<
             Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC) Forums
*    NWC     NWC Staff     NWC Rules     NWC (DoR) Records    About Us     Send Email Inquiry to NWC
*   La Grande Armée Quartier Général        La Grande Armée Officer Records       Join La Grande Armée
*   Allied Coalition    Allied Officers     Join Coalition
*   Coalition Armies:   Austro-Prussian-Swedish Army    Anglo Allied Army (AAA)    Russian Corps
  
                 Military Books, Magazines, Games for sale (see other items)
Forums:    ACWGC    CCC     Home:    ACWGC    CCC
It is currently Wed Nov 22, 2017 9:49 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Waterloo Anniversary Battle- Re-Revised - Closed
PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2015 11:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 1:10 pm
Posts: 149
Location: USA
Bonjour Mes Amis,

I am looking to avenge our beloved Emperor on the 200th anniversary of the battle of Waterloo.

I would like to play one of the Waterloo- Wavre scenarios or QB-Ligny scenarios of the Waterloo game with reduced stacking limits of 900 infantry and 300 cavalry. I will supply the necessary scenario an pdt. files.

I am looking for an experienced player to play 3+ turns per week. I am negotiable on any house rules or optional rules.

If interested please send courier to my HQ.

Vive L'Emperour !!! :frenchcharge:

_________________
General de Division Thomas Moore
1ere Brigade - Commandant
Division de Cavalerie
IVeme Corps
La Grande Armee


Last edited by Thomas Moore on Sun May 31, 2015 5:54 pm, edited 6 times in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Waterloo Anniversary Battle
PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2015 12:10 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2013 10:55 am
Posts: 810
Location: Bouches-de-l’Elbe
While I know stacking is a problem for many, in the case of Waterloo the limits were raised purposely compared to those we usually have and that because of the dense formations use by some French division to attack.
And I think the Brits did also more compact formation, not the usual 2 rank known from the peninsula but because of the terrain 4 ranks, that is also why the Extended Line Values are also higher than usual.

_________________
Capitaine Christian Hecht
La Grande Armée - IIIe Corps d'Armée - 3ème Division d'Infanterie
"Vive Napoleon!"

ImageImageImage


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Waterloo Anniversary Battle
PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2015 4:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 1:10 pm
Posts: 149
Location: USA
Bonjour Capitaine Hecht,

Thank you for your comments. The reasons why I proposed reduced stacking limits were several.

First, 2000 infantry in a 100 x 100 hex was what I believe to be way beyond the norm. This I believe is supported by the excellent research done by the R & H boys. In their R & H games they used 900 men and this seemed a reasonable and more realistic stacking value. The higher end stacking limits ( ie 1800 and 2000 ) were very hard to achieve in actual battle conditions. Command and control of these large formations would have been very difficult as shone by D'Erlon's massed columns which feel into confusion very quickly when fired upon.

Second, I wanted to promote defense in depth which is very hard to achieve with stacking limits of 2000 unless you have large numbers of troops. In my readings the preferred formation a division or brigade was to have a number of battalions in the first line and then a couple hundred yards to the rear another line of reserves of almost equal strength to the first line.

Third, The R & H boys showed in their research that 1000 cavalry was way beyond the number of cavalry that could be controlled in battle in a 100 x 100 area. 300 was shone to be a much more realistic number. A further benefit of the reduced cavalry stacking is that you no longer have these 1000 trooper stacks that had the shock power a panzer battalion that obliterated the largest stacks of infantry.

Fourth, again research showed that infantry in square had a max of 800 men in a 100 x 100 area in order to achieve the proper spacing between squares on the battle field so that sides of a square wouldn't be shooting into the neighboring square.

In conclusion my chief purpose was to create a battle field that looked and acted like a Napoleonic battlefield instead of having a field covered monolithic stacks of totally unrealistic numbers.

Now that being said do you want to have a battle and further test my theories? If yes I want to be the good guys ( French ).

Yours respectfully,

_________________
General de Division Thomas Moore
1ere Brigade - Commandant
Division de Cavalerie
IVeme Corps
La Grande Armee


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Waterloo Anniversary Battle- Revised
PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2015 11:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2002 7:23 am
Posts: 342
Location: USA, Philadelphia, PA
Bonjour, monsieur le general!

Though, I remember you as a merely captain of 26e ChCh Regiment.
The time is just galloping...

So, I am ready for your turns, if you pleased...

_________________
Image
General-Feldmarshal Prince Vladimir N. Repnin
Imperial Russian Corps Commander
Prince Braine-Le Comte & The Adjutant-General of His Imperial Majesty
Chevalier Guards Regiment

ImageImage


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Waterloo Anniversary Battle- Revised
PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2015 12:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 1:10 pm
Posts: 149
Location: USA
Bonjour Prince Repnin,

Thank you for your response and I will be glad to meet you in battle.


First, I think we need to establish exactly which scenario we will play. I would like to suggest scenario #45 - Grouchy Presses.

Second, I would like to suggest the following optional rules. I propose all optional rules ON except the following:

Routing Limiting
No retreat overruns
Partial retreats
Optional melee results
Multi- Infantry melees

The big option is to play with MDF ON which of course will mean phased play. I think this gives the most realistic results.

Third, I like to have as few house rules as possible but would like to suggest the following.

1) Officers and skirmishers must remain within 3 hexes of formed troops.

2) No cavalry charges into obstructed terrain ( ie. Villages , forest ).

3) Maximum 8 artillery guns in one hex.

