Some Ideas About
“The Meat Grinder Revisited”

by Kevin Xu, Kevin Zucker, John Devereaux, Mark Merritt, Eugene Rodek, & Christopher Moeller

There is no way of winning a battle by counting losses on the battlefield. The key to land combat is maneuver, not mass casualties. Yes, the strength of units will degrade during battle. But this happens to both sides equally. Napoleon himself said, "retreats always cost more men and materiel than the most bloody engagements; with this difference, that in a battle the enemy’s loss is nearly equal to your own—whereas in a retreat the loss is on your side only." The disparity in losses only occurs during the Pursuit.

KX: First of all, regarding the loss model in the article. After we conducted a simulation of The Battle for Dresden 1813 published by NES, we believe that, in terms of gameplay, tracking the loss of each SP indeed adds a great deal of operational workload for both sides, which prolongs the duration of the game. However, we think that this does make the battlefield situation more reasonable. Taking the “Day of Battle” scenario of Talavera as an example (one of my favorite scenarios in TLNB): If the French can activate Victor in the first turn, then British cavalry (Cav) and half the troops of the First Division might be directly caught in the zone of control and thus get eliminated (i.e., if Hill’s stack suffers a DR).

Similarly, in many cases, if we stack an entire division together, it is very likely that the entire division will be wiped out in one hour. I understand that in the game rules this is not considered a total casualty and the division can be reorganized later. But the situation presented in the game is that a division is lost within one hour, which would be an unaffordable cost for both the attacking side and the defending side. Is this due to an excessively high killing efficiency caused by the zone of control?

Second, another reason I approve of tracking the loss of each SP is that this method can combine the loss of units with the degree of fatigue. The gradual loss can be understood as both the loss of personnel and the decline in the combat ability of units as the fatigue level rises. I'm always thinking about how TLNB reflects the fatigue level of units in combat. Taking the "Approach to Battle" in Wagram as an example, the units of both sides fought from 4am to 8pm. During this period, shouldn’t the units have taken a rest instead of constantly moving and attacking?

Third, the conclusion of the article emphasizes maneuver in a major battle. After we played the “Napoleon's Retreat” and “Piedmont's Campaign” scenarios in TLNB, we found (it might be a problem with our way of thinking) that once the units of both sides engaged each other, they would keep fighting until they were either forced to disengage from the enemy zone of control at night or until one side was eliminated. We have no reason to abandon the several brigades stuck in the EZOC, and as a result, the entire army would be dragged into the battle there. In comparison, I think the 1X2X5X system can better demonstrate maneuvering. At the scale of TLNB, the impact of zones of control on maneuvering is so significant that only the units that have not participated in battle are likely to carry out any maneuvers after the two sides engage.

The above are some of my thoughts and questions after reading the article. I sincerely hope to get your answers. Thank you!

KZ: Nice thoughtful writing. Thanks for sending it. You picked the most extreme case to buttress your argument. But this same extreme loss could happen in any system. If you have a big stack without supports on either side, normally that situation didn't develop in one hour. That would be the end-phase of a larger battle situation. So you haven't dug very deep yet. Please keep playing and thinking! 

My question for you: How often have you suffered the entire elimination of a big stack such as depicted above? A player will continue to suffer losses like that until he learns to cover his flanks. In an incremental system, OTOH, there would be no consequences for this failure to use proper tactics. 

You talk about “high killing efficiency.” This is the meatgrinder mentality. There is usually no difference, with the 1777 Charleville musket or the equivalent in the other armies. Attrition from infantry fire is hardly more than an annoyance. This is hyped-up in wargames of an “attritional” nature beyond all recognition. Most casualties were caused by artillery. The big stack, then, is not wiped out, everybody doesn’t die, but those units become ineffective, and therefore invisible to this game system. This has been explained in “The Closed Watch Case,” Wargame Design Vol. III, Nr. 5. (https://napoleongames.com/blogs/wargame-design-magazine/vol-3-nr-5)

ER: Regarding the Talavera set-up, there is this subtle rule — 25.22 Hex Numbers: “The second player may adjust any one friendly unit by one hex prior to the first player turn (not in an EZOC).” Since the situation depicted above is a first-turn set-up, the British Player would have the option to “adjust” one unit from Payne’s stack into the adjacent hex 0618.

JD: One of the things that many players forget is that time is relative in gaming terms. Just because a unit marches to the sound of battle during a turn does not mean it didn’t take a 10-minute rest break on the way there. Also, ZOCs simulate a unit’s influence on an adjacent area. This may mean that the ZOC has some of that unit physically in it, but this is not depicted on the map as such. The ZOC simulates multiple-hex occupation, in a way. 

