Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

As many of you probably already know, the ACW series use gun sections rather than full batteries. Would it be a good idea for batteries in the Napoleonic series to be divided into gun sections in order to represent the different types of guns within a battery, especially howitzers?

I've used gun sections for the company level scenario in the Waterloo expansion pack. This makes sense at this smaller scale, but would gun sections also be viable in the standard regimental level scenarios?

Good points seem to be:

1./ Able to represent different gun types within a battery - greater realism.
2./ Gun sections allow a battery to face in more than one direction at once.
3./ With gun sections it would be possible to deploy a battery in several hexes and thus perhaps make it harder to get wiped out by melee or cavalry charges.
4./ Clogged up roads, especially in muddy conditions!

Bad points would be:

1./ More units to move about the map.
2./ Need to increase the artillery ammo supply level significantly to reflect all these extra gun units. (mainly a problem for scenario designers rather than players)
3./ Gun sections able to operate independently of the battery (unless controlled by a house rule)


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

Rich,

Check out my Advanced Nap stuff for Eckmuhl at the SDC site. I am currently half way through building an OOB for HPS Waterloo along the same style and setup.

I think if you examine those OOBs you will see a technique that would enhance your Company Level series. [;)] Good stuff overall though.

As for detachment of sections, it was done.

Colonel (ret) Al Amos
1er Dragoons
AdN

Richard

I use gun sections in scenarios quite a lot but there is one significant drawback which I will try to explain.

If you are familiar with the way the game determines whether a hit has occurred or not, you will know that a Fire factor is determined from the product of the Weapon Effectiveness value at a given range and the strength of the firing unit.

A random number is generated and modified by factors such as terrain, elevation, unit quality etc.

The Fire Factor is cross referenced against the modified random number and this indicates the outcome of the shot.

Now, because unit strength is a factor in the equation, there will be targets that three 2 gun sections will not be able to hit whereas one 6 gun battery, would be able to. So, unless you are trying to illustrate a point, (like the benefit of grouping guns into batteries as opposed to the use of regimental gun sections, or battalion guns), then be sure to reduce all batteries on both sides to the same level of 2 gun sections or 3-gun companies.

If for example, you have an army with a couple of 12 gun Russian batteries and a lot of regimental gun sections on one side, with limited ammunition in the scenario, can you guess which guns will get fired every phase?

Another point is that, with 2-gun sections, when one gun is lost, the effectiveness of the unit is reduced by 50%. Again, that residual single gun is not going to get fired again until all other units are down to this level, otherwise it's a waste of a shot that could have been taken by a twice as potent 2-gun section.


I'm not trying to put you off the idea, I use them all the time and prefer them, as it also serves to reduce the effectiveness of the guns, making them less dominant on the battlefield, which I think is a good thing. I just wanted to let you know of some of the problems with this.

Another one that springs to mind is that where you have a large number of negative modifiers, such as firing into a chateau, it will no longer be possible to hit the target with artillery gun sections.

Now, if they would include a function to allow you to group sections into batteries ....[:)]


Regards

Mark
VII Corps

Please, please, not sections.

It creates far too many units on the map. I recognize the realism tradeoff. However, there has to be a balance between realism and playability. I don't even want to consider some NRC scenarios with sections.

ETA: It also forces you into a situation where you either have to further reduce playability, or accept that cannon are even less useful deployed at the front lines (where they belong).

To wit: Imagine a stack of 3 sections of 2 guns, as opposed to a single 6 gun battery. If they are in range of enemy DF, the only way to fire all the guns without eating extra DF (as compared to the single battery) is to click on the stack and fire it as a unit. And, that effictively removes all use from the artillery dialog. Thus, less playability.

FML Gary McClellan
Generalissimus
Imperial Austrian Army

Mark,

Modified PDT files take care of the problem.

Gary,

Sections can work in big games. For one thing since there are so many of them many players will leave them stationary to avoid the hassle of moving them all. I think this leads to a more proper use of artillery.

Colonel (ret) Al Amos
1er Dragoons
AdN

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Gary McClellan</i>
<br />Please, please, not sections.

It creates far too many units on the map. I recognize the realism tradeoff. However, there has to be a balance between realism and playability. I don't even want to consider some NRC scenarios with sections.

ETA: It also forces you into a situation where you either have to further reduce playability, or accept that cannon are even less useful deployed at the front lines (where they belong).

To wit: Imagine a stack of 3 sections of 2 guns, as opposed to a single 6 gun battery. If they are in range of enemy DF, the only way to fire all the guns without eating extra DF (as compared to the single battery) is to click on the stack and fire it as a unit. And, that effictively removes all use from the artillery dialog. Thus, less playability.

FML Gary McClellan
Generalissimus
Imperial Austrian Army
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Gary - dont worry - you wont see these in our games. Al and the others are free to tweak all they want but we know that to introduce sections would start a war that is still raging over in the ACWGC about their series.

That group is divided on their preference:

Doug Strickler - added in an OB that gave you the batteries if you wanted them.

Rich Walker - he advocates adding in a OB for batteries for us that dont like sections.

