<
             Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC) Forums
*    NWC     NWC Staff     NWC Rules     NWC (DoR) Records    About Us     Send Email Inquiry to NWC
*   La Grande Armée Quartier Général        La Grande Armée Officer Records     Join La Grande Armée
*   Allied Coalition    Allied Officers     Join Coalition
*   Coalition Armies:   Austro-Prussian-Swedish Army    Anglo Allied Army (AAA)    Russian Corps
  
                 Military Books, Magazines, Games for sale (see other items)
Forums:    ACWGC    CCC     Home:    ACWGC    CCC
It is currently Sat Dec 15, 2018 10:09 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Changing Old Titles to the Ten Minute Turn.
PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2018 5:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri May 25, 2001 5:00 pm
Posts: 207
Location: TN, USA
One of my favorite titles is Jena - Auerstadt. I remember playing it many times against James Dobbins who apparently is no longer active in the NWC. The change to a ten minute turn and revising the cavalry from regiment to squadron as the basic maneuver element were great ideas. Leipzig was another great addition to the series based on this model.

My question is will some of the older titles: Waterloo, Eckmuhl, and The Russia Campaign, ever have scenarios created with these changes? I know I would play more scenarios if they were changed.

_________________
Feldmarschalleutnant Jeff Freiherr Mathes von Krain
50th (Stein) Infantry Regiment
Dritte Brigade
Austrian Korps


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Changing Old Titles to the Ten Minute Turn.
PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2001 8:49 am
Posts: 999
Location: USA
I too would really like this. Every time I think about trying to learn to do it myself real life intervenes...

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Changing Old Titles to the Ten Minute Turn.
PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2018 8:22 pm
Posts: 179
I'd like to see Waterloo/1815 redone but apparently that ship has sailed. Just redoing the OOB isn't enough because the original map makes me vomit. Giving the British superior muskets and a massive increase to strength (2 rank bonus) are also major problems. I contend that British weapondry was if anything inferior to the French and that the two-rank line certainly could not deliver *1.5 more firepower per man. The Anglo-sphere are generally narcassistic as hell concerning their historical war efforts. Reality is that Britain bankrolled and perpetuated the Napoleonic wars rather than fight them because land warfare was not their cup of tea. Blucher finally wins a battle and naturally Wellington gets the credit.

_________________
Lieutenant Geoff McCarty
45ème Régiment d’Infanterie de Ligne,
2éme Brigade,
2ème Division,
1er Corps d'Armée,
La Grande Armée


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Changing Old Titles to the Ten Minute Turn.
PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2018 9:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2001 8:49 am
Posts: 999
Location: USA
Geoff I will agree that Blucher does not get enough credit. The problem modeling the British tactics, IMHO, are this:
The Brits held their fire to the last minute, then let loose a close range volley that was more effective than that of most other nations do to the discipline of waiting until the French got close. Then they would countercharge, in line formation. This last bit is hard to model unless the stacking is limited to one battalion per hex.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Changing Old Titles to the Ten Minute Turn.
PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2018 9:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2018 8:22 pm
Posts: 179
Firing into an advancing enemy isn't some special Britisher tactic though. 1815 was pretty much over before it began. Unless Wellington did something really stupid there was no way the allies couldn't out-deploy against what was left of La Grande Armee. I'd say his later victories in Spain were more due to that being a side show campaign with 3rd line French troops and new officers than some amazing prowess. Without British shipping though Europe would have been dominated by France for better or worse.

If the campaign were to be redone than I'd at least decrease the 2 rank capability to *1.33. Which is still unrealistically high. A 3 rank line can deliver every mans musket to a volley if the men are properly trained. 2-Rank doctrine is due to low manpower on the field. It's pretty much a regrouped skirmishing line. British muskets and rifles should share the same firepower qualities as all the others. I'd go so far as to say that so should the majority of Russian troops in every campaign. Yet another series faux pas, the moron Russian soldier and Cossack with their worthless equipment..

