【讨论】TLNB的伤亡模型真的优于优于渐进式伤亡的模型吗？——附Talavera调整后初设图

同一年代

之前的搬运贴将OSG的某篇博客翻译了一下，然后我将一些个人疑问汇总发给了KZ，得到回复后原以为就结束了。今早起床发现KZ来信，他们就我的邮件进行了一个更加细致的回复以及扩展讨论，遂决定将新博客继续翻译供各位国内TLNB爱好者继续讨论！

本文翻译已经获得KZ准许，后续原文会发在 Napoleongames.com
感谢来自南昌的Serein Ⅲ和我推演塔拉韦拉DOB时发现的问题，才有了后续关于该剧本初设的讨论。

Some ideas about “The Meat Grinder Revisited”
Kevin Xu, with commentary by Kevin Zucker, John Devereaux, Mark Merritt, Eugene Rodek and Christopher Moeller

（我的原文 英文水平一般 轻喷）：
I've recently read the article “The Meat Grinder Revisited—Why TLNB Rules as written provide a better combat model than tracking incremental losses” and found it extremely rewarding. Drawing on our previous experience of TLNB, I've come across some quite interesting aspects that I'd like to discuss with you. Thank you very much in advance for sharing your valuable insights!
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 operation workload for both sides, which prolongs the duration of the game. However, we think that this makes 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 the half of the troops of the First Division（If Hill’s stack suffers DR) might be directly caught in the Zone of Control and thus be eliminated.

Similarly, in many cases, if we stack an entire division together, it is very likely that an 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 is an unaffordable cost for both the attacking side and the defending side. Is this due to the excessively high killing efficiency caused by the Zone of Control?
Second, another reason why I approve of the way of tracking the loss of each SP is that this method can combine the loss of units and the degree of fatigue and express them as SP. 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've always been 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 4 am to 8 pm. During this period, should the units take a rest instead of constantly moving and attacking?
Third, the conclusion of the article emphasizes the maneuvering 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 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 the Zone of Control on maneuvering is so significant that only the units that have not participated in the battle are likely to carry out some 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!

Kevin Zucker：
Nice thoughtful writing. Thanks for sending it. You picked the most extreme case to buttress your argument. But the 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 is 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? Shouldn't a player continue to suffer losses like that until you learn to cover your flanks? In an incremental system, OTOH, there would be no consequences for his 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/ ... magazine/vol-3-nr-5
不错的思考，感谢你的来信。你选择了最极端的案例来支撑你的论点。但同样的极端损失也可能发生在任何系统中。如果你有一个大堆叠而没有两侧的支援，通常这种情况不会在一小时内形成。那是一场更大规模战斗的结束阶段。所以你还没有深入挖掘。请继续玩下去并思考！
我的问题是：
上述图示那种大型堆叠被完全消灭的情况，你经历过多少次？难道不应该让玩家继续承受这样的损失，直到学会保护侧翼吗？在另一方面，渐进式伤亡模型中，玩家未能使用正确战术就不会产生任何后果。
您谈论所谓的"高杀伤效率"。这正是绞肉机式思维。无论是1777年款的沙勒维尔步枪还是其他军队的同类武器，通常都没有本质区别。步兵火力的消耗几乎不过是一种恼人存在。这种特性在具有"消耗性质"的战争游戏中被吹嘘得面目全非。绝大多数伤亡实际上是由炮兵造成的。因此庞大的作战单位并不会被彻底消灭，所有人不会同时死亡，但这些单位会在短时间内失去战斗力，进而在游戏中“消失”。这一观点已在《Wargame Design》第三卷第五期“The Closed Watch Case”中详细阐述（附链接）。

Eugene Rodek：
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 setup, the British Player would have the option of adjusting one unit from Payne’s stack into the adjacent hex 0618.
关于塔拉韦拉的初设，（Study Folder）有一条规则：25.22 ：“后手玩家可以在先手玩家回合开始前，将任意一个友方单位的初设位置调整一个格（不能进入敌方控制区）。”由于上述情况是第一回合的设置，英国玩家可以选择将佩恩（Payne）堆叠中的一个单位调整到相邻的六角格0618。
注：这条规则确实之前没有注意过，是在专规前面的部分。简单查了一下《祖国告急》里这条规则还是可选，后面扶正了。

同一年代

John Devereaux：

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 did not take a 10 minute rest break to get there. Also, ZOCs simulate a units influence on an adjacent area. This may mean that the ZOC has the unit physically in it, but is not shown 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 the possibility of 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 welcomed to add whatever complexities to the system they want to as they own the game. Our gaming group actually enjoys the simplicity of the system more than adding complexity.