Drew Waggonhoffer - absolutely will not add in a OB that has BATTERIES ever, even if a fellow gamer offers to do up the OB file - will not have it coded for any of his games.

Doug was farsighted of the three to see that some of us would not go with the section concept.

Rich is willing to work with us and add in a OB.

Drew has his own view of the series and its his call. I am not criticizing him here - just pointing out the difference of opinion for that series.

For Napoleonics:

The OB file is not locked. Folks can do as they like. Rich and the guys just put out a nice Expansion pack. I prefer just to add in new scenarios to future patches.

I dont know how Rich or Charlie feel about sections but for me I feel that the vast majority of gamers do not like them. If you want to have guns face in more than one direction then face two batteries in different directions.

Why should 2 gun have a ZOC also? If you have a batterry of two sections in a hex then you can achieve all around facing. While this could happen in real life I dont like the ZOC implications.

1 battery of 3 sections can be used to help ZOC a battalian. Our playtest group has already agreed that we dont want artillery to be overrun during a retreat by a formed unit (as per the skirmish rule). So do we now allow all of these extra sections to come into play which would then definitely mandate YET another House Rule: you cant use sections to block retreat paths. We need another House Rule like a hole in the head.

IMHO the game doesnt need more units. It needs more unit capabilities like sappers that can help reduce hard cover modifications in melees. It needs ladders for sappers so that WALLS can be attacked instead of being totally obstructing terrain.

And it needs some other things long before we go to sections.

Gary - dont worry - you know that in the games I do we will never go this direction. I would prefer to put special purpose batteries together to allow for guns like howitzers to be distinct.

What line in the PDT file Al modifies the fire procedure that Mark is talking about. His argument is very valid. Who wants to try and achieve a hit with a 2 gun section that is nigh well impossible unless you use a 6-8 gun battery?

IMHO this only weakens artillery. And we dont need that in THIS system (which is the only Horse and Musket series that has any artillery of any capability any more).

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]

I prefere to use my guns by batteries... And I really don't like the section by type of gun in a batterie.


<font color="green"> <b>Général de Division David Guégan Comte de Toulon, Duc de Nimes</b>
Co 11eme division
III Corps, AdN
Co Division d'Infanterie de la Jeune Garde, Garde Impériale


http://home.earthlink.net/~davidguegan/</font id="green">

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Al Amos</i>
<br />Mark,

Modified PDT files take care of the problem.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Al

Could you expand on this and indicate which parts of the pdt you would edit to resolve the points I raised. I have been trying to reconcile these on and off for a couple of years without coming up with a solution that I find satisfactory.

Thanks for any suggestions you can provide

Regards

Mark
VII Corps

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Bill Peters</i><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Bill

Thanks for your post on this and understanding that there are differences in view regarding gun sections vs. batteries, neither of which is better, simply reflecting individuals' preferences

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If you want to have guns face in more than one direction then face two batteries in different directions.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

For me, gun sections are not about multiple facings and I probably would not encourage it as it would rarely happen. My original interest was when working on an Austerlitz add-on for BG, the Austro-Russian batteries could blow the French away before they got near the Pratzen heights. By breaking them down to regimental sections, how they were historically deployed, their effectiveness was significantly reduced and the historical outcome of the battle became a possibility.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Why should 2 gun have a ZOC also? If you have a batterry of two sections in a hex then you can achieve all around facing. While this could happen in real life I dont like the ZOC implications.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

As can three residual 25 man battalions in column formation! The curse of the ZOC [;)]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">1 battery of 3 sections can be used to help ZOC a battalian. Our playtest group has already agreed that we dont want artillery to be overrun during a retreat by a formed unit (as per the skirmish rule). So do we now allow all of these extra sections to come into play which would then definitely mandate YET another House Rule: you cant use sections to block retreat paths. We need another House Rule like a hole in the head.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Not sure about this one as I am unfamiliar with move / limber / unlimber and ZOC in the HPS series. My thinking though would be, who in their right mind would risk unprotected artillery in such an adventure, with the possibility that they be captured the next turn by the enemy. If the guns are sufficiently protected to make this
move, (such as the enemy is in mass rout everywhere else), then I see no reason why the gun sections should not be allowed to do this.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">IMHO the game doesnt need more units. It needs more unit capabilities like sappers that can help reduce hard cover modifications in melees. It needs ladders for sappers so that WALLS can be attacked instead of being totally obstructing terrain.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I understand that, though I find that by putting a gun section with a battalion and moving / changing formation of the guns and battalion with the same key stroke it does not take any longer. The only increase is, if three sections are combined in battery, in the same hex, deciding which sections should fire at the current target. Taking your point about the additional functions, it would be nice if, for example, the howitzer section suffered less of a penalty from walls when firing into a chateau, (not to mention firing blind at troops behind a hill).