_________________
Lieutenant Geoff McCarty
45ème Régiment d’Infanterie de Ligne,
2éme Brigade,
2ème Division,
1er Corps d'Armée,
La Grande Armée


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Changing Old Titles to the Ten Minute Turn.
PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2018 9:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2001 8:49 am
Posts: 999
Location: USA
Geoff,
It is my understanding from reading history (I do not claim to be any sort of expert, we have some actual professional historians of the era in the club), that the Brits were better at waiting to fire AND, equally important, after 1807 the use of line formation, and infantry fire as a primary tactic, was de-emphasized by the other armies of the period. All of Nearly all of Lutzen was fought in column by both sides, same with Borodino. In 1815 the Prussians and French used column as their primary tactical formation-they were not trying to stand in line and shoot...By 1815 the Brits were the only army that really emphasized line firing and their professional army (although diluted compared to previous years), was better trained too. Does that make sense?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Changing Old Titles to the Ten Minute Turn.
PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2018 10:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2018 8:22 pm
Posts: 179
I understand what you're saying. Do not believe it to be true though. Most battle casualties even after 1807 would be from musket shot which can only be delivered in volume against volume by a line of infantry. Manueverability of the column would outclass linear tactics in most later campaigns because a fast attack is the best defense. Skirmisher fire is alot more withering than the line too. But, there is no replacement for linear tactics when both forces are deployed in open ground and they must kill as much as possible that day.

I do agree that the average British soldier at Waterloo would have been better trained and experienced than the French one. That doesn't require a hardcoded firepower multiplier though because a lower French quality will disorganize and rout before the redcoat. Even D'Erlon's massed columns halted to fire. You gotta feed them the beans before the bayonet. What I think the designer for NB: Waterloo was attempting to represent was that the 3rd rank was somehow incapable of firing or participating in fire. The PDT also has ludicrously high values for infantry ranks over a 100m front so, I assumed it was just poor designing. I'm just glad that I'm 1.8m tall and wouldn't have been in the first rank during a Napoleonic musket battle.

_________________
Lieutenant Geoff McCarty
45ème Régiment d’Infanterie de Ligne,
2éme Brigade,
2ème Division,
1er Corps d'Armée,
La Grande Armée


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Changing Old Titles to the Ten Minute Turn.
PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2018 3:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2013 10:55 am
Posts: 986
Location: Bouches-de-l’Elbe
Regarding 3rd rank fire. The multiplier of 1.5 is OK because 3 rank fires with 100%. That is to make sure that a 2 rank & 3 rank unit with the same amount of men delivering fire should have the same amount of fire value.

Take this:
2 rank unit of 250 men fire with 250 men
3 rank unit of 375 men fires with 250 men(125 men per rank times 2 rank = 250 men fire)

Musket fire on 1 hex would give a fire value of:
1250 for the 2 rank unit
1875 for the 3 rank unit

But as the same amount of men fire the fire values need to be adjusted to be equally. The so adjusted fire values are:
1250 for the 2 rank unit times 150% = 1875
1875 for the 3 rank unit times 100% = 1875

_________________
Chef de Bataillon Christian Hecht, Corps Commander
La Grande Armée - 3éme Corps d'Armée
"Vive la révolution, vive la france and vive L’Empereur!"


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Changing Old Titles to the Ten Minute Turn.
PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2018 11:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2018 8:22 pm
Posts: 179
Napoleonics is about volume of fire. In one instance a 3-rank line has the advantage of a reserve of men who can reload the second ranks muskets virtually doubling their rate of fire. In another the first rank can kneel then kick out their musket butts to reload somewhat hindered with the third rank leveling their muskets between the second's shoulders overtop the first rank's heads. Either way the 3rd rank is contributing to firepower. If the designer wanted to restrict 3-rank firepower than he should have given them a 0.67 multiplier instead of a 1.5 to 2-rank. In effect a 3 rank line becomes 2-rank after so many casualties or over extension and yet the 2-rank game attribute allows 1.5x more firepower in every situation.

