Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

Gents!

The games used in our club give us a very interesting opportunity. To feel ourselves in shoes of real leaders, to make strategical and operational decisions, to win and loose the battles. But still they remain just a model of reality and if one decides to study the history using these games he would have to interprete all these figures given in terms of real world. What means fatigue of 173? How many cartriges are in 241 strong supply unit? What is leadership quality D and so on?

Most of this is rather clear and easy to estimate. The most difficult, as always, are people. How to estimate quality of the unit? It's left up to scenario designer. With most of the estimations I can agree after some consideration, but some really leave me puzzled for a long time. So. The proposal is to set a kind of house rule, on how the quality is estimated. Here is my proposal. It's based on similar thing used by Al Amos for his EAW scenarious.

1. Average units in all the armies on the continent (Europe) were using approximately the same tactics and were approximately of the same quality. Let this "zero" level be C.
2. If the unit is newly formed (within one year but more than one month) it receives -1 bonus.
3. If the units presents minutemen just called to defend the country or armed civilians or newly ormed unit (less than one month) it receives -2 bonus.
4. If the unit consists of specially selected men - like heavy cavalry, grenadies, some kinds of jaegers and so on it receives +1 bonus.
5. If it has army elite or guard status it receives +2 bonus. Army elite should be applied for example to french carabiniers (horse), 95th rifles Pavlovs grenadiers and so on.
6. If unit has served as whole through one full campaign it receives +1 bonus.
7. The same for several campaigns but with +2 bonus.

This classification allows to rate units from E t A++. F and A+++ would be left for designers consideration.

I now work on rating according to this system of Polish Vth corps, Lithunian newly raised corps and several russian regiments for comparison. All your ideas and critics are welcome.

Thanks for attention!

Malorossiyskogo Grenaderskogo Polku
Polkovnik Anton Kosyanenko
2ya Grenaderskaya Diviziya,
8oi Pekhotnyi Korpus,
2ya Zapadnaya Armiya

Is there a problem with automatically associating the terms 'Guards' and 'elite'?

Just an uninformed thought. [:)]

<font color="orange">Majoor Peter Robinson
[url="http://www.dutchcorps.com"]Koninklijke Militaire Academie[/url] Adjutant
C.O. Divisie Nederlandsche Kavallerie
3rd (Prince of Wales's) Dragoon Guards</font id="orange">

Thanks, Peter!

Yes I devided them intentionally. A couple of examples:

-Russian Leib-Guard Horse regiment in it's famous charge at Austerlitz field lost almost all of it's men and horses. Hence somewhere in 1806-07 still remaining an elite unit it won't have A++ quality as it would in 1805.

-3-eme Lanciers de la Garde Imperiale (Lithunians). This regiment was formed in the middle of 1812 and was treated as a guard unit. It consisted of almost 1300 men. Still it was not as good as for example 1ere lanciers which the history well proved. Maximum I'd assign them quality of B - an elite unit with less than one year history.

Malorossiyskogo Grenaderskogo Polku
Polkovnik Anton Kosyanenko
2ya Grenaderskaya Diviziya,
8oi Pekhotnyi Korpus,
2ya Zapadnaya Armiya