Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

why was bridge building omitted from the Napoleonic games?

engineers are present in most, if not all games, and they can only repair existing bridges.

According to http://www.napoleonguide.com/bonponton.htm

"A company of pontonniers could construct a bridge of up to 80 pontoons - some 120 to 150 meters long - in a little under seven hours.
All the materials for the temporary spans were carried by the pontonniers' wagon train right down from the pontoons themselves to the clamps, spikes and anchors needed to secure them."

_________________
C.N.Matthews

Yes, but that is only in those situations where the pontoons were present. It doesn't mean that the engineers brought them with them.

For a good example of a pontoon bridging operation see the Wagram game - the full two day scenario. There you can find where I had several zero strength bridges already on the map - the site for the pontoon bridges (of which there were small and large sizes).

I add in zero strength bridge locations on a lot of the maps. Plenty of places in the games to build a bridge. No, you cant just pick and choose but remember that not all places were good locations for a pontoon bridge either.

Lots of things missing in ALL of the game series. One programmer - many series ... no way John could ever add in everything.

_________________


Generalfeldmarschall Wilhelm Prinz Peters von Dennewitz

3. Husaren-Regiment, Reserve-Kavallerie, Preußischen Armee-Korps

Honarary CO of Garde-Ulanen Regiment, Garde-Grenadier Kavallerie

NWC Founding Member

For Club Games: I prefer the Single Phase mode of play. I prefer to play with the following options OFF:

MDF, VP4LC, NRO, MTD, CMR, PR, MIM, NDM, OMR (ver 4.07)

Instead we get "random damage to bridges". :/
Nothing is certainly written in stone and this game can be rebuilt with improved existing modules from panzer campaigns. A coder could be hired for a month to change the strings on PzC source files to meld with NB and in the end we'd have a better more popular product. Also, don't forget mining ;]

Berto could surely tell something about how "easy" it is to toy around with that old code and to implement codes from other games that do not fit at all into the current engine. Even taking something from the CW or M&P series wouldn't be easy to implement.

_________________

If I recall there was Tiller's battleground and campaign series using somewhat similar interfaces and source material. Then a 4 or 5 year pause with some improvements on those old systems. Around 2001 or so PzC Smolensk was released with our current window interface. Afterwards, this Napoleon's Battles spinoff was released. It features interface from PzC but, legacy coding from Battleground Napoleonic Wars meshed in. Now as "easy" as it was for that Frenchman to code in fire density distribution between multiple units in France '40; improvements could be made here. It's sad this has become a blacksheep series because it has the most potential for rules revision and redevelopment.

I think you overstate the affinity between the PzC and NAP engine a bit. Sure, the UI looks similiar but so do the ones for Squad Battles and the Naval games, at least at first blush.

That said, there's a great deal more "under the hood" in terms of difference. It's not just some "Napoleonic Legacy Code" or the like thrown in. Consider:

1) Formation (T mode in PzC doesn't compare, because the formations here have meaningful combat roles)
2) Skirmishers
3) Ranged DF Artillery fire in the defensive phase
4) Cavalry Charge
5) Leadership (an entirely different mechanic than HQ)
6) Rout/Rally

There are others, but those are the big ones that come to mind. That's a fair bit of the core of the system. My "programming" days are long, long behind (and a few HS classes in PASCAL doesn't exactly compare) but interchanging bits from the ACW or PzC engines into this are much harder than "adding some hooks"

Consider the original question, bridges. Bill's "putting 0 strength bridges in" thing is a bit of a workaround and an abstraction, yes, but consider.

Otherwise, every river hex would have to be rated for "pontoon suitability". That could be as simple as the steepness of the banks (on both sides), the exact details of the current at that point in the river, the depth of the river, and so forth. More realistic? Yes, but there does need to be some level of limit in all things.

Do I wish that all the engines were better? Of course, every last one of us could name out 5 "necessary" changes off the top of our head (and most of us would come up with very different lists.) Sadly though, the programming is not that easy, and with John's military work being his real bread and butter, there are limits.

_________________
Feldmarschall Freiherr Gary McClellan
IR44
Portner Grenadier Battalion
Austrian Army

Scenario Designer:
JTS Midway
JTS Seven Years War

Tiller is pushing 65 and I'm suprised he is even still working. The autonymous incorporated sales site should make it easier to outsource coders like what was done for Panzer Battles. 0 strength bridges are a good design fix but, in comparison to PzC, NB falls way short on detail. Such as creek bridging destruction/rebuilding to further OPs point. My wishlist is pretty unrealistic and would redesign the base game. There is something great about campaigns like Jena and Leipzig that makes it feel like an authentic classic WGotY though. I don't actually take my own revision suggestions seriously.

I never played Napoleonic Wars but, of those things you listed are they new to Napoleonic Battles? I might also nitpick out at least a dozen flaws in those unique features. Doubt the current engine was holistically developed due to the inconsistences in it's tactical design decisions. Seems like it was patched together from templates but, I've been wrong before.

The things I listed were a reflection of the difference between the PzC engines and the Nap games... just to make the point that it's a fundamentally different engine than the PzC, external views notwithstanding.

_________________
Feldmarschall Freiherr Gary McClellan
IR44
Portner Grenadier Battalion
Austrian Army

Scenario Designer:
JTS Midway
JTS Seven Years War

Random bridge damage is not used often. Was added in for Wagram to portray the damage from logs and fire ships being sent downstream.

_________________


Generalfeldmarschall Wilhelm Prinz Peters von Dennewitz

3. Husaren-Regiment, Reserve-Kavallerie, Preußischen Armee-Korps

Honarary CO of Garde-Ulanen Regiment, Garde-Grenadier Kavallerie

NWC Founding Member

For Club Games: I prefer the Single Phase mode of play. I prefer to play with the following options OFF:

MDF, VP4LC, NRO, MTD, CMR, PR, MIM, NDM, OMR (ver 4.07)