Hi David
I'm thinking of writing some scenarios.
Re orbats.
Seems easy to work out batteries of artillery and infantry battalions - you seen to just transfer them across one for one from your source/s.
But you seem to makes a more complex decision re cavalry. So in your Borodino scenario you didn't transfer, say, Russian hussar squadron s across one for one rather you seem to have halved them 10 to 5 sqds.
I know that squadrons are actually squadron groups in the game. In the rules there is a pretty large leeway given 150 to 259 men from memory.
Is there a set 'ideal' number you use?
And do you apply any criteria to defining terrain? In most wargame s a five is a river but you vary the impact of all your terrain pieces.
Thanks in advance
Steve Nutt
But you seem to makes a more complex decision re cavalry. So in your Borodino scenario you didn't transfer, say, Russian hussar squadron s across one for one rather you seem to have halved them 10 to 5 sqds.
I know that squadrons are actually squadron groups in the game. In the rules there is a pretty large leeway given 150 to 259 men from memory.
Is there a set 'ideal' number you use?
Not exactly, when we  design the scenarios for our ESR Campaign Guides, you'll notice that most of the time you're around ~200 horsemen per squadron group (i.e. sitting in the middle area between that 150-250 range), but there are certainly circumstances  where we use 150 or use 250 in order to allow something to be represented on the table, or in order to reduce the size of something that might otherwise be overwhelming when it historically was not.
And do you apply any criteria to defining terrain? In most wargame s a five is a river but you vary the impact of all your terrain pieces.
This question I don't think I understand so you may need to clarify.
Terrain in ESR can be difficult to grasp because it plays a very important but very subtle role.
The really short answer is: Not all rivers are created equal. Does the river have high banks? Is it deep or just wide? etc… Some rivers are substantial, some are not, so when evaluating a terrain piece for a historical engagement we try to determine: 1) Was it a large impediment during the battle? and 2) How does that impediment translate to ESR's scope & scale? Sure, crossing X obstacle slowed troops down, but did it take them more than 20 minutes to get across? If not, it shouldn't be dense terrain, because dense terrain will take more than 20 minutes to get across.
In Spain at the Battle of Espinosa de los Monteros, Blake sets up on a ridge line that has an excellent defensive portion, allowing his troops to hold against a series of piecemeal attacks. The same troops were not able to perform similar feats on more open ground in other engagements, so in the original/current release of Iberia-1: To Assure My Dynasty, we attribute a notable portion of this to the ground and assign it value to bolster Blake's command's staying power. But this is not the only way to address this.
Owing to more research and better maps, you will see in the revised edition of Iberia-1 that we are currently working to release, we have 'zoomed out' from the point of contact to show more of the battlefield, we still determined that some of the elevations are considered Strong Points, but the issue of where the French attacked on each day of the battle – i.e. why did they charge into the Strong Point of the position on the first day vs on the second day when more troops were available take a different, and more successful tactic – becomes more clear.
Does this help?
-David
Yep thanksÂ
