Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

Obviously different things for different folks. Here is what it means to me in a wargaming context. Historical means that a games engine and results should reward the use of "historical" formations,tactics and movement and punish deviations. In Napoleonics this means the use of the column and the line should be rewarded when used in massed formations. Use of manuvering around units and surrounding and killing them with melees should be punished. This was not a time of a lot speedy manuver on the battlefield it was time a time of huge formations moving deliberatly on the field. Unfortunately the current systems do not punish those who deviate from the doctrines of the time in our games. Tell me in what battle did infantry march in column on a road for miles then jump off the road and encircle an enemy in a village or prepared postion and annihilate said unit with scarcley the loss of a man while more of these speeding columns blitzed through the hole to attack more enemies. The game systems need to make it almost impossible to fight unless lines of columns or battalions in line formation are used and the results for NOT using historical formations should be disaster.

I don't think a game should enforce a historical result or decision taken by a historical commander; but, it should "PLAY" historically. INMHO the only way to play an HPS Napoleonic game today is without the use of multiple melees and with the use of embedded melees. I don't even play BG anymore with the ridiculous ZOC rules. Not being a game designer I'm not sure what the answer should be, but for a start maybe severe combat reductions for units that attack without units on their flanks and modifiers for those that do. A unit only get's it full melee value if it has units on flanks. Taking a bunch of units and using them to surround units results in half a reduction of there strength for melees. I know I'm being simplistic but just trying to make a point.[:D]


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

The problem is that there is no reaction by the defender to the moves.

This is the big problem with phased turns.

It happens in board games too. Play the old La Battaile game system by Marshall Enterprises/Clash of Arms. I had one guy's Allied cavalry surrounded at Austerlitz. And have had it done to me at Borodino in that system.

I remember escaping from a ZOC'd location because one guy left an opening so I could move out of the hex. Light cav had five hexes around them as a ZOC but the back one was open. That open hex happened to be the only OPEN hex my cav could move into. Thus I escaped.

We cant do anything about it with the current setup. Perhaps a We-Plot/We-Go system would do better. Have a INTERCEPT order for units so that a battalian could step up to protect guns? Or cavalry could be on a OVERWATCH/Counter charge order?

I learned long ago to block roads. You never leave a road open into your rear. Perhaps the fault is not with the system but those that leave their flanks open?

Time and space problems too - Jeff Bardon and I were doing a playtest game and he got in and around my flanks and ZOC killed a few units. I should have watched the distance better when I went barging in on the attack.

No matter how we do up the MP rates you can eventually get in and around a unit's flanks. The best way to do it is to play a person that wants to play as historically as possible. Even Embedded Melee doesnt stop flank attacks. Follow up flank attacks yes. But it doesnt stop a unit from getting in behind another unit.

Bill Peters
HPS Napoleonic Scenario Designer (Eckmuhl, Wagram)

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

I wonder if an "easy" (said he hopefully) help would be to restrict the movement of units out of command. If we either halve their movement or even take them to a single hex (as some systems do) would eliminate a lot of the panzer-ish tactics (which I am just as guilty of as any, but am reforming!). Even without an engine change this can be done by agreement, but of course there are people who *like* using the panzers. So once again it seems we're reduced to playing only those who think as we do.

Meanwhile, I think I'll soon reach a point where I'll only play with embedded melee. But anything that reduces our control of the battlefield has my vote. What we don't already know about what's going on in these battles, our right wing can react instantly when the left is attacked in the flank. Radios, anyone? Of course, as long as we play with a blitzing style, we *need* radios! [8]

Lt Sean Turner
1er Dragons
2ème Division de Dragons
Ier Corps de Réserve de Cavalerie
l'Armee du Nord

[quote]<i>Originally posted by Sean Turner</i>
<br />I wonder if an "easy" (said he hopefully) help would be to restrict the movement of units out of command. If we either halve their movement or even take them to a single hex (as some systems do) would eliminate a lot of the panzer-ish tactics (which I am just as guilty of as any, but am reforming!). Even without an engine change this can be done by agreement, but of course there are people who *like* using the panzers. So once again it seems we're reduced to playing only those who think as we do.