许多玩家忘记的一件事是，在游戏术语中，时间是相对的。仅仅因为一个单位在一个回合中向战斗地点行军，并不意味着它没有在途中休息10分钟。此外，ZOC模拟了一个单位对相邻区域的影响。这可能意味着控制区内有单位实际存在，但并未在地图上明确显示。控制区在某种程度上模拟了多格的占据。

人们总是可以通过增加复杂性来模拟现实。我相信当前的系统是为了可玩性和可能实现现实结果而构建的。这是该系统的一个主要卖点。对于系统中的许多场景，你可以设置游戏，独自或与朋友在一晚上内玩完，享受竞争，并学习一些历史。对我来说，这个系统的乐趣在于我不需要做任何会计工作。

当然，任何人都可以随意增加他们想要的复杂性，因为他们拥有这款游戏。我们的游戏小组实际上更喜欢系统的简单性，而不是增加复杂性。

讨论：其实我之前提出的疲劳问题并不是针对一回合内是否有这10分钟的休息时间，而是针对剧本而言：以瓦格拉姆ATB为例，当时的士兵真的能够从凌晨四点一直战斗到晚上八点吗？即使说每小时能够休息十分钟，似乎也很难想象。

Mark Merritt：
I can’t say that the TLNB offers a “better” combat model over incremental losses, but I think it models tactics at the operational level in a way that the 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 the incremental loss games, LaBatt in particular, you usually just see 100 - 115 meters per hex.  Not nearly as much maneuver room, even with a big 4 mapper. Now, I love LaBatt.  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 re-learning the rules.  I find myself planning strategy in TLNB more than looking up rules in LaBatt.  And that’s great for team play.  
But, each game model has its place.
The TNLB system lets you develop where the battles will be.  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.  And it doesn’t take a month of Mondays to play it out.
我不能说TLNB提供了比渐进式伤亡模型“更好”的战斗模型，但我认为它在战术层面上模拟了会战级别的战术，这是渐进式伤亡模型无法做到的。对我来说，这是因为游戏的规模。TLNB提供了一个更大的“游乐场”来进行操作。在渐进式伤亡模型的游戏中，尤其是LaBatt，通常每个六角格只代表100到115米。即使是在一个大型四地图剧本中，也没有太多的机动空间。现在，我很喜欢LaBatt。它是一个很棒的系统。但TLNB对我们的小组（包括John）来说是一个更好的游戏，因为我们可以进行许多战役剧本，而不需要花几周时间重新学习规则。我发现自己更多地是在TLNB中规划战略，而不是在LaBatt中查找规则。这对于团队游戏来说非常棒。
但是，每种游戏模型都有其适用场景。
TLNB系统让你可以决定战斗将在哪里展开。现在，Kevin将胜利点放在历史指挥官们瞄准的地方，因此他会将会战导向历史地点，但通常有许多通往这些地方的道路，而这正是你的决策发挥作用的地方。对我来说，这是游戏中最棒的部分。John说得对，游戏的机制很容易掌握，但赢得每场游戏的策略却非常有趣，令人着迷。
在游戏结束时，我几乎总是对结果的“真实性”感到惊讶。可能不是我这一方赢了，但我完全可以理解另一方是如何做到的。而且，这不需要花费一个月的时间来玩完。

