Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

Like most officers I know, I have played with column pass-through fire ever since the rule was introduced.

Recently I found that the losses caused by the rule appeared to be out of proportion. It seemed like 4 battalions of 200 men in a hex would take considerably more losses than 1 battalion of 800, almost as if the presence of four units would quadruple the casualties inflicted by one shot. So informed my opponents that I would no longer play with the rule.

Meanwhile, I am having second thoughts. Will the absence of pass-through fire make it too easy to mass for an assault in the presence of enemy guns? Will batteries be able to survive without that rule?

Does anyone not play with this rule and does care to comment on this subject?

<center>
D.S. "Green Horse" Walter, Maréchal d'Empire
Duc des Pyramides, Comte de Normandie
Commandant la [url="http://home.arcor.de/dierk_Walter/NWC/3_VI_AdR_Home.htm"]3e Division Bavaroise[/url], L'Armée du Rhin
Commandant [url="http://home.arcor.de/dierk_Walter/NWC/EdM_start.htm"]L'Ecole de Mars[/url], L'Armée du Rhin
Commandant la Brigade de Tirailleurs de la Jeune Garde
</center>

The column pass-through option is not perfect but it is better than having artillery be totally ineffective against a massed body of troops. The correct fix would be to have artillery fire effectiveness depend on the density (or total number) of the troops in the hex and not on the presence of multiple units. The fire results should then be distributed evenly across all unit, including cavalry and skirmishers (though perhaps to a lesser extent).

FM Sir 'Muddy' Jones, KG
2nd Life Guards, Household Cavalry

I think that the passthrough option makes plain a failing of the game in terms of artillery.

The Density mod just isn't powerful enough, but on the other hand, 3 columns of 300 are grossly inferior to 1 column of 900, because of column passthrough.

I'd honestly like to see the entire system rewritten, so that fire is applied to all units in the hex, with the firepower based on the % of stacking limit that is in the hex at the time. Then the engine would distribute the losses, in the same way it does with indirect fire in 1776 or the like.

FZM Freiherr Gary McClellan
Generalissimus Imperial Austrian Army
Portner Grenadier Battallion
Allied Coalition C-in-C

Ah man there goes my chance at beating your Dierk...[V][:D][}:)][:p][;)]

I will say our game is quite bloody....

<center>--------------------------------------------------------



Herr Windbagenführer General der Infanterie Scott Prinz Ludwig von Saxe-Weimar
Aide-du-Kamp and Webmaster
Heer am Niederrhein

[url="http://www.prussianarmy.com/"]Königliche Preußische Armee[/url]

[url="http://www.networkforgood.org"]Network for Good[/url]

[url="http://napoleonicwargaming.com"]Napoleonic Wargaming - 1NWCG[/url]</center>

Gary and Ken both seem to agree that the calculation is off, but Ken says "use it anyway" and Gary "don't use it"? [8)]

<center>
D.S. "Green Horse" Walter, Maréchal d'Empire
Duc des Pyramides, Comte de Normandie
Commandant la [url="http://home.arcor.de/dierk_Walter/NWC/3_VI_AdR_Home.htm"]3e Division Bavaroise[/url], L'Armée du Rhin
Commandant [url="http://home.arcor.de/dierk_Walter/NWC/EdM_start.htm"]L'Ecole de Mars[/url], L'Armée du Rhin
Commandant la Brigade de Tirailleurs de la Jeune Garde
</center>

Serious comment this time, I have not always been a fan of it, but can see its usefulness, but from the Austrian side in our game and with no ability for skirmishers, it is something that does come in handy as often you are able to stack more in your hexes than I can. A recurring theme in our game, speaking fo which, our game is not the reason for this is it?? I assume not....but figured I'd ask.

<center>--------------------------------------------------------



Herr Windbagenführer General der Infanterie Scott Prinz Ludwig von Saxe-Weimar
Aide-du-Kamp and Webmaster
Heer am Niederrhein

[url="http://www.prussianarmy.com/"]Königliche Preußische Armee[/url]

[url="http://www.networkforgood.org"]Network for Good[/url]

[url="http://napoleonicwargaming.com"]Napoleonic Wargaming - 1NWCG[/url]</center>

But the minimal level for application of density modifier can be adjusted in the pdt file, can't it? Maybe it's worthwhile turning the pass through of and setting this limit to say 500 men? The strength of a normal batallion.

It needs playtesting anyway. Until it's done I'd agree with Ken. I prefer to have it on.

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

the problem is fix if the player decides doesn´t pass
through fire, so of simple [;)]

http://www.venezuela-emb.org.au/images/flag.jpg

The thing to do is to have a order of stacking in a hex. Its ridiculous to assume that four battalians would present a unified front. That is the first thing that needs to be remedied.

Then a new melee system which takes into account the fire, attacker morale check, attacker stops to fire OR continues on with cold steeel, then defender checks, holds OR counterattacks OR runs, followed by a conclusion to the melee.

Thus the TOP unit in the hex or top TWO units at most would determine the melee result and the rest would be along for the ride.

