Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

Al's article on design issues made me ponder some of those design issues which just don't feel right to me. So here is my top three list of issues which I wish would be changed as I can't change them. Feel free to discuss, attack or add to the list. Who knows perhaps HPS will address some of these issues in future releases.

1. Why is disorder automatic in melees? Automatic disorder leads to abuse by using poor quality units to melee higher quality units simply to produce disorder results. There are all sorts of ways to give realistic results without assuming both sides are completely disordered for the entire 15 minutes. Chance of melee disorder could be related to who wins or morale or both.

Why isn't recovery from disorder tied to morale/training? Once disordered, all units have exactly same opportunity of recovering order-a 1 chance in 6, unless its leader passes its command test. I would think better trained and/or better morale units would recover order significantly faster than poorer troops. This is another reason why it is so advantageous to melee with poor quality troops-both sides have exactly the same opportunity to recover disorder.

Why does firepower have such a low probability of causing disorder against charging enemy troops? I have crunched the numbers and the odds of disordering attacking troops is miniscule after they initiate melee but before resolving melee.

Using the existing game process, perhaps we should make defensive fire automatic and at full strength by the defending unit when melee is announced. Then tie a negative modifier to any morale checks produced. Currently enfilade and high fatigue produce the greatest negative modifiers of -2 during a morale check. I would think a close range charge would have an even greater chance of morale failure. So perhaps a negative 3 modifier to a morale check when attempting to complete a melee against defending fire. Something should be done to give the firepower of a line the opportunity to stop a charging column.


2. I am not sure where to start with the cavalry model. None of it feels right.

A starter would need infantry attempting to form square when charged. The attempts would logically be tied to distance and facing between the cavalry and the target. That old 80's game Battles of Napoleon had an excellent model for cavalry. And IIRC, it was a turn based game just as the HPS Napoleonics games.

I hate to say it but the automatic overrun of skirmishers doesn't feel right either. Skirmishers caught in the open by cavalry were certainly in mortal danger especially if no formed friendly troops were nearby. Perhaps, skirmishers should have the opportunity to automatically retreat to any formed unit within 100 meters for protection.

3. My biggest question with artillery is why artillery is automatically destroyed when they lose a melee? Guns didn't disappear. Crews retreated to nearby cover or infantry. Although sometimes they died at their guns. But if they retreated, maintained their integrity and the guns were recovered, they would reman the guns. Perhaps one solution, if guns are overrun and controlled by the enemy for thirty minutes (2 turns), then they would be considered destroyed. If you recapture the guns during those 20 minutes, then they would be remanned.

Although I also wonder why artillery ammo is not linked to individual units rather than the armies. Artillery ammo was a key aspect of working a battery. Most units could run their ammo chests fairly quickly. Afterwards they would withdraw for replenishment or ammo would have to be delivered. As it is now, a single battery can pretty much fire forever unless isolated.

Finally to end with something positive. The easiest and most effective way to mod and produce a more realistic game requires only two changes that anyone can mod -reduce morale by 2 morale levels for all units and reduce max infantry stacking to 1000-1200 men. You would be amazed at the different style of game that emerges. In my opinion, the results are very positive.

So any other design issues that have been bothering you? I know there are some aspects of the HPS games that must be bugging you. So here is your chance to sound off.

1 - My biggest bug with the HPS games is why can't the game engine delete the *.XXX and *.YYY files that the games create ?

2 - The 2D unit graphics in the 2D modes are difficult for me to see. I play in 2D mode exclusivley and would prefer less "busy" unit graphics.

Marechal John Corbin
Chief of Staff
La Grande Armee

1. The lack of movement being tied to fatigue when you consider that fatigue is not recovered due when you move a fatigued unit. Presently, the troops are like machines and never get tired after marching all day and night without a stop.

2. No pre-melee morale checks. Some units should break and run sometimes before a melee.

3. Disorder affecting the movement distance of cavalry. The horses could move the same distance whether they were disordered or not. We already have the combat penalties for disorder. Why have the movement penalty as well? Get rid of it and maybe rear guard actions might be possible.

4. The lack of a full map editor.

5. The fact that skirmishers are allowed to roam all over the place.

6. POWs aren’t recorded when they’re recorded for Leaders.

7. The lack of skirmishing cavalry.

8. No battalion guns.

9. No differentiation between column of attack and column of march.

10. Only four unit facings when we use hexagons.

11. I too cannot see the 3D unit graphics well and never use them.

12. I agree on the .XXX & the .YYY files. It is silly to keep them.

Oh wait. Did you say only three? Darn.