Eugene Rodek：
The 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 of creating some realism of the battles without adding too much complexity or chrome and enabling players 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 modeled approaches that attempt to portray some elements of combat on this scale. The specific concerns expressed here are on a couple of the mechanics (reduced conbat unit vs incremental, engagement of units). Any of these points can be sited 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 this system as the 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.
TLNB是个从大战术层面上模拟拿破仑时代战役的游戏系统。它基于一个历史悠久且成熟的系统，采用IGO-UGO机制，旨在在不增加过多复杂性或额外规则的情况下，达到一定的真实性，并让玩家通常可以在一个下午的时间内探索一场会战。系统的演变增加了一些新特性，但其核心机制基本保持不变。
与任何模拟系统一样，TLNB采用了多种建模方法来试图表现这种规模战斗的某些元素。这里提到的具体关注点集中在几个机制上（例如2Step的战斗单位 vs. 渐进式伤亡以及单位的交战方式等）。这些点中的任何一个都可以被视为对该系统的合理批评；正如任何系统中的特定机制都可能被批评为不能准确代表战场上实际发生的情况一样。最终，设计师选择了这种系统来模拟拿破仑时代的战役。它是否比其他游戏更好地实现了这种模拟？我不知道。判断的标准是什么？如果有人试图实现这一目标，可以使用不同的系统玩同一场会战100次，并进行统计分析，看看哪个系统最接近历史结果。
我从宏观的角度来看（或者可以说是从600英尺高的热气球视角来看！）这个模拟系统是否能为特定战役带来合理的结果，以及我在玩的过程中是否感到有趣。对我来说，答案是肯定的。该系统悠久的历史为其奠定了坚实的基础，并且至今仍然表现出色。拥有一个覆盖了拿破仑战争大部分战役、且基于相同基本规则集的游戏库，本身就是一项了不起的成就。
讨论：确实，我非常认同上面两位的观点。我是非常喜欢TLNB的简洁易开以及不错的会战/战役兼容性。我觉得唯一槽点就是在战役剧本中ZOC的表现能力太过强悍以至于一旦接战基本就是要打一整天了。以《Napoleon‘s Retreat》的Campaign剧本为例，首次接战后发现双方就处于不断添油直至一方彻底崩溃。

同一年代

Kevin Zucker：
威灵顿因忙于过多的事务而无法监督英军的部署。他陷入塔拉韦拉附近部署西班牙军队的事务中，同时还要应对马肯齐师（Mackenzie’s Division）在卡萨德萨利纳斯（Casa de Salinas）遭遇的突袭，因此无法亲自监督英军沿波蒂纳溪（Portina Brook）一线的部署。

In the diagram of the set-up above, there is no friendly unit protecting the flank of Payne’s stack. Possibly we failed to depict the situation accurately in the printed setup. I would recommend moving Anson over to 0618. Also Alburquerque (Bdes Rivera and Pineda) might be moved to 0820.
在上方部署图中，没有友方单位保护佩恩（英国骑兵师）的侧翼。可能在塔拉韦拉DOB的初设中中未能准确描绘这种情况。我建议将安森移至0618格。此外，阿尔布克尔克（西班牙2C的里韦拉旅和皮内达旅）或许应调至0820格。
调整后的塔拉韦拉DOB初设图
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...
我心中唯一的疑问是：整个堆叠的完全损失是否过于极端，是否需要某些缓解措施？
也许可以使用第27号卡牌"Secure Flanks."的变体规则。只需移除"which just advanced after combat during this Combat Phase"（即在本次战斗阶段刚经过战后推进的）这个短语，允许堆叠中的一部分——比如说一两个单位——直接从某个EZOC撤退到另一个EZOC。
此外，按现有文字描述的第28号卡牌"Forced March"可能被用来将一两个单位从堆叠中驱离并移入0618六边形格...
注：27号牌共3张 抽到概率3/44。

Christopher Moeller：
I would object to another “get out of jail free” card.  There are already several cards that let you advance into suicidal positions, pinning down multiple enemies, knowing that 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 fine until something overwhelms them and they break apart.  Systems that document each unit’s gradual degradation until that break 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 break points are reached.  TLNB has plenty of mileposts: suppression, reduction, demoralization.
我会反对增设另一张"免罪卡"。目前已经存在多张允许你冒进到自杀式位置的卡牌——通过牵制多个敌人，同时能让你自由脱身的卡牌。
我个人认为消耗战系统过于字面化。这不符合人性本质……群体在未被压垮前能保持良好状态，但当遭遇毁灭性打击时会崩溃瓦解。记录每个单位SP损失直至崩溃点（或许源自"微型模型"传统？）的系统实属过度复杂。尤其是当层级超过小队级别时。
关键在于我认为应明确记录那些崩溃点的达成时刻。TLNB系统已具备大量标志：压制、损失、士气低落。
讨论：就损失而言，我认为似乎现在ZOC杀人效率过高。因为在TLNB中以师堆叠是很常见的一个操作，而在一段时间的战斗后出现某个师被套住也是很常见的情况。而在一个小时内瞬间利用ZOC击溃一整个师似乎有些夸张？

