General de Brigade

[erwin73]

Dear colleagues, good afternoon!

I the beginner at your forum. I represent group of colleagues of St.-Petersburg (Russia). About 15 years we with friends played by rules of Bruce Quarrie "Napoleonic Wargames in miniatures". However, recently, there was a desire more to be engaged in game, instead of historical reconstruction.
Therefore at me to you 2 questions:
1. Historically so has developed that we collected our armies in scale 1:40. To pass to other scale of groups for us it is a little inconvenient. It is how much correct to use tables of losses of rules "Die Kreigkunst" in rules "General de Brigade"?
2. At modelling of some game moments have faced following "discrepancy". 2 battalions on 20 figures put smaller or higher quantity of losses, than a battalion in 40 figures. On a habit searched for linear dependence, but.... Probably somebody from you will help us to understand with this question.

Thankful in advance.

P.S. Excuse me for my bad English. It, nevertheless, not my native language.

[Louie N]

http://generaldebrigade.greatboard.com/viewtopic.php?t=3619

I asked a similar question and got some good reponses. The roster idea allows for great fexibilty.

[erwin73]

[baxterj]

Erwin, if I understand your question correctly, you want to know why 2 x 20 figure units are disadvantaged compared to 1 x 40 unit? I think that this is a matter of trying to show that a 10% loss on a small unit may be the same in percentage terms as a 10% loss on a bigger unit, but the fact is that smaller units will lose cohesion faster than a bigger one if they both take the same number of raw losses in terms of men getting hit, leaving the ranks etc. If my 40 figure unit loses 8 men/40 it has lost 20% - a pretty sizeable loss. But my 20 figure unit losing 8/20 has lost 40%, with the accompanying loss of cohesion, officers etc. At 40% casualties, most normal units will become ineffective.

However smaller units allow more tactical flexibility.

John

[Digger]

Good evening!
The question of colleague Ervina has been caused by that сооброжением, that at Bruce precise linear dependence between quantity shooting and наносимыми them losses (that is 2 groups on 20 figures are equal to 1 group from 40 figures) is traced. In GdB such dependence it is not traced, as has caused in us weight of disputes.

P.s. I am sorry for my English

[erwin73]

2John

Absolutely correct understanding of a question. Thanks big for the answer. I similar also represented something, however have decided to take an interest at more advanced, in this game system, colleagues.

[wurtemberg]

Excuse me, some misunderstanding takes place.

2 battalions (20 figures each) cause smaller (considerably smaller!) or greater losses, than one battalion of 40 figures.

For example, as a result "7-8" (in the "Musketry casualty table") a battalion from 20 figures kills 1 figure of the opponent; accordingly, two battalions of 20 shooting figures each in a sum will give 2 killed figures. One battalion from 40 figures in the same conditions kills 4 figures, i.e. in 2 times more!

Another example. At a result 17-18 points two battalions for a 20 shooting figures will put to death 6+6=12 figures; at the same conditions for 40 figures have 9 killed, i.e. difference in 1,5 times.

I don't understand such mathematics.


If it interests somebody, original discussion of this question in Russian language here:
http://www.fieldofbattle.ru/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=150017#150017

[captain chook]

For smaller units firing see link:
http://generaldebrigade.greatboard.com/viewtopic.php?t=3176

[wurtemberg]