BTW, I really like the Morale level and stacking limit reductions suggested by Jagger.

Rick
[:)]

<center>Capitaine Rick Motko
1er Bataillon, 33° Régiment d'Infanterie de Ligne
2eme Brigade, 11eme division
IIIe corps, Armée du Nord</center>

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Le Tondu</i>
<br />1. The lack of movement being tied to fatigue when you consider that fatigue is not recovered due when you move a fatigued unit. Presently, the troops are like machines and never get tired after marching all day and night without a stop.

2. No pre-melee morale checks. Some units should break and run sometimes before a melee.

3. Disorder affecting the movement distance of cavalry. The horses could move the same distance whether they were disordered or not. We already have the combat penalties for disorder. Why have the movement penalty as well? Get rid of it and maybe rear guard actions might be possible.

4. The lack of a full map editor.

5. The fact that skirmishers are allowed to roam all over the place.

6. POWs aren’t recorded when they’re recorded for Leaders.

7. The lack of skirmishing cavalry.

8. No battalion guns.

9. No differentiation between column of attack and column of march.

10. Only four unit facings when we use hexagons.

11. I too cannot see the 3D unit graphics well and never use them.

12. I agree on the .XXX & the .YYY files. It is silly to keep them.

Oh wait. Did you say only three? Darn.

BTW, I really like the Morale level and stacking limit reductions suggested by Jagger.

Rick
[:)]

<center>Capitaine Rick Motko
1er Bataillon, 33° Régiment d'Infanterie de Ligne
2eme Brigade, 11eme division
IIIe corps, Armée du Nord</center>
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I am a little confused by number 7


Marechal John Corbin
Chief of Staff
La Grande Armee

1. Quality of the units. Actually we work with formal model of the process - napoleonic time combat. And as any formal model it deals with precise figures. And evaluation, "identification" as it's called, is a matter of art. I suppose it should be made following FORMAL procedure, so that newly raised troops do not receive a higher quality than hardy veterans just because of common delusion.

The same about leadership and command raitings for leaders. Also I suppose rage should be based not only on nation but on quality of the leader. Maybe a probability check should be made to calculate the command range of the leader.

2. Different formations for cavalry including skirmishers, extended, line and colomn. The first with ability to fire and the second used by light cavalry specially irregular to avoid high loses from fire and not to be disordered while moving in woods.

3. Supply units for arty and crew units. The crew should be able to retreat leaving the guns, use released guns or captured ones. It should be able to be reinforced by any infantry or cavalry unit with adjustments in quality of course.

<center></center>
<center><b>Eyo Imperatorskogo Velichestva Leib-Kirassirskogo polku
General-Mayor Anton Valeryevich Kosyanenko
commander of Little Russian grenadiers regiment</b></center>

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by John Corbin</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Le Tondu</i>
<br />1. The lack of movement being tied to fatigue when you consider that fatigue is not recovered due when you move a fatigued unit. Presently, the troops are like machines and never get tired after marching all day and night without a stop.

2. No pre-melee morale checks. Some units should break and run sometimes before a melee.

3. Disorder affecting the movement distance of cavalry. The horses could move the same distance whether they were disordered or not. We already have the combat penalties for disorder. Why have the movement penalty as well? Get rid of it and maybe rear guard actions might be possible.

4. The lack of a full map editor.

5. The fact that skirmishers are allowed to roam all over the place.

6. POWs aren’t recorded when they’re recorded for Leaders.

7. The lack of skirmishing cavalry.

8. No battalion guns.

9. No differentiation between column of attack and column of march.

10. Only four unit facings when we use hexagons.

11. I too cannot see the 3D unit graphics well and never use them.

12. I agree on the .XXX & the .YYY files. It is silly to keep them.

Oh wait. Did you say only three? Darn.

BTW, I really like the Morale level and stacking limit reductions suggested by Jagger.

Rick
[:)]

<center>Capitaine Rick Motko
1er Bataillon, 33° Régiment d'Infanterie de Ligne
2eme Brigade, 11eme division
IIIe corps, Armée du Nord</center>
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I am a little confused by number 7


Marechal John Corbin
Chief of Staff
La Grande Armee
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

John - he would like to see cavalry able to be skirmishers - not just broken down into squadrons but able to spread out and basically play skirmisher.

Pros - would reduce cavalry losses and portray cavalry in a certain historical light.

