Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

Hm, what's this good for? Any idea? Just to speed up gameplay?

<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>

It's mostly for ammo conservation.

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

Thx.

Not that it were much needed, seeing how ammo levels are usually way beyond ample.

<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>

Well, ammo in a couple of senses. First of all, infantry ammo (kind of stink to have your bn run itself out of ammo on skirms), but also, as memory serves, there actually is a system that makes too many D fires by one unit unlikely (though it does happen of course), but I'm not sure on that.

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

<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 />Well, ammo in a couple of senses. First of all, infantry ammo (kind of stink to have your bn run itself out of ammo on skirms), but also, as memory serves, there actually is a system that makes too many D fires by one unit unlikely (though it does happen of course), but I'm not sure on that.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Really? I didn't think there is a count. Always seemed like reactionary defensive fire can be triggered an infinite number of times during a turn, as long as targets pop up within sight and range. Remember that battery in the center of the British line at Brandywine, sighted right down that road that the rebels have to use for their lateral movement? I have seen it fire 10, 12, even more times a turn.

<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>

<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 />Well, ammo in a couple of senses. First of all, infantry ammo (kind of stink to have your bn run itself out of ammo on skirms), but also, as memory serves, there actually is a system that makes too many D fires by one unit unlikely (though it does happen of course), but I'm not sure on that.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

And not only. The first defensive shots are more effective than say 5th or 10th. It must be written somewhere in the manual, at least I met it there. So there might be tactics of "dancing skirms" applied to cause first most effective defensive shots go in vain. At least I understood the rule this way.

<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 Kosyanenko</i>
And not only. The first defensive shots are more effective than say 5th or 10th. It must be written somewhere in the manual, at least I met it there. So there might be tactics of "dancing skirms" applied to cause first most effective defensive shots go in vain. At least I understood the rule this way.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

It's not in the rules. But then a lot of things aren't, like the bonus on the first volley ever in a battle in the EAW games. Or the fact that skirmishers have to be within 5 hexes of the parent to rally.

<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 skirmisher rally rule is on page 38 (NRC) of the User file. I noted this since it seemed to be a change from the BG games.



Jeff Mathes
Enseigne de 2ème Classe
Cadet Corps.

The rule was an idea I had to keep skirmishers from drawing fire when they rejoined their parent unit or if they moved near a formed unit. Thus they move into the parent unit's hex, are reincorporated into the battalian, and dont draw fire.

Same goes if they move through the open and then fire on a formed unit. Artillery and formed infantry rarely fired on skirmishers. It was a waste of ammo.

Also note that infantry wont go Low Ammo as much. Not only is arty ammo impacted but infantry units CAN go low ammo because of Defense fire.

The main reason was not for ammo but because fire from formed units on skirmishers just didnt happen that much.

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]

Mssrs.,

A secondary benefiit of using this rule is that you can now move a leader into a stack without drawing ADF fire[^]!

Regards,

Paco

<i>Maréchal</i> M. Francisco Palomo
<i>Prince d'Essling, Grande Duc d'Abrantes et
Comte de Marseille
Commandant - Division de Cavalerie de la Vieille Garde </i>

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by paco</i>
A secondary benefiit of using this rule is that you can now move a leader into a stack without drawing ADF fire[^]!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

That true? Damnation, wish I would have known that before I started my new huge Belgian campaign with His Excellency Roubaud. [B)]

<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 <i>"No opportunity fire against skirmishers"</i> optional rule is certainly a useful new choice, reducing ammo expenditure and reflecting unhistorical firing against skirmishers, yet it does have various drawbacks that 1./ further strengthens the attacker over the defender and 2./ tends to make skirmishers too powerful.

The most important drawback to this rule is the inability of defending <b>skirmishers</b> to fire back, something which surely would have occurred. So, I'd strongly recommend modifying this rule to permit defensive <i>skirmisher</i> fire against enemy skirmishers.

A second possible exemption worth considering relates to range. Perhaps formed units might have at least <i>some</i> chance of firing back at skirmishers actually adjacent to them, especially if there are no enemy formed units nearby.

........................

Ideally, it should be feasible to set the range(s) at which units fire and the type of targets to shoot at <b>on an individual unit by unit basis</b> as in <i>Age of Rifles</i>. This would be particularly useful for artillery, but also formed units might be "pre-set" to fire at 2 hex range against cavalry and 1 hex range against infantry, or perhaps 2 hex range against cavalry & formed infantry and 1 hex range against skirmishers. There's a similar sort of system to this in the EAW and ACW engines, although unfortunately this currently only covers range not target type.

Such a feature might also enable a potential rethink of the ADF system - preferably again as an optional rule to give players more choice - with each defending unit perhaps given three <i>automatic</i> defensive volleys which will occur according to how the player "pre-set" his units (and which his opponent won't be aware of). In addition to these three volleys, there could be an automatic "frantic fire" system (again like in <i>Age of Rifles </i>) which occurs whenever a formed unit moves adjacent to another and ALSO whenever a unit attempts to melee. This would make direct frontal assault melees against good order troops highly risky unless the defenders had first been pinned down by suppressing fire. Of course AoR was designed for a later period (1850s onwards) with more advanced firepower, but surely adding automatic - and full strength - defensive fire prior to melee would reduce player reliance on melee tactics and shift the advantage away from the attacker? Currently, as has recently been discussed in another thread, the game engine clearly favours the attacker.