It is not the men firing that matters but the amount of muskets fired and reloaded over a period of time. Mathetmatically;
2-rank 250 men fire ~500 shots per minute
3-rank 375 men fire ~750 shots per minute
Although, I can see some penalty for a 3-rank line's firepower if we're assuming they're only reloading. Which would be about 6 seconds per minute for the 2nd rank to fire through his 2 muskets or say a *0.9 modifier. If I were commanding a 3-rank line than the first rank would kneel the first and they might need 10% more time to reload due too awkwardness .

_________________
Lieutenant Geoff McCarty
45ème Régiment d’Infanterie de Ligne,
2éme Brigade,
2ème Division,
1er Corps d'Armée,
La Grande Armée


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Changing Old Titles to the Ten Minute Turn.
PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2018 12:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2013 10:55 am
Posts: 986
Location: Bouches-de-l’Elbe
Geoff McCarty wrote:
Napoleonics is about volume of fire. In one instance a 3-rank line has the advantage of a reserve of men who can reload the second ranks muskets virtually doubling their rate of fire. In another the first rank can kneel then kick out their musket butts to reload somewhat hindered with the third rank leveling their muskets between the second's shoulders overtop the first rank's heads. Either way the 3rd rank is contributing to firepower.


Well 7YW was about volume of fire, what the Prussians mastered at that time but what even they didn't do anymore in 1806 as they also just fired with 2 ranks and no rank was kneeling.

The theory of the 3rd rank usefulness in fire combat is nice, but I still have to see any prove of it.
Firing from the 3rd rank had proved impractical as it impacted 2nd & 1st rank and the French regulations of 1791 had established 2 rank fire, and the Prussian had done this too before Jena, not sure about the other countries.
Now using the 3rd rank for reloading, well reloading & handing over a loaded musket just get an empty musket back under fire was surely not going nearly as well as it sounded in theory, if it happened at all, especially as 3rd rank was usually the place for the new men in the unit. How they reloaded is another thing, a veteran handing over is empty musket just to get one back that was stuffed like a thanksgiving turkey was surely nothing that he considered to do, nor did the veteran consider to wait till young Pierre was done with his reloading process.
So even if one would grant a contribution of 3rd rank to the fire value, it's not much that is contributed and you have to subtracts something from 2nd & 1st rank, so basically you can right away stay with the 2 rank calculation we have now.

Same counts for the kneeling, once you got them on the knees it was hard to get them going again, and no officer wanted his unit nailed in that way. Even the Austrians abolished it in 1805.
In some papers this may show up for this period but in which battle between 1805-15 did any noteworthy amount of units kneel? And even if you find some, these were surely the exception to the rule that no unit in line keeled anymore in this period.

_________________
Chef de Bataillon Christian Hecht, Corps Commander
La Grande Armée - 3éme Corps d'Armée
"Vive la révolution, vive la france and vive L’Empereur!"


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Changing Old Titles to the Ten Minute Turn.
PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2018 3:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2018 8:22 pm
Posts: 179
Well, even if the third rank is meant to stand back and fill in gaps as the Prussians ordered; than there is no qualification that a 2-rank line should receive a benefit to it's fire. That's backwards algebra. The 3-rank line should receive a penalty if 1/3rd of them are on smoke break all the time. Better yet a maximum frontage value could be used. Despite that I believe men are going to stand when ordered or reload muskets for their comrades. 'napoleonistyka.atspace.com' is a great compilation of resources but, it's tactical presentatations are from Nafziger's (Imperial Bayonets) guesswork. He just makes off hand remarks concerning the difficulties of 3-rank fire then finalises it with "must have worked because everyone was doing it". Things probably varied significantly from unit to unit in Napoleonic warfare. Some battalions counter marched their ranks forwards still. No one would want to waste 1/3rd of their formations firepower nor would men stay idle while others are dying right in front of them.