Cons - more coding for John - this was one of my ideas too but I have bigger game for him to fry at the moment.

Oberst Wilhelm Peters
2nd Kuirassiers, Reserve Korps, Austrian Army
[url="http://www.acwgc.org/acwgc_members/burr/Austrian%20Army/Bill_Peters.htm"]Officer Battle Dossier[/url]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by John Corbin</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Le Tondu</i>
<br />.........7. The lack of skirmishing cavalry.....
Rick
[:)]

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I am a little confused by number 7


Marechal John Corbin
Chief of Staff
La Grande Armee
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Mon Marechal, our brave troopers carried carbines for a reason. [;)]

They didn't always dismount to do it either. [;)]

Now, if I read correctly, Rich Hamilton will be allowing this with his company level scenarios. Hmmmmmmmm. I will get back to you about this.

Rick

<center>Capitaine Rick Motko
1er Bataillon, 33° Régiment d'Infanterie de Ligne
2eme Brigade, 11eme division
IIIe corps, Armée du Nord</center>

My pennyworth:
I would like unit designation to be revealed when within two hex range. Surely your Commdr. would know relevent Colours and insignia. They did have telescopes...

Kolonel Sellick Davies,
III Bataillon Nassau-Usingen,
2nd Bde,

For Artillery:

1./ Gun capture/recrew feature
2./ Proper Artillery supply system
3./ Limber up & retreat before melee (possibility, ie. not automatic)or, if the battery decides to stay put, automatic defensive fire at 100% effectiveless prior to melee.

For Cavalry:

1./ More formations - eg. line and (for lights only) skirmisher mode.
2./ A Dragoon type cavalry, capable of dismounting
3./ Counter-charge feature (at least restore it from the BG engine for multiphase mode)

For infantry:

1./ More formations - eg. attack & march columns
2./ Auto square forming (or at least restore the option of forming square/deploy into line in the defensive phase from the BG engine for multiphase mode)
3./ Revised skirmisher rules with a distinction between light companies of line regiments and actual light infantry. The detachable companies should remain within 3 hexes (normally 1 hex, but allowing 3 hexes would allow a bit more flexibility) of the parent unit <i>at all times</i> and if routing, should rout back into the same hex as the parent unit. However, in contrast, Light infantry would continue to operate as in the current system and may be used freely to occupy woods, chateaux, rough, etc. But in open terrain, they should remain within 3 hexes of the parent body (NB: only 50% breakdown unless in difficult terrain) or, failing that, 5 hexes of a unit of the same formation. (But this is probably rather too complex for an actual engine change, so would need to be a house rule instead)

Incidentally, a number of these features are already present in the old game Age of Rifles (1996).

Regarding the issue of cavalry firepower - the game engine doesn't actually prevent this, but cavalry firepower is generally rather ineffective (as it should be) so, although it'll be included in the company level Waterloo scenario, players will need to be careful how they use it. If a player decides to engage in a firefight with infantry in line then he'll be able to do so ... but he'll no doubt regret it. But for skirmishing with enemy cavalry it's more worthwhile.

Capt Rich White
4th Cavalry Brigade
Cavalry Corps
Anglo-Allied Army

1. An intermediate level of disorder called 'unformed' which is easier to recover from than 'disordered'. The new level would come into effect after changing formation in what would be disordering terrain or passing through just a single hex of disordering terrain. The penalties for it would be half those of being disordered and with a high chance of losing 'unformed' status the following turn.

2. Countercharges.

3. Limits to distances skirmishers can go from parent unit without becomming disordered or having increased fatigue applied to the unit.

4. Proper supply system for artillery units.



PremierLieutenant Martin Sabais
Brigade-Detachment Kompanies
1. Infanterie-Brigade
I. ArmeeKorps
Preußische Armee

1 - A process that increases the possibilty a unit that takes canon fire will disrupt. Perhaps it is me, but I find artillery not "cost effective" in these games. Should provide a bit more balance among the three forces in the games. Such a modification could also help in the auto defensive fire mode, making assaults on guns less certain and disrupting those precisely planned drill field moves!

2 - A process for ending a scenario early because of casualties and/or fatigue. I would also like to see this applied to individual brigades/divisions/corps in that forward movement is prohibited when certain casualty/fatigue conditions are reached. But I would be happy with a sceanrio ending process for starters. I don't think commanders knew battles would end at a specific time in this era! and units did not continue to march forward in the face of significant losses and repeated assaults!