The ability to "pre-set" units' fire reaction orders on a unit by unit basis could also be taken a logical step further to allow <b>cavalry counter-charges</b> (I'm sure you'd agree that a feature like this really needs to be in the player's control not handled by the A/I) and perhaps also the ability for artillery to try to limber up and retreat. However, I'm not sure that <b>square forming </b>should necessarily be controlled by a "pre-set" system, rather than just handled automatically whenever charging enemy cavalry in LOS approach within say 5 hexes. I don't think players should need to anticipate square forming, either in their own previous turn - which is basically what we've currently got, and which is unfortunately less satisfactory than the old BG system - or even via a "pre-set" system, since this is something that junior officers would surely have handled when a cavalry charge was imminent.

I agree with Dierk that ammo levels tend to be too high. Personally, I'm in favour of increasing the probability of a unit going low on ammo in the pdt file but compensating for this by increasing the number of supply wagons as required. This would increase the importance of maintaining contact with the wagons and can be used to penalize rapid marches and movement through difficult terrain. It's a fairly straightforward change - doesn't require any engine changes - and it would have a significant impact on gameplay.

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

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Richard</i>
<br />The <i>"No opportunity fire against skirmishers"</i> optional rule is certainly a useful new choice, reducing ammo expenditure and reflecting unhistorical firing against skirmishers, yet it does have various drawbacks that 1./ further strengthens the attacker over the defender and 2./ tends to make skirmishers too powerful.

The most important drawback to this rule is the inability of defending <b>skirmishers</b> to fire back, something which surely would have occurred. So, I'd strongly recommend modifying this rule to permit defensive <i>skirmisher</i> fire against enemy skirmishers.

A second possible exemption worth considering relates to range. Perhaps formed units might have at least <i>some</i> chance of firing back at skirmishers actually adjacent to them, especially if there are no enemy formed units nearby.

........................

Ideally, it should be feasible to set the range(s) at which units fire and the type of targets to shoot at <b>on an individual unit by unit basis</b> as in <i>Age of Rifles</i>. This would be particularly useful for artillery, but also formed units might be "pre-set" to fire at 2 hex range against cavalry and 1 hex range against infantry, or perhaps 2 hex range against cavalry & formed infantry and 1 hex range against skirmishers. There's a similar sort of system to this in the EAW and ACW engines, although unfortunately this currently only covers range not target type.

Such a feature might also enable a potential rethink of the ADF system - preferably again as an optional rule to give players more choice - with each defending unit perhaps given three <i>automatic</i> defensive volleys which will occur according to how the player "pre-set" his units (and which his opponent won't be aware of). In addition to these three volleys, there could be an automatic "frantic fire" system (again like in <i>Age of Rifles </i>) which occurs whenever a formed unit moves adjacent to another and ALSO whenever a unit attempts to melee. This would make direct frontal assault melees against good order troops highly risky unless the defenders had first been pinned down by suppressing fire. Of course AoR was designed for a later period (1850s onwards) with more advanced firepower, but surely adding automatic - and full strength - defensive fire prior to melee would reduce player reliance on melee tactics and shift the advantage away from the attacker? Currently, as has recently been discussed in another thread, the game engine clearly favours the attacker.

The ability to "pre-set" units' fire reaction orders on a unit by unit basis could also be taken a logical step further to allow <b>cavalry counter-charges</b> (I'm sure you'd agree that a feature like this really needs to be in the player's control not handled by the A/I) and perhaps also the ability for artillery to try to limber up and retreat. However, I'm not sure that <b>square forming </b>should necessarily be controlled by a "pre-set" system, rather than just handled automatically whenever charging enemy cavalry in LOS approach within say 5 hexes. I don't think players should need to anticipate square forming, either in their own previous turn - which is basically what we've currently got, and which is unfortunately less satisfactory than the old BG system - or even via a "pre-set" system, since this is something that junior officers would surely have handled when a cavalry charge was imminent.

I agree with Dierk that ammo levels tend to be too high. Personally, I'm in favour of increasing the probability of a unit going low on ammo in the pdt file but compensating for this by increasing the number of supply wagons as required. This would increase the importance of maintaining contact with the wagons and can be used to penalize rapid marches and movement through difficult terrain. It's a fairly straightforward change - doesn't require any engine changes - and it would have a significant impact on gameplay.

Capt Rich White
4th Cavalry Brigade
Cavalry Corps
Anglo-Allied Army
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Wow, you went off topic a bit here and expanded out into areas that we all have talked about.

I dont have the time to get into asking John for alot of this. Why not discuss this stuff with him. I am assuming you have his email address. Put it to him in so many words and see what his reaction is.