You know German correct? translate.google is not doing me any favors here. An 1813 Landwehr manual, which I think is saying that the entire battalion's third rank is meant to be deployed as a skirmish line. Is this true?
http://www.kurmaerkische-landwehr.de/ht ... ement.html Section titled "Vierter Abschnitt. Bestimmung des dritten Gliedes.".


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

_________________
Lieutenant Geoff McCarty
45ème Régiment d’Infanterie de Ligne,
2éme Brigade,
2ème Division,
1er Corps d'Armée,
La Grande Armée


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Changing Old Titles to the Ten Minute Turn.
PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2018 10:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 10:18 am
Posts: 5535
Location:
I would love to convert Eckmuhl and Wagram to the 10 min. format. Eckmuhl would be the easiest. Except for the campaign scenarios the rest of the scenarios for Eckmuhl are mainly based on ONE OB file. I would also convert them to squadrons as well.

Right now I just don't have the time. I have one Nap. Battles project to finish for John and now one new title in another series along with two more that I have as well. Add to it I am working on my own new Napoleonics project AND Slitherine has an interest in getting me to help with their teams too.

In the meantime, here is how to convert a scenario to a 10 min. format:

1. Copy the PDT and scenario files you want to convert. Put "10m" in their name to make it plain what they are there for.

2. I am going to use an Eckmuhl PDT file for an example. Make a copy of the austrianfirst.pdt and call it austrianfirst_10m.pdt. Open the file and note the 5th line from the top

13
Bavaria April 1809 - Austrian First
1
5 0 21 0 0 1
15 60 <------------- this one

This means that the Day turns are 15 mins. long and the Night turns are 60 mins. long. I suggest you leave the Night turns as is but change line #5 to read like this:

10 60

if you want 30 min. night turns then use this:

10 30

Now go further down in the file to where you find the weather lines. They start with these lines:

1 1809 4 16 5 0 100 4 100 100 100 0 0 Dawn/Clear
1 1809 4 16 5 15 100 8 100 100 100 0 0 Dawn/Clear
1 1809 4 16 5 30 100 16 100 100 100 0 0 Dawn/Clear
1 1809 4 16 5 45 100 32 100 100 100 0 0 Dawn/Clear
1 1809 4 16 6 0 100 60 100 100 100 0 0 Clear

You are going to have to add in new lines so that the turns 15, 30, 45 are 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 for each hour where they are used. You don't have to do anything about the hour turns (0).

New lines could look like this:

1 1809 4 16 5 0 100 2 100 100 100 0 0 Dawn/Clear
1 1809 4 16 5 10 100 6 100 100 100 0 0 Dawn/Clear
1 1809 4 16 5 20 100 12 100 100 100 0 0 Dawn/Clear
1 1809 4 16 5 30 100 20 100 100 100 0 0 Dawn/Clear
1 1809 4 16 5 40 100 32 100 100 100 0 0 Dawn/Clear
1 1809 4 16 5 50 100 44 100 100 100 0 0 Dawn/Clear
1 1809 4 16 6 0 100 60 100 100 100 0 0 Clear

Note how I changed the visibility values (the 8th value in each line).

Each day's values will have to be altered. For days where it is clear weather you can simply duplicate the lines for each day and then change the day value which is the 4th value in each line.

3. For the scenario files:

a. Increase the number of turns by a factor of 1.5. Thus 60 turns is now 90 turns. For scenarios that have multiple days figure how many turns are in each day and multiply by 1.5 for that time period. If you are going to use 30 min. turns then multiply the number of Night turns by 2. If you are going to leave them alone then determine the number of Night turns for each night period and add that to the amount of turns for each Day period. NOTE: When the Weather lines are used the "NIGHT" value in the upper part of the PDT file is actually the first Night turn. Here is the PDT line #4 in the file we worked with above:

5 0 21 0 0 1 <---- this last value of "1" means that the weather lines will control the visibility - Night in this case begins at 2100 (9 PM).