One can always add complexity to simulate reality. The current system, I believe, was built for playability and possibilities for realistic results. This is a major selling point of the system. For many scenarios in the system, you can set the game up, play the game alone or with a friend in one night, enjoy the competition and learn some history. The enjoyment for me with this system is that I do not have to do any bookkeeping. 

Of course, anyone is welcome to add whatever complexities to the system they want to, as they do own the game. Our gaming group, for instance, actually enjoys the simplicity of the system as is over adding to the complexity. 

MM: I can’t say that TLNB offers a ‘better’ combat model over incremental losses, but I think it models tactics at the operational level in a way that incremental-loss games just can’t. And to me, that is because of the scope of the games. There is just so much more of a playground to conduct operations on. In incremental-loss games, La Bataille in particular, you usually just see 100–115 meters per hex. Not nearly as much maneuver room, even with a big four-mapper. Now, I love LaBat. It’s a great system. But TLNB is a better game for our group (which includes John) because we can game so many campaigns and not spend weeks relearning the rules. I find myself planning strategy in TLNB more than looking up rules in LaBat. And that’s great for team play. But each game model does have its place.

The TNLB system lets you develop where the battles will take place. Now, Kevin puts the Victory Points on places that the historic commanders aimed for, so he does drive the campaigns towards the historic locales but there are usually many roads to those places and that’s where your decisions matter. To me, that’s the best part of the game. John hit the nail on the head in that the mechanics of the game are easy to grasp, but the strategy to win each one is fun as hell to puzzle out.

And at the end of the game, I’m just about always amazed at how realistic the outcome turns out. It may not be my side that won, but I can sure understand how the other side did it. And it doesn’t take a month of Mondays to play it out.

ER: TLNB is an attempt to simulate Napoleonic battles on a grand-tactical level. It is based on a long and well-established system that follows a modernized IGO-UGO method, with the focus on creating some realism for the battles without adding too much complexity or chrome, plus players are enabled to explore a battle typically in an afternoon. The evolution of the system has added a number of features, but the core of the system is generally the same.

As with any simulation, there are various approaches modeled that attempt to portray elements of combat at this scale. The specific concerns expressed here are on a couple of the mechanics (reduced combat unit vs incremental, engagement of units). Any of these points can be cited as reasonable criticisms of this system, just as a specific mechanism in any system can be criticized as being non-representative of the actual conditions occurring on the field. In the end, the designer has chosen these mechanics as the best way to simulate Napoleonic battles on this level. Is it better at that simulation than other games? IDK. What are the criteria to make that judgment? One could play the same battle 100 times using different systems and do a statistical analysis to see which system came closest to the historical outcome, if that is what one is trying to achieve.

I take the bird's eye view. (Or perhaps the 600 ft hot air balloon view!) Does this simulation achieve a reasonable outcome for a particular battle and did I have fun in playing it? For me, the answer is yes. The long, long history of this system has served it well and continues to do so. Having a library of games that have the same basic rule set, that covers most of the Napoleonic wars is quite an accomplishment.

Wellesley got involved in too many duties to supervise the proper deployment of the British troops. He became embroiled with positioning the Spanish troops near Talavera, and in dealing with the surprise attack on Mackenzie’s Division at the Casa de Salinas, and could not supervise the disposition of the British regiments along the Portina Brook line.

KZ: In the diagram of the game set-up (see map at top), there is no friendly unit protecting the flank of Payne’s stack. Possibly we failed to depict the situation accurately in the printed set-up. I would recommend moving Anson over to 0618. Also, Alburquerque (Bdes Rivera and Pineda) might be moved to 0820.

The only question in my mind is whether the loss of the entire stack is too extreme, and should there be some amelioration? This could be a variation on Card No. 27, "Secure Flanks." Simply by removing the phrase, "which just advanced after combat during this Combat Phase," and allowing part of the stack— say one or two units—to move directly from one EZOC to another.

In addition, the "Forced March" card No. 28, as written, could be used to kick one or two units out of the stack and into hex 0618...

CM: I would object to another “get out of jail free” card. There are already several cards that allow you to advance into suicidal positions, thus pinning down multiple enemies, while knowing you hold a card that will let you escape freely.

Personally, I find attritional systems over-literal. That’s not how human nature works… groups are usually fine until something overwhelms them and they break apart. Systems that document each unit’s gradual degradation until that breaking point (perhaps a “miniatures” legacy?) are over complicating things. Especially once you get up above squad level. The key, I think, is to document when those breakpoints are reached. TLNB has plenty of mileposts: suppression, reduction, and demoralization.