吉良左中将YX

私以为Christopher Moeller提到的做法是比较合理的，即记录单位状态的恶化，直至临界点溃败。关于ZOC和伤亡，我的想法是：撤出ZOC可能会使单位状态进一步恶化，更快地逼近临界点，如果单位溃败之后无法恢复就会损失Step。

同一年代

吉良左中将YX 发表于 2025-3-12 12:32
私以为Christopher Moeller提到的做法是比较合理的，即记录单位状态的恶化，直至临界点溃败。关于ZOC和伤亡 ...

感觉这就是nes那个拿战系列的士气设计？之前玩感觉比较麻烦

吉良左中将YX

同一年代 发表于 2025-3-12 15:07
感觉这就是nes那个拿战系列的士气设计？之前玩感觉比较麻烦

不是，nes那个混乱与否和损失基本是独立的，那种渐进式伤亡也确实不如非线性的战力下降。
我说的是追踪每个单位的疲劳/士气，当达到临界值，状态会变化，直到溃败，不过这样可能更麻烦。
NBS和还没出的Wagram 1809的机制是士气检定失败会导致士气状态变化，这种方式也不错，而且没那么麻烦。

同一年代

吉良左中将YX 发表于 2025-3-12 16:31
不是，nes那个混乱与否和损失基本是独立的，那种渐进式伤亡也确实不如非线性的战力下降。
我说的是追踪每 ...

感觉追踪每个单位就比较麻烦了 nes那个我觉得伤亡更合理一些 文库这种zoc薄杀对于某些战线展不开的剧本真的很痛苦

NBS没试过 期待一下瓦格拉姆

同一年代

吉良左中将YX 发表于 2025-3-12 16:31
不是，nes那个混乱与否和损失基本是独立的，那种渐进式伤亡也确实不如非线性的战力下降。
我说的是追踪每 ...

感觉追踪每个单位就比较麻烦了 nes那个我觉得伤亡更合理一些 文库这种zoc薄杀对于某些战线展不开的剧本真的很痛苦

NBS没试过 期待一下瓦格拉姆

同一年代

后续就疲劳和战斗进程导致战斗力下降的问题又追问了KZ 他的回答我觉得也是可以接受的 下贴原文

我：
I have finished reading "The Closed Watch Case" and I can understand your combat model and the link between ZOC and loss. Also your blog generates heated discussion in our game group.
We still have one question. You wrote "A striking feature of Napoleonic battles is the pingpong effect of individual regiments bashing each other out of town, or across the bridge, only to be pushed back by a fresh enemy regiment in their turn. " I believe that the combat effectiveness of a unit will decline as the battle progresses due to personnel losses or the increasing impact of fatigue. This aspect does not seem to be reflected in the CRT's DR or AR.
I know this may make this series more complex but we want to learn more about your designing ideas.
Looking forward to your answer!

KZ：
Yes, the strength of units will degrade during battle. But this happens to both sides equally. Napoleoon says that himself. Combat losses are equal between the two sides, until one side retreats.
There is no way of winning a battle by imposing losses on the enemy.
The disparity in losses only occurs during the Pursuit.

吉良左中将YX

同一年代 发表于 2025-3-14 10:48
后续就疲劳和战斗进程导致战斗力下降的问题又追问了KZ 他的回答我觉得也是可以接受的 下贴原文

我：

双方战斗力的下降对等倒是没什么疑义。但问题在于损失概率太低了，如果只是单纯代表伤亡还好，如果将疲劳、士气、凝聚力之类的加进去就有问题了。
以大家最爱的3:1为例，只有1/6的概率出SK，而且SK也有很高的概率不出1R，如果正面对打几个小时，没有损失是很正常的，但在现实中这还不影响战斗力就太不正常了。