Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

Another optional rule I have recently had second thoughts about.

To be sure, this is *not* the <u>automatic</u> disruption by line movement as in the BG games; I understand that hardly anybody uses that rule.

In the HPS games, it's a <u>chance</u> to disrupt, based on unit quality and the nature of the ground. That always appeared rather reasonable to me, so I have never yet played without this rule.

Meanwhile it occurred to me that lines are already way slower to move than columns in most PDTs
a) anyway (a typical MP cost in the open is 2 for columns, 3 for lines in NRC & Waterloo and 4 / 5 in Eckmuhl and Wagram) and
b) because columns don't spend extra MP for changing facing when turning, while lines do.
The additional handicap of LMD may well not be required to make it undesirable to move in line unless one absolutely has to.

<b>Questions:</b>

1. Is it desirable to have LMD on to achieve a reasonable, historical handicap of line movement vis-a-vis column movement?

2. Without LMD, do lines not disorder at all, or do they still disorder on obstructed terrain?

Thanks for your comments.

Just to clarify, this is not meant as a poll on how much the rule is being used in club games; I am aware that a majority probably doesn't use it, for convenience of playing. I am interested in opinions on its usefulness in portraying the tactical reality of the era with reasonable accuracy. [:)]

<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 Grenadiers de la Moyenne Garde
</center>

Units will still disorder on obstructed terrain.

I recently played a game without it, at my opponents request, and he paid a dear price for it. I was able to advance my troops in line formation, getting the maximum fire potential every time I got a chance to fire. And the movement costs aren't that different in Waterloo.

As the defender it's not that big of an impact, but as an attacker it is, as you must take a much more cautious approach to how you deploy and advance your lines. It is still a preferred rule for me...

Maréchal Hamilton, Baron d'Barbancon
21st Division
VII Corps, ADR

Saxon Leib-Garde, de la Jeune Garde, Garde Impériale

I have never made my mind up about this rule. Usually the attacker wants to move a bit quicker and resorts to columns.

It depends on the battle. For a game like Wagram I play with it ON.

For something like Landshut I play with it OFF.

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 never play without it in the colonies. But here it's effects seem to be too strong. if we had two or more levels of disorder it would be natural. But I can't imagine how should batallion conduct a march to become as much disordered as after a good melee.[:I]

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

It is a good rule that needs tweaking. The movement rate for line and column should be the same, as the troops used the same cadence in almost all types of formations. The line, over time, moves slower due to having to stop and dress once it starts to become disordered. This is what the optional rule protrays.

My suggestions. Make the chance to disrupt somewhere around 5% for a base. Set the pdt files up where lines and columns move the same speed. Then use the Line Disruption Optional rule. You will see lines slow down, when they become disrupted, and whole brigades having to slow down in case any bns disrupt. Blitzkrieging will tend to drop off, and columns will be good for moving across disrupting terrain.

...and make movement on roads equal to moving a column in open terrain. These guys did not march faster in road column, in fact the opposite is true. They didn't get into vehicles to move on roads either. I believe that we 21st centurty gamers brought in a WWII phenomenon by having infantry move faster on roads than off. Roads back in the horse & musket era should only be considered making a path of 'clear' terrain through otherwise unclear terrain, not moving sidewalks. [:)]

Colonel Al Amos
1erè Brigade Commandant
2ème Division de Dragons

I tend not to use LMD due to the slightly higher movement cost, turn cost and automatic disruption in obstructed terrain already imposing appropriate penalties, and also because 10% chance of disruption seems slighly high to me (that's 10% x 3 for a full move in the open). Also there is the chance that the unit will not recover disorder next turn (obviously depending on being in command and leader qualities) which seems harsh for regular and elite units when what is being simulated is a delay for dressing the line, not the more serious reforming of the unit after melee, taking fire, or passing through terrain which would break up the formation. This brings up the issue of levels of disorder and what we mean by disorder. In short I think that a higher cost for moving in line is preferable, or a reduced percentage chance of disorder, or both.

I think Al's comments on road movement have some merit, especially given that we have only one type of column formation in the game (i.e no march column) and this leads to abuse of the road movement allowance.

<center>[url="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/a.r.barlow/Napoleonic/nap.htm"]Lieutenant Colonel Antony Barlow[/url]
~ [url="http://www.geocities.com/anglo_allied_army_stats/Anglo_Allied_Army_Cavalry_Corps.htm"]2nd British (Union) Brigade, Anglo-Allied Cavalry Corps[/url] ~
~ [url="http://www.geocities.com/militaireacademie/dragoons.html"]4th (Royal Irish) Dragoon Guards[/url] ~
</center>

Al,

But does not the decreased movement ability of the line mean it is stopping and dressing the ranks. Why should a man commanding 100 000s of men think of the coys that can't keep the ranks. The batallion commander is ordered to set on moving and starts it. If he encounters a disrupting terrain the whole formation disorders.

And with recent experience. Walking along a path is much more enjoyable and fast if you allow than in the open field. Leave alone good roads. 4:3 ratio of CE and CW seems to be nice here.

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

I generally play without line disruption, but its value is clearly associated with the scenario. It some cases it can favor the attacker if they want to use fire power instead of melee via column (which I think is the more common tactic). It can hinder a defender in that it makes it harder to fight a withdrawl, or effectively defend in depth.

My own sense is that all it does is give the french player an advantage that is not offset by any other capabiltiy and therefoe not a good rule, unless you think the french player is disadvantaged by the standard rules.

