUTZEN 1632
Here's the illustration of another design technique: space for timed release of troops (or reinforcements). The farther the unit, the later it got into action in the actual battle. the infamous 'pig pens' add to the distance. Note how ohm's cavalry regiment is penned in. it was the last untouched fresh cavalry unit at the end of the battle as Knyphausen was careful in keeping a proper reserve.
The protestant artillery was delayed and did not support the first wave but was ready when the reserves renewed assault on the imperial centre. again as no artillery unit are used, two brigades (thurn's and mitzlaff's) are assigned support guns.
Re: LUTZEN 1632
a look a the Bernhard's cavalry reserve. same use of space to portray the gradual release of troops to bolster the first wave.
Re: LUTZEN 1632
green flagged units are kuirassiers (impact and melee pistols, above average or superior) while red flagged are harqubusiers (melee pistols, above average, 50% carbines only so that the imperial cavalry is handicapped in terms of firepower by the Protestant use of commanded shots)
Re: LUTZEN 1632
troopers from Piccolomini and Gotz regiments killed Gustavus Adolphus.
Piccolomini's regiment is composed of 2 counters, one harquebusier, one kuirassier, both superior. It was technically an harquebusier regiment but was said to be very well armoured.
Re: LUTZEN 1632
note that the imperial croat cavalry screen was quickly pushed off and played no part in the fighting, except for a flanking move on the protestant far right (off map). 3 protestant regiments that were sent to counter them are also not portrayed.
Re: LUTZEN 1632
a word on map overlays and 'events-based' design language from a discussion in FoG.
"in short accessory units and map overlays are useful tools to increase the historical behaviour of the games. in fact since my scenario design is events-based, they are essential. the term 'events-based' means that the design forces players into certain patterns of behaviour that would recreate some actual events of the battle. for example in cannae, the design forces the roman player forward and inward. if you merely line up the two armies without accessory units and map overlays, the roman player will do something different, and what we'll have is not cannae but a mere DaG game with an imposed order of battle and map. this is the traditional way of doing a scenario and i think it's a failure from a historical point of view. i believe that ancient and medieval battles, because of the limited command and control, can only unfold in a certain way once the troops are lined up. In DaG games, especially with double moves and light troops, players can have their army behave like 20th century mechanized units. you can in fact move your right to your left, your left to your right and all sorts of impossible maneuvers before you come into contact. in reality no general would change their disposition in the presence of the enemy because panic and disorganization would quickly set in. fighting was highly compartmentalized which is where the impassible terrain comes in, to prevent players from shifting forces around from one end to the other like german panzer 'fire brigades' on the eastern front.
you may also have noticed i do not use light troops (and almost never independent mf archer units). again, experienced players know how to use them as commando and in other perfidious roles in such a way that they may as well be endowed with truly superhuman tactical awareness, initiative and daring."
"in short accessory units and map overlays are useful tools to increase the historical behaviour of the games. in fact since my scenario design is events-based, they are essential. the term 'events-based' means that the design forces players into certain patterns of behaviour that would recreate some actual events of the battle. for example in cannae, the design forces the roman player forward and inward. if you merely line up the two armies without accessory units and map overlays, the roman player will do something different, and what we'll have is not cannae but a mere DaG game with an imposed order of battle and map. this is the traditional way of doing a scenario and i think it's a failure from a historical point of view. i believe that ancient and medieval battles, because of the limited command and control, can only unfold in a certain way once the troops are lined up. In DaG games, especially with double moves and light troops, players can have their army behave like 20th century mechanized units. you can in fact move your right to your left, your left to your right and all sorts of impossible maneuvers before you come into contact. in reality no general would change their disposition in the presence of the enemy because panic and disorganization would quickly set in. fighting was highly compartmentalized which is where the impassible terrain comes in, to prevent players from shifting forces around from one end to the other like german panzer 'fire brigades' on the eastern front.
you may also have noticed i do not use light troops (and almost never independent mf archer units). again, experienced players know how to use them as commando and in other perfidious roles in such a way that they may as well be endowed with truly superhuman tactical awareness, initiative and daring."
Re: LUTZEN 1632
last test play result (single player)
The end of the 17th turn. Nightfall.
on the imperial right, the huge cavalry fight has shattered the Protestant assault but the imperial cavalry has been as badly mauled. in the centre, the protestant reserves have gained a foot hold on the imperial defensive line. the ditch battery has been taken but the windmills battery still hangs on, barely. on the imperial left, gustavus adolphus, with the help of reserves has mastery of the field. not dying helps. To the imperial rear, Pappenheim has stopped Stalhandske but at a steep price. the most important thing is that there is a frontline even at the end of the battle and not units all over the map. this is where map overlays and the absence of light troops actual representation are really crucial. It also helps the computer tremendously as it can put up a very good fight.
The end of the 17th turn. Nightfall.
on the imperial right, the huge cavalry fight has shattered the Protestant assault but the imperial cavalry has been as badly mauled. in the centre, the protestant reserves have gained a foot hold on the imperial defensive line. the ditch battery has been taken but the windmills battery still hangs on, barely. on the imperial left, gustavus adolphus, with the help of reserves has mastery of the field. not dying helps. To the imperial rear, Pappenheim has stopped Stalhandske but at a steep price. the most important thing is that there is a frontline even at the end of the battle and not units all over the map. this is where map overlays and the absence of light troops actual representation are really crucial. It also helps the computer tremendously as it can put up a very good fight.
Last edited by fogman on Sat Mar 21, 2015 9:20 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Re: LUTZEN 1632
All and all, the battle turned out very historically or plausibly.
Losses in dead and wounded at Lutzen have been estimated to be about 5000 for Protestants and less for Imperials. The results from the game are very accurate in that regard.
Losses in dead and wounded at Lutzen have been estimated to be about 5000 for Protestants and less for Imperials. The results from the game are very accurate in that regard.
Re: LUTZEN 1632
obsolete
Last edited by fogman on Thu Jul 09, 2015 10:44 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Re: LUTZEN 1632
Any chance of listing with the LST file and CRP fold so TSB it can e used on the iPad?
Re: LUTZEN 1632
since it is not part of the official list, no.bk917 wrote:Any chance of listing with the LST file and CRP fold so TSB it can e used on the iPad?
too grognard.
Re: LUTZEN 1632
No scripting of AI?
Re: LUTZEN 1632
unnecessary. everything stays low tech. overlays are enough to corral the AI units into historical positions.jomni wrote:No scripting of AI?