These of course are suggestions and I welcome to hear your preferences.

_________________
General de Division Thomas Moore
1ere Brigade - Commandant
Division de Cavalerie
IVeme Corps
La Grande Armee


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Waterloo Anniversary Battle- Revised
PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2015 12:10 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2013 10:55 am
Posts: 810
Location: Bouches-de-l’Elbe
@Thomas Moore
Main problem with stacking is not the stacking itself but the fact that you can bring all these troops in a hex into battle.
What should make players think twice about stacking are options like "Column Pass Through Fire" & "Target Density Modifier ", any fire into larger stacks should result in a lot more losses, so while the players could stack units together they would/should think twice about doing this on the defensive line or in an attack.

Regarding the rules I suggest to turn off the Optional melee results & fire results, these make combat more predictable but I think the opposite is good so the player can't rely to achieve something because the numbers are in his favor.

_________________
Capitaine Christian Hecht
La Grande Armée - IIIe Corps d'Armée - 3ème Division d'Infanterie
"Vive Napoleon!"

ImageImageImage


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Waterloo Anniversary Battle- Revised
PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2015 8:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 1:10 pm
Posts: 149
Location: USA
Bonjour Capitaine Hecht,

Thank you again for your comments but again I choose to disagree. I see high stacking limits as the major problem with our games that is correctable by most of us.

You mention " Column Pass Through Fire and Target Density Modifier"
as deterrent to large stacks. In my experience these have been of little deterrent to the attacker. Often what happens is the attacking stack is not formed until just before melee and is subject to only automated Defensive Fire which is usually ineffective.

Therefore by reducing stacking limits you enable the defense to better to stand in place and defend it's ground. As I mentioned before lower stacking limits also better enables defense in depth. Besides research has shone that stacks of 2000 infantry and 1000 cavalry were highly unrealistic.

Now that all that being said would you like to test my theories and have a game?

_________________
General de Division Thomas Moore
1ere Brigade - Commandant
Division de Cavalerie
IVeme Corps
La Grande Armee


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Waterloo Anniversary Battle- Revised - OPEN
PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2015 11:20 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2013 10:55 am
Posts: 810
Location: Bouches-de-l’Elbe
You will see a much better effect with phased gameplay, there the defensive fire it's conducted at 100% instead of 50% and it's up to you to conduct it so there is no AI that may or may not fire(I have the feeling it never fires when you really need it), besides that in turn gameplay the checks if a moral check is triggered are done instantly based on the just achieve casualties, but in phased gameplay it's done at the end of the turn with all the losses added up what makes it more likely to trigger a moral check.
So even when forming a huge stack before combat you should have the chance to concentrate fire on it and achieve some effect with the correct optional rules in use, even if that only disrupts one battalion the melee odds should shift drastically.


For a game, currently I'm waiting for the next patch series to fix the fatigue problem in the Napi series before play again.
Recent Panzer Campaign patches changed the way fatigue is handled on split units, before these patches the highest fatigue value was used if the unit did recombine but now it take the average value.
I think the concept of forming a line longer than the enemy is essential(it also adds to achieving a reserve that can provide an in depth defense) so splitting big units to support that would be the right way and it also maximizes your firepower because shortened units fire only at 75% but normal/extended fire at 100%(or 150% if 2 rank), but currently we have the trouble with the fatigue when these units would recombined.
All this sets the defender in much disadvantage and achieves the opposite of what is intended as he would rather leave his units combined instead of trying to make the defensive line as long as possible.

_________________
Capitaine Christian Hecht
La Grande Armée - IIIe Corps d'Armée - 3ème Division d'Infanterie
"Vive Napoleon!"

ImageImageImage


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Waterloo Anniversary Battle- Revised
PostPosted: Sat May 23, 2015 8:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2002 7:23 am
Posts: 342
Location: USA, Philadelphia, PA
First, I think we need to establish exactly which scenario we will play. I would like to suggest scenario #45 - Grouchy Presses.
The scenario is French-favorable obviously, but it is OK for me - I like to try everything;
the remaining ones of the Waterloo-Wavre battle group are Allies-favorable even more.


Second, I would like to suggest the following optional rules. I propose all optional rules ON except the following:
Routing Limiting
No retreat overruns
Partial retreats
Optional melee results
Multi- Infantry melees
OK. It is the common Optional Rules' set.

The big option is to play with MDF ON which of course will mean phased play. I think this gives the most realistic results.
I never play using it usually, but lets try it.

Third, I like to have as few house rules as possible but would like to suggest the following.

1) Officers and skirmishers must remain within 3 hexes of formed troops.

2) No cavalry charges into obstructed terrain ( ie. Villages , forest ).

3) Maximum 8 artillery guns in one hex.
Normally, I play with many more house rules, but if we are going to use the R&H stack limitation and you are really in a frame of mind to play the realistic way as you declare, I would add only one more condition: No Blitzkrieg tricks. I do not like the Embedded Melee mode, but never use Blitzkrieg too, even when it was in vogue at our club.

One proviso from my side: before to start, I am going to roll down the infantry lines and unlimbered art.batteries wherever I do not need it, then I will send file to you.
Is your address still the same: thomas.moorejr50@gmail.com ?

_________________
Image
General-Feldmarshal Prince Vladimir N. Repnin
Imperial Russian Corps Commander
Prince Braine-Le Comte & The Adjutant-General of His Imperial Majesty
Chevalier Guards Regiment

ImageImage


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Jose Faura and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Localized by Maël Soucaze © 2010 phpBB.fr