Stacking didnt matter in Napoleon's time. Units kept proper distance and ranks. It wasnt 2000 men attacking - it was ONE or TWO good units followed up by a second line. And its not like one unit would duck in for a shot and then duck back to allow the others to fire. This aint chicken wrestling!

For me: I use them BOTH. It stops the players from using those killer stacks.

Historical, accurate play, rewards both players. My good friend Bob, who is an ardent fan of our games, never does the things that we often hear about in our clubs. His lines and that of his opponent, Ty, always are correct to the period. Banzai blitzkrieg attacks never happen. Its not WW2 but its also not Marborough or 7 Years War in his games. I should send you a couple of game files he sent me. Its a delightful way to play. Much like how you and Al were playing in your EAW games (and Nappy too if I remember properly).

Killer stacks are for boardgamers. This is Napoleonics. Not win at all costs and by any means.

What needs to be done to cause folks to reduce their stacks is to give more bonus for morale.

But that is for another thread!

[8D]

Bill Peters
Former NWC President, Club Founder, Prussian and Austrian Army Founder, Stefan Reuter's hunting buddy. HPS Napoleonic Scenario Designer (Eckmuhl, Wagram)

[url="http://www.fireandmelee.net"]Fire and Melee Wargame site[/url]

Clearly there should be no logical different between targetting three 300 men units and a single 900 strong unit. The most sensible answer would surely be to scrap the column pass-through rule and just factor in the number of men in the hex being fired into. Thus it would make absolutely no difference if there were a single 900 strong unit, three 300 units or six 150 man units.

So presumably all that would be needed would be to compare the number of men/guns firing to the number of men targetted before considering other factors, such as terrain and the formation of both the firing unit and target(s).

With the precise number of men in the targetted hex calculated, it'll be possible to make cannister (and also close range musketry) especially effective against a large target, yet significantly less effective against a smaller target. This will help to discourage head-on frontal attacks and generally end up penalizing those players who prefer max-stacking column melee assault tactics over firepower. At the moment, the game engine clearly favours melee over fire tactics, yet a real Napoleonic general would be well-aware of the drawbacks of mass formations and their vulnerability to enemy firepower. Calculating the number of men targetted and factoring this into the fire results system would help resolve this gaming issue.

Ideally, artillery fire-factors should be more/less effective depending on ammo type, range and the target's formation and the direction it's facing. Also, roundshot should require a clear LOS to the target and pass through several hexes beyond the hex targetted, depending on weather conditions and the range of the target. Artillery ranges, as well as effectiveness should be affected by muddy conditions.

Some indirect fire capability for howitzers would also be worthwhile looking into - it's been present in the EAW series for some years now, so it should be feasible to port it over.

As for batteries "surviving", there really needs to be a gun capture / recrew / recapture feature - this will mean that if a battery gets captured, it won't just "magically" disappear in a puff of smoke and the defender will have a chance to recapture it. This is a pretty essential feature for a turn-based wargame and a feature that would greatly enhance gameplay. Also, it would allow troops to fight over uncrewed guns (and contest their victory point value) until one side was able to recrew them with an undisordered unit which had started the turn in that hex. Perhaps if the original owner managed to recrew them it would be assumed that the original crew had returned, so there'd be no drop in quality.

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

I support the perspective´s Rich White

http://www.venezuela-emb.org.au/images/flag.jpg

OK, thanks all for your comments. I am only too aware of the imperfection of the rule and how it could be improved. What I really wanted to know here is: given the rule as it is, play with it (seeing how it helps the defensive), or not (given its faults)?

<center>
D.S. "Green Horse" Walter, Maréchal d'Empire
Duc des Pyramides, Comte de Normandie
Commandant la [url="http://home.arcor.de/dierk_Walter/NWC/3_VI_AdR_Home.htm"]3e Division Bavaroise[/url], L'Armée du Rhin
Commandant [url="http://home.arcor.de/dierk_Walter/NWC/EdM_start.htm"]L'Ecole de Mars[/url], L'Armée du Rhin
Commandant la Brigade de Tirailleurs de la Jeune Garde
</center>

Play with it - the defender needs every little help he can get.


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

I agree, play with it. Defense is much harder than offense.

<b><font color="gold">Capt. </b></font id="gold">Paul Wakeman [url="http://www.acwgc.org/acwgc_members/paw/wakeman-AdR.htm"](OBD)[/url]
<font color="beige">2nd Light Rgt</font id="beige">
<font color="orange">2nd Brigade
22nd Saxon Division
<b>VII Saxon Corps</font id="orange">
<font color="red">Armée du Rhin (ADC)</b></font id="red">

Paul_Wakeman@yahoo.com

Yes, I agree it should be on. With the dynamic form of play available under the HPS system, there needs to be a cost to massing for an attack to score a breakthrough, allowing further units to move through the break. Otherwise it is too easy to engineer a break in a defensive line.

Lt Colonel Neville Worland
2nd Régiment de Dragons
Ier Corps de Réserve de Cavalerie
Army du Nord