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">What line in the PDT file Al modifies the fire procedure that Mark is talking about. His argument is very valid. Who wants to try and achieve a hit with a 2 gun section that is nigh well impossible unless you use a 6-8 gun battery?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Glad you understood this Bill as I was not sure I had explained it correctly (or succinctly?). Again, I don't know the detail of the HPS pdt file, but for the BG series, a 2-gun section fires in the first row of the pdt fire table. A target at long range behind a hedge can therefore only be hit for fatigue. A 6 gun battery fires in the 3rd row of the fire table at the same target and can inflict casualties. Any changes to the fire table to enable the gun sections to be able to hit would increase the potence of all units firing in the first row - and that means skirmishers [:0][:0][:0]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">IMHO this only weakens artillery. And we dont need that in THIS system (which is the only Horse and Musket series that has any artillery of any capability any more).<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Here I will differ because (again from a BG perspective) because I believe that the artillery arm tends to be too potent, resulting in too many casualties in the games. But that's just an opinion[:)]

Regards

Mark
VII Corps

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Mark Eason</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Al Amos</i>
<br />Mark,

Modified PDT files take care of the problem.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Al

Could you expand on this and indicate which parts of the pdt you would edit to resolve the points I raised. I have been trying to reconcile these on and off for a couple of years without coming up with a solution that I find satisfactory.

Thanks for any suggestions you can provide

Regards

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

I forgot that you were speaking about NIR - the fire tables are in the PDT file. You can alter them if you like. They were removed in the HPS engine so folks couldnt cheat. Might upset the folks that like to adjust them for what they consider historical accuracy.

Thus ignore my question to Al - NIR PDT files have the table and can be adjusted.

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]

from Mark:

Not sure about this one as I am unfamiliar with move / limber / unlimber and ZOC in the HPS series. My thinking though would be, who in their right mind would risk unprotected artillery in such an adventure, with the possibility that they be captured the next turn by the enemy. If the guns are sufficiently protected to make this
move, (such as the enemy is in mass rout everywhere else), then I see no reason why the gun sections should not be allowed to do this.

from Bill:

Actually what you do is when using Single Phase you just move them adjacent to say a flank hex with some MPs leftover, then you melee the unit using the guns as blocks. Then you continue to move the artillery to a safe place OR you put units in the same hex for protection.

Even the Embedded Melee rule for the HPS games doesnt stop that. You just couldnt use them for ANOTHER melee using that rule as all melees occur in one sequence - you move/fire then stop to do ALL melees. Then you can move/fire again but no more melees.

Thus the arty could be used as blocks - 2 gun blocks!

Yes, never liked 25/50 man columns. Neither do the guys that have the 25/50 man columns though! If you have lost that many men in a battalian then you are not going to take the Great Redoubt with those boys!


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]

<i>quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Gary McClellan

Please, please, not sections.</i>


Don't worry Gary,

I started up this topic not to argue that batteries might be <i>replaced</i> by sections, as in the ACW series, but just to see how much interest there was in seeing some <i>additional</i> variant scenarios that broke batteries down into sections.

I've heard from a reliable source that this series won't be going down the ACW path of replacing batteries by sections.

Personally, I'm in favour of more choice rather than less, so with the ACW OOB fixed, I feel that the scenarios ought to include battery versions. Fortunately, with the Nappy series we don't have that problem.


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

Please no section! I hate them at Gettysburg and don't like to see them here. If you like sections why not split off battalions into companies.... Where shall this end? In squad battles? I agree with Gary that there should be left a last bit of playability.

<font color="gold">Feldmarshall
Stefan Ritter von Reuter
Großfürst von Wahlstadt
CoA Armee des Niederrhein</font id="gold">

[quote]<i>Originally posted by Bill Peters</i>
I forgot that you were speaking about NIR - the fire tables are in the PDT file. You can alter them if you like. They were removed in the HPS engine so folks couldnt cheat. Might upset the folks that like to adjust them for what they consider historical accuracy.

Thus ignore my question to Al - NIR PDT files have the table and can be adjusted.[quote]


Bill

While it is right that the pdt tables can be adjusted, that is also where the problems begin. To increase the hit probability for a gun section, so that it could hit targets at the same range as a gun battery, would also increase the hit probabilities for skirmishers - already the most powerful unit on the map!

So dabbling with the fire table is not always the best solution.

The NIR project files increased the fire table from the original 12-column to a 48-column matrix to introduce more options. This of course mean that having a high (or low) quality unit only increased (or decreased) its firing capability by 1/48 rather than 1/12. Not a good move for my money.

So I am still interested to know whether anyone can identify elements of the pdt file that can be altered to accomodate gun sections without significantly affecting other aspects of the game.

Regards

Mark
VII Corps

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Bill Peters</i>

Actually what you do is when using Single Phase you just move them adjacent to say a flank hex with some MPs leftover, then you melee the unit using the guns as blocks. Then you continue to move the artillery to a safe place OR you put units in the same hex for protection.

Even the Embedded Melee rule for the HPS games doesnt stop that. You just couldnt use them for ANOTHER melee using that rule as all melees occur in one sequence - you move/fire then stop to do ALL melees. Then you can move/fire again but no more melees.

Thus the arty could be used as blocks - 2 gun blocks!<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Bill

Thanks for the explanation, I understand now. I am not used to the single phase system but your description is perfectly clear and I can see your concern.

Cheers

Mark
VII Corps