3 - a random scenario generator. Each opponent has a number of "points" to spend - gets to select the realative percentage of infantry, cavalry and artillery (perhaps with some limits), select the map and maybe even the OOB that the forces are derived from. Should provide a historically feasible, but "blind scenario". I might also claim "balanced", but that is a much more complicated topic to really address and can be handled by having both sides agree to how many "points" they get - over time people will develop a sense of "fair ratios" among the OOBs - could also make some connection between the "points" each starts with and the victory conditions - but I digress!

4 - I know the request was for 3 and this is a nit, but it is an issue with me. I would like to see a formed unit movement stopped if it moves into a hex containing a unit that has already meleed. This prevents you from meleeing with a unit, winning, then moving another unit through the newly created single hex opening into the opponents rear -- all in one turn!

Brigadier Sir Bob Breen KT

1st (The King's) Dragoon Guards
Commandant, RMA

"1 - A process that increases the possibilty a unit that takes canon fire will disrupt. Perhaps it is me, but I find artillery not "cost effective" in these games. Should provide a bit more balance among the three forces in the games. Such a modification could also help in the auto defensive fire mode, making assaults on guns less certain and disrupting those precisely planned drill field moves!" - Bob Breen

Bob,

Both of these can be controlled by scenarios designers. The number of victroy point per artillery point is set when scenarios are made. Troop quality is set too high, if troop quality levels were dropped two levels, then more bad things would happen to units when combat happened against them.




"2 - A process for ending a scenario early because of casualties and/or fatigue. I would also like to see this applied to individual brigades/divisions/corps in that forward movement is prohibited when certain casualty/fatigue conditions are reached. But I would be happy with a sceanrio ending process for starters. I don't think commanders knew battles would end at a specific time in this era! and units did not continue to march forward in the face of significant losses and repeated assaults!" - Bob Breen

Early termination bid exists in HPS Waterloo.



Colonel (ret) Al Amos
1er Dragoons
AdN

This is in feedback to Al's comments.

1 - my point on artillery was that it should create a greater chance of a disruption in the subsequent morale check, then the equivalent lost from musket fire. How much more is a detail beyond my knowledge, but it just seems a unit that takes X casualties from artillery fire is more likely to disrupt then if it took X casualties from musket fire. I appreciate the comment about troop quality and artillery value but that was not my point.

2 - regarding the early termination of a scenario, again I appreciate the option of a termination bid, but what I'm suggesting is that there be some underlying algorithm in the software -- perhaps not explicitly documented - that ends a scenario, independent of the wishes of the opponents when some criteria of casualties and fatigue are reached. Again details to be determined. This would add some uncertainty to any scenario that the players have little control over -- I think such a possibilty would add to the game. You could do this with a "house rule" for casualties, but fatigue would be too time consuming to manually calculate. I don't know what the statistics are for Napoleonic battles, but some time ago I looked at ACW battles and observed battles tended to end when the loser has around 25% casualties and the winner had around 20% (obviously there are exceptions). I've been in games when things were still going strong at 50% casualties on each side and highly fatigued units are still aggressively moving forward . Such a rule could be implemented as an optional rule.

Brigadier Sir Bob Breen KT

1st (The King's) Dragoon Guards
Commandant, RMA

Eliminate skirmisher over run in covered terrain.

<b>Général de Division Michael Cox</b>
<font size="4"><i>Principe <font size="1">della </font id="size1">Toscana</i></font id="size4">
Comte de Moselle

<i><font size="4">Armée du Rhin</font id="size4">
<font size="2">2e battallion, 1er Regiment de Chasseurs a Pied, Inf. de l'V. Gde.</i></font id="size2">


<font size="1"><u>In Regards to Skirmisher Flop by Melee Losers:</u>
<ul><li>Make it an optional rather than fixed rule (at the very least). </li>
<li>Skirmisher stack size relative to retreating formed unit should be a factor (whether in clear or covered terrain). </li>
<li>For skirmishers, (not leaders or wagons) covered terrain (swamp, building, city, town, forest, marsh, and perhaps orchard) should negate the overrun result.</li></font id="size1"> </ul>

bobreen,
There is an automatic early end in combat mission when morale for a side drops below a certain point that (I think) is independent of fatigue. As casualties mount, morale drops.

Global Morale. What a concept.
Rick

<center>Capitaine Rick Motko
1er Bataillon, 33° Régiment d'Infanterie de Ligne
2eme Brigade, 11eme division
IIIe corps, Armée du Nord</center>