For me I have some disagreement on how you want these ideas to be utilized in the game but I wont go to John on my own with my own concept of it. Why not get in touch with him and lay it all out. See if he is open to some of this. The ADF dialog (ranges and types of units to fire on) has already been suggested years ago and I put it to him this year again but so far no answer. I resent him the idea again but he hasnt given me an answer on it yet. Its one of the big things that I would like to see added.

No. Not the same dialog as the ACW series which I think is wimpy. The one from the East Front game (Campaign Series by Talonsoft). Now that we have some distance between us and TS I dont think we need fear using similar dialogs to accomplish the same things.

Counter charges is a can of worms. I have spent HOURS thinking on how it could be done and the AI still enters into the picture if its a single phase turn.

Anyway, get in touch with John on this. As a designer you have some clout with him.

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]

I believe skirmishers had a bigger role then what is portrayed in these games. Skirmisher created a lot of casulaties against formed units. Voley fire, as it was, was not effective agains skirmishers and very effectivce against formed units. Only other skirmishers would reduce their effectiveness. Even in the Napolenic times skirmishers were seen as the way to fight, loose order. The enlightnened commanders would use skirmisher and the others well they usually lost the battles unless they faced like minded opponents. Volley fire was not effective it tended to be a fire at will with the resulting inefectiveness. It looked good in maneuvers but did not work in actual combat.

Melee was basically who decided to flee first. The one that fled took great losses from the pursuers and it could be the attacker or the defender. If anyone remainded they were cut down. Two lines firing at each other created few casualties. It was the one who advanced forced the other to flee that caused the casualties. Artillery was extremely effective.

I don't get this from the current games.

Formed Infantry should not fire against skirmishers but skirmished should be able to fire at formed units and create larger casualties then none!



Lt. Pierre D.
AdR

Board Admin.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Pierre D</i>
<br />I believe skirmishers had a bigger role then what is portrayed in these games. Skirmisher created a lot of casulaties against formed units. Voley fire, as it was, was not effective agains skirmishers and very effectivce against formed units. Only other skirmishers would reduce their effectiveness. Even in the Napolenic times skirmishers were seen as the way to fight, loose order. The enlightnened commanders would use skirmisher and the others well they usually lost the battles unless they faced like minded opponents. Volley fire was not effective it tended to be a fire at will with the resulting inefectiveness. It looked good in maneuvers but did not work in actual combat.

Melee was basically who decided to flee first. The one that fled took great losses from the pursuers and it could be the attacker or the defender. If anyone remainded they were cut down. Two lines firing at each other created few casualties. It was the one who advanced forced the other to flee that caused the casualties. Artillery was extremely effective.

I don't get this from the current games.

Formed Infantry should not fire against skirmishers but skirmished should be able to fire at formed units and create larger casualties then none!



Lt. Pierre D.
AdR

Board Admin.

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

One thing that is noted in all that I read: volley fire was overrated. The first shot was volley but after that it was aimed unless the commander was very strict. Aimed fire produced more losses than volley.

Skirmishers were sent forward JUST PRIOR to an assault to try and disorder a defender. They would fall back behind the battlian as the melee went in.

One argument against skirmisher fire was that it took a long time to be effective. Example would be the Prussians at Jena. It took hours for the fire to effect the Prussian lines. Thus the concept that skirmisher fire could QUICKLY disorder a line is not true. It COULD do so but it wasnt the ordinary result.

Those cases where the skirmishers could keep up fire for a long time would result in disorder. Thus the British developed light infantry to keep the French back from getting to reverse slope and firing on the formed units. Thus skirmishers defending skirmishers is mainly to provide a line of resistance to their counterparts. I dont believe that skirmisher vs. skirmisher fire was very effective. More than likely just as much a waste as formed unit vs. skirmishers.

The melees between the skirmishers is more than likely a bit more decisive. Probably more hand to hand than formed unit combat.

Open ground - most commanders wouldnt deploy skirmishers over open ground when it was known that enemy cavalry were in strength. I almost made most of the units in the Wagram OB Restricted as a result. First, there were already a ton of units to move around. Second, the French didnt use skirmishers at Wagram as much as at say Friedland or Eckmuhl. However, in the players best interest I left it in their hands as to decide if to use them.

Final note: I might put out a OB for Eckmuhl that has the skirmishers as separate units for the formed infantry. Give them a better weapon value. Leave Light infantry battalians alone but give them the better weapon as they mainly get broken down anyway.

This would be an alternate OB for use for current scenarios. I would just make a copy of each scenario and change the OB name in a text editor.

Also thinking of having the squadron as the main unit with the ability to breakdown into 2 platoons. Each regiment therefore would have the right number of squadrons instead of the current default of 6. Charlie used 4 in NRC. While I dont mind either one we all know that an Austrian cuirassier regiment had a different number of squadrons than a French Hussar regiment. For historical accuracy I would like to go that route. More picket units for cavalry patrol as well. Instead of 6 for the Austrian Hussars they could deploy a ton of pickets. Would help in Eckmuhl where they are at a disadvantage when compared with their more numerous advesaries, the Allies, as far as strength and number of units goes. Mainly in the area of coverage of the map - not density issues.

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]