Help for a question

[Alfiere]

I know winSPMBT from a long time.

I now play with Napoleonic game , but only for battles.
Now i want build a scenario to simulate a little operational with winSPMBT with symbolic corp , no weapons only to search enemy and decide for battle, adding some rules with my opponent.

Is it possible play with winSPMBT in this way,take some screenshot to insert in Napoleonic forum and discuss with my friends ?

I think there are not problems,but to ask it is always batter.
Thank in advance for reply.

[Alfiere]

I am the first time that use this forum.
What is private under my name ?

[Imp]

Private is just your rank & as you are new you start as a private.

Yes you can do that either make some units without weapons or turn the range down but they will still fire if in range.

[Suhiir]

Actually given that WinSPMBT uses 50m hexes it would be possible to create a set of Napoleonic icons, weapons, formations. The amount of work needed to do so would be staggering however.

So - Possible yes - practical not really.

Check the internet for a game called "Civil War Generals II", I seem to recall someone crested a set of Napoleonic icons and weapons for it.

[Alfiere]

Sorry my natural language is not english.

For me has not rilevance play a complete (battle)with winSPMBT,only movements,search enemy and decide for battle when enemy are in adjacent hex (rule agree with my opponent) , after that i resolve battle with another game and after take note of losses ,continue my PBEM with opponent.

Anyway , thank to IMP for reply ,that i play in this way without any problem. (it is permitted, i have understand).
Only this was my question.
Thank to all.

[Alfiere]

I try some test in solo mode both side,and i notice that sometimes the units do not see enemy very close.
I set visibility to 10 hex's.
I have to set something , for to secure sight whitin 10 hex's?
Thank for any reply.

[Alfiere]

I think a good way to increase the possibility of sight is change the vision parameter in the OOB.
I think to set at 15 for involved units.
Can anyone confirm this ? Or suggest other settings. ?

[Imp]

Trying to keep it simple spotting a new unit depends on many factors

1) I think you only want units to see 10 hexes so set the battle visibility to 10 & make sure all units have a visibility of zero

2) The main things that effect units ability to see are
Terrain > better cover equals harder to spot
Unit is moving > the faster a unit moves the worse it sees & the easier it is to see it.
Example A stationary unit sees better & is harder to spot than a moving one so ignoring everything else the stationary unit will always see the moving unit first.

3) Unit size > The bigger a unit the easier it is to spot
The game gives squads size 1
Cavalry size 2
Single men or small groups like scouts size 0

Size zero are very hard to spot so probably dont use them

4) Experience > Higher Exp units see slightly better & are very slightly harder to spot

5) Units that fire also become easier to spot
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I would therefore suggest doing the following
1) If you want all units to be spotted equaly give them all the same size
2) Make sure all units have a visibilty of zero
3) In prefrences turn training off & set troop quality to at least 70, I would try 80 - 100
(The higher the more likely a unit is to spot another)
4) In prefrences adjust searching higher is easier to spot, adjust this till you get the results you want.
I would suggest setting higher say 120-130% at a guess as units will not fire so its harder to see them.

As a thought if you want units to be seen easily give them a bigger size, size 3 plus units will be seen quite easily.

[Alfiere]

Thank you very much IMP.
Very interesting.

[Alfiere]

Training OFF ,TROOP quality in preferences (ok)
Size i found in the OOB (Ok)
Searching in the prefernce (ok)

These is clear.

Only a doubt , Imp,when you speak...
& make sure all units have a visibility of zero
Do you speak of visibility or vision ?
I find vision in the OOB.

Thank Imp, if you want reply