So for example: lets say that you have 96 day turns (scenario starts on the 0500 turn) along with 7 turns of Night (60 min. turns) you have a total of 103 turns for a complete day. If you use 30 min. night turns just use "14" for your Night turn count. If you have a 3 day scenario that will end on the last Dusk turn you would have:

96 + 7 = 103 for Day 1
96 + 7 = 103 for Day 2
96 = Day 3

Total is 302 turns.

b. each scenarios reinforcements and release times will need to be converted to the 10 min. format unless you are ok with the time differences. If you decide not to change them then here is what happens:

On turns that are xx15 the reinforcements or release will occur on the xx20 turn.

On turns that are on the xx45 turn the reinforcements or release will occur on the xx50 turn.

When you convert a scenario from the 15 min. to the 10 min. format you never get two groups arriving on the same turn at the same location (but you do if you are converting from 10 min. to 15 min. format) so if you want to save yourself a lot of work by just putting a line like this in the Scenario Description:

"NOTE: Each turn is 10 minutes. Reinforcement and release times for the xx15 and xx45 minute turns will occur on the xx20 and xx50 turns respectively."

For the release times its the same. If you want to leave them alone you can. A formation that was due to release at 1:15pm will release at 1:20pm instead. You may want to look over the situation before you determine whether you will convert the times. The release times were based on the turn # and not time. So if a formation releases on the 1:15pm turn and another formation had released on the 1:00pm turn it may be because the formation was meant to immediately follow up that earlier release within a game turn's time. There are not a lot of releases in a scenario for the most part so converting these is easy in a text editor (as you cannot edit release times in the Scenario Editor).

Release lines in the .scn files all are found in Section #4 (lines begin with a "4" value):

(from the .scn file 08h_eckmuhl.scn)

4 1809 4 21 10 15 50 2.5.4
4 1809 4 21 11 0 88 2.4.3
4 1809 4 21 11 0 33 2.5.2
4 1809 4 21 11 30 33 2.5.3
4 1809 4 21 13 30 33 2.8
4 1809 4 21 13 45 100 2

The line reads: Section #, Year, Month, Day, Hour, Minute, Percentage, ORG formation number

You would want to change the lines that use "15" or "45" for their Minute value to "10" and "40" respectively.

As far as I know that is all you have to change. Its a methodical process and I suggest that you create a task list for each scenario as you copy the file and then make the changes.

_________________
Image
General der Kavallerie Wilhelm Prinz Peters von Dennewitz
Husaren-Regiment Hessen-Kassel
Infanterie-Brigade Hessen-Kassel
Königlich-Preußisches Armee-Korps
Scenario Designer for Napoleonic Battles series - John Tiller Software
http://friendsofwargaming.com/support-bill-peters.html


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Changing Old Titles to the Ten Minute Turn.
PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2018 1:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2013 10:55 am
Posts: 986
Location: Bouches-de-l’Elbe
Geoff McCarty wrote:
Well, even if the third rank is meant to stand back and fill in gaps as the Prussians ordered; than there is no qualification that a 2-rank line should receive a benefit to it's fire. That's backwards algebra.

The way of calculation might have something to do with the 75% that a shortened line receives. Anyhow, the same amount of firing men deal the same amount of fire value, no matter if 2 or 3 rank formation and that is what the current way of calculation achieves.

Geoff McCarty wrote:
No one would want to waste 1/3rd of their formations firepower nor would men stay idle while others are dying right in front of them.

Unless there was a better use for the 3rd rank and that was, besides taking the position of lost men from the 1st & 2nd rank, skirmishing. As said the fresh men often ended up in the 3rd rank, putting them forward relieved the formed unit of unreliable men and at the same time gave skirmishers without wasting any veterans for it that would be better used to form an attack column or fire line.


Geoff McCarty wrote:
You know German correct? translate.google is not doing me any favors here. An 1813 Landwehr manual, which I think is saying that the entire battalion's third rank is meant to be deployed as a skirmish line. Is this true?
http://www.kurmaerkische-landwehr.de/ht ... ement.html Section titled "Vierter Abschnitt. Bestimmung des dritten Gliedes.".