Sean etal. Again, command restrictions HAVE been used on a large scale in ACWGC by myself, Don Adams and Jon Thayer. We did some series replays on the battles, It worked quite well in only allowing an OOC(out of command) unit the ability to move one hex,In Napoleonics I think it would probably be better to move Zero hexes!! It really tightens up play and "feels" more realistic.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by zinkyusa</i>
Use of manuvering around units and surrounding and killing them with melees should be punished. This was not a time of a lot speedy manuver on the battlefield it was time a time of huge formations moving deliberatly on the field. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I am not sure. Your statement sounds more accurate for the 7YW. In the French wars, things could happen rather quickly on a field. Columns would rush forward to exploit a situation even without caring much for flank protection and such. Feint in one direction, then suddenly wheel and attack in another direction. The Great Redoubt at Borodino was taken that way. Also the things you describe could absolutely happen in a village fight; Placenoit, St. Amand, the suburbs of Smolensk, Aspern-Essling.

I am in agreement with your proposition that maintaining command integrity, say on the brigade level, should be encouraged. But as I said before, I am not in favour of a game where everyone has to line up his battalions in straight lines and attack frontally. It would mean that the stronger force wins every time, and that would neither be very Napoleonic nor much fun. Cunning maneuver must have a place on a field.

Let's also not forget that, as I understand it, the ZOC rules are primarily there to encourage players to avoid situations where they can be cut off and "ZOC'd". So actually they should work in favor of what you advocate. If I get "ZOC'd" in a game it's usually my own fault for running into a situation a more cautious player would avoid in the first place.

The one fault I see with the system is the fact that a disrupted battalion in column cannot avoid ending its turn facing away from the enemy when it retreats, because the movement allowance doesn't suffice for even one step backwards and facing about. Thus they are easy prey; they shouldn't be.

<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>

<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>
We cant do anything about it with the current setup. Perhaps a We-Plot/We-Go system would do better. Have a INTERCEPT order for units so that a battalian could step up to protect guns? Or cavalry could be on a OVERWATCH/Counter charge order?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Tactical combat in Napoleonic Wars Online pretty much works that way. The influence of the player on what actually happens on the field is rather small, and that's a good thing. Strangely, however, it never worked out in a halfway historical way, IMO. Usually after each battle, however carefully you give the orders, the units from both sides end up scattered all over the place. [|)]

<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>

I agree certainly things could change quickly on a Napoleonic battlefield. A unit might rout, infantry may get caught in column by cavalry, cavlary might be countered-charged etc. BUT infantry did not punch a whole, run through and then wheel in all directions, cavalry did not charge through a hole and then instantly stop and turn around or ride around a unit and then stop and hold that unit in place. I'm not advocating that you be forced to line up in two lines and then shoot it out. Linear tactics does not mean that to me. I mean simply that the units should have to fight in the formations in which they were drilled. Specifically brigade and above.The longer a large formation maintained some semblance of order the more effective it was, of course at the end of the day in a big battle unit cohesion disintegrated and as it did so did effectiveness. I still say that manuver pretty much only won battles BEFORE a battle began. Witness ULM, Austerlitz, Marengo or any other fight that was impacted or won by some manuver element(s).Where a formation entered the field is pretty much where it fought for that day plus or minus walking distance (or riding distance) in a given amount of time.

I would define examples above more as strategic vs tactical manuver. I still say Napoleonic battles were little impacted by tactical manuver and much more impacted by massed artillery firepower, and shock attack by massed columns of infantry and cavalry, yes pretty much in lines, or repelled by massed firepower, squares, and countercharges.

The stronger side at the point of contact usually did win battles. He who got there the "firstest with mostest" usually won in those days I believe. Your turn Dierk. [:D]

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