Recently there has been a few posts dealing with individual topics associated with the game engine. I think it is very risky to approach game improvment by looking at individual game mechanisms independently to determine improvements. (less of an issue if you are changing/adding something that occurs infrequently.

I think there are two concerns:

-first, what is your goal -- a more historical game (ie the armies fight as they did in the period) or a more competitive game (ie both sides, overall, have an equivalent (not necessarily identical/equal) opportunity for success. Personally I am more interested in a competitive game.

-second, you need to understand the interaction among factors, all of which may not be reflected in the current game engine

I'm far from an expert, but I think I can illustrate this with the topic of line movment disruption.

If you really want to "improve" the way forces close while in line formation, I think you would have to understand whether there were any "national" differences that would impact the liklihood of disruption -- I think the french were not drilled in that tactic but rather approach in column and the British on the other hand were - if correct the probabilities should reflect that -- have no idea where the Prussian and Austrians and Russians fall.

The probability of the line disruption event occuring is also, I believe, based on the quality of the units and the qualtiy of the leaders. We currently have one rating that reflects the same level of quality for shooting, meleeing, passing morale tests, recoverying from rout/disrutption and disrupting by movement. I think it is a stretch to have so many units superior in every aspect of the game. As you expand the number of things a single rating impacts you are inevitably distorting history and the play of the game.

Related to nationality differences are differences in the cost of equiping armies. While it would make for some changes in individual battles, it would really provide an interesting aspect to multi-year campaigns, in which the economic factors of the period would come into play -- including things like subsidies and exchange rates, and number of available recruits. Even for indvidual battles this would suggest "points" should vary by year. Such differences could impact tactics in a campaign game in that perhaps losses on both sides are not replaced at the same rate. I think this is an interesting area for game engine changes. Incidently one study I saw quotes the costs of 33 infantry men at 200 (pounds) for Austrian, Prussian, Russian, 600 for French and 1,000 for British. Those same 33 men on horse would all be about the same cost - around 10,000. If accurate that suggests uniform game points is a much bigger inaccuracy that anything else.



Brigadier Sir Bob Breen KT

1st (The King's) Dragoon Guards
Commanding 71st Highlanders
Commandant, RMA

I strongly prefer it as it slows down the game a bit. It helps differntiate troop quality more. With 10% Line Disorder, C troops have 73% chance to not disorder moving 3 hexes. A and B will be even more likely to not disorder. Lower quality troops will quickly drop off. Of course you only have a 39% chance of an entire brigade remaining in good order. Then you have the reorder chance on the next turn.

Without I see lines rushing at full movement forward blasting away and then meleeing. (As opposed to move forward as close as possibile in column (and woe to those who stray too far forward), deploy, and gingerly proceed forward.

I agree with Al that there should be no (ok maybe a little) difference between column and line rates in the open and a change in the road rates. The only one to get a road bonus should probably be the guns and the wagons. (And it is actually not a bonus for them , just better than the penalty they pay for off road.)

<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">
<center></center>

I believe the rule unduly favors the French as they tend not to use line line formations as much as column (at least not against me). I find it rather frustrating to move units in line one or two hexes and have half of them disrupt and lose half of their defensive fire as the French columns sweep through and around them and then zoc kill them.

I am coming to the conclusion that is way to much ahistorical manuvering by the French going on in these games. For example, I almost never get to use the superior allied musketry in Waterloo, having LMD just adds to lack of history.[B)]

Brigadier General Ed Blackburn
Commanding 6th Div, II Corps, AAA
3rd Bn / 1st Regiment of Foot Guards

<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 />It is a good rule that needs tweaking. The movement rate for line and column should be the same, as the troops used the same cadence in almost all types of formations. The line, over time, moves slower due to having to stop and dress once it starts to become disordered. This is what the optional rule protrays.

My suggestions. Make the chance to disrupt somewhere around 5% for a base. Set the pdt files up where lines and columns move the same speed. Then use the Line Disruption Optional rule. You will see lines slow down, when they become disrupted, and whole brigades having to slow down in case any bns disrupt. Blitzkrieging will tend to drop off, and columns will be good for moving across disrupting terrain.

...and make movement on roads equal to moving a column in open terrain. These guys did not march faster in road column, in fact the opposite is true. They didn't get into vehicles to move on roads either. I believe that we 21st centurty gamers brought in a WWII phenomenon by having infantry move faster on roads than off. Roads back in the horse & musket era should only be considered making a path of 'clear' terrain through otherwise unclear terrain, not moving sidewalks. [:)]

Colonel Al Amos
1erè Brigade Commandant
2ème Division de Dragons


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

Are you saying have the roads go as per clear terrain? What about the large maps? Doesnt that mean that you wouldnt get the historical march rates?

We discussed this some time back about Eckmuhl. For my next title I gave supply wagons the same MP rate as artillery to make up for the slowness of their movement.

Your idea have Lines having the same MP rate is intriguing. That way when they do disorder they will not be as penalized as they are now.

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]

The real solution to this issue would surely be to increase the number of levels of disruption to say ten, so that gaining a single level of disruption by merely moving a hex becomes far less severe.

Of course this would require an engine change, so it's not something that can be quickly fixed by modifying the pdt. However, such a fix would certainly be a significant improvement.

I'd probably recommend a system similar to the Shrapnel Dragoon series, with a player able to use up part of the unit's movement allowance to try to reduce disruption by "dressing the line". This would work better, <i>as it gives the player some control over disruption</i>, rather than have a single level of disruption which has pretty severe effects and which can only be recovered from as a result of a computer-controlled test at the start of the player's turn.


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