Yes that is true.
The first paragraph points out that the 3rd rank was a usable forces for various objectives and for everyone who knew how to use it it was a reserve available all the time.

PS Regarding the smyth regulations 1812, I don't doubt that kneeling is included in instructions or mentioned in other papers, but I doubt that is was used in the field in general by a unit in line formation, at best it was done under special circumstance like the unit being formed in a square or skirmishers utilizing the terrain.

_________________
Chef de Bataillon Christian Hecht, Corps Commander
La Grande Armée - 3éme Corps d'Armée
"Vive la révolution, vive la france and vive L’Empereur!"


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Changing Old Titles to the Ten Minute Turn.
PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2018 1:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2018 8:22 pm
Posts: 179
Christian Hecht wrote:
PS Regarding the smyth regulations 1812, I don't doubt that kneeling is included in instructions or mentioned in other papers, but I doubt that is was used in the field in general by a unit in line formation, at best it was done under special circumstance like the unit being formed in a square or skirmishers utilizing the terrain.


Did you read it? The US Army 1812 regulations require a kneeling first rank in a three rank line. According to Duane's transcription of John Macdonald's translation of the 1791 French Regulations; a kneeling first rank in a three rank line is standard operating procedure. Where the 1791 Regs do contain a 2 rank line volley exercise the last instruction is that the second and third rank exchange weapons. It's just common sense that men within musket shot are going to be active in returning fire in some way really. Another consideration is that somehow skirmishers are dealing half (0.75:1.5) as much firepower as a super duper British 2-rank line. Once again, poor research and bad design. Probably stemming from Nafziger's anecdote in Imperial Bayonets which involved the third rank blowing powder on the hands of the first which was standing (generally retarded new guy behavior).
The proper French/European ordre minces is the second rank looming over the kneeling first. The third rank is pretty much 'nut to butt' with the second. All the musket muzzels are 40cm in front of the first ranks raised knee. That is how you deliver a devastating volley of fire.


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

_________________
Lieutenant Geoff McCarty
45ème Régiment d’Infanterie de Ligne,
2éme Brigade,
2ème Division,
1er Corps d'Armée,
La Grande Armée


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Changing Old Titles to the Ten Minute Turn.
PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2018 3:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2013 10:55 am
Posts: 986
Location: Bouches-de-l’Elbe
If only everything would have been done by what the regulations state, the knowledge about the details about the tactical combat in that period would have been crystal clear for many years, but that is just not true and we still are unsure of many aspects of it. That is why many long standing games like the La Bataille series dating back to the 70's went through so many rules revisions as the research evolved the knowledge of tactical combat.

What the US did isn't topic here, I don't know what they did in the ward of 1812.

French regulations? Were easy by 1805 but even then in the field it was done even more easy, that is why the French seems so much quicker than the cumbersome Austrians and other countries. And that is a good example of the fact that what is stated in any regulations is not automatically the only thing that was done in the field

And finally, talking about "common sense" in warfare isn't helpful in any way as the reality of warfare always outmaneuvered what can be seen as common sense when only relying on regulations. Many regulations incorporated things that were already done in the field for many years. Seeing regulations as the pinnacle of conducting tactical combat that nothing else could beat is simply wrong. if something didn't work in the field officers, at least the good one, adapted to it and that meant evolving tactical combat beyond what was stated in the regulations.


Don't get me wrong, fire combat as to be adjusted, skirmisher fire and artillery fire beyond musket range must yield more fatigue per casualty as that type of fire combat can't be compared with the usually volley fire of a unit formed in line.
And that the engine itself, that depicts more detail than the CW series but has neither its guts nor the optional rules adapted to it, has to be reworked is clear. But that can not be based solely in regulations. That would bring the engine just to a different spot that is as far of reality as we are now, with other words a lot work and not one step closer to success.

_________________
Chef de Bataillon Christian Hecht, Corps Commander
La Grande Armée - 3éme Corps d'Armée
"Vive la révolution, vive la france and vive L’Empereur!"


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Localized by Maël Soucaze © 2010 phpBB.fr