Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

I disagree that commanders could not react to what was going on to their front. Yes, in cases where the line was disordered they had little control over moving their units. Thus the game reflects this with the reduced movement rate.

But you guys all agree that the new Disorder rule of INCREASING the movement from 1/2 up to 2/3 is better which I disagree. From what I have read the troops that came into contact had little to no ability to react. But talk with guys like Gary M. or Ken J. and they all wanted their Allies to react more to the advance of the French when they were disordered! So who was wanting fixes to the system: the guys that were getting blitzed! And they were not HISTORICAL fixes either. They were based on the RESULTS and not on any history book. From all I have read disordered troops were not easy to reposition. Thus they got run over alot. On the other hand I have heard that even the simplest movements by troops on the BATTLEFIELD seemed to stretch their every fiber of being. That the FATIGUE of doing the simplest things was very taxing.

So the question here is does the 10 min. rule stand only as a REACTION to the blitz and the answer is NO. Its there because the 15 min. rule allowed commanders to get in behind the other guys' flank before a HISTORICAL reaction could happen. And it harnesses those that decide to move an entire brigade or division at a time when this was the exception rather than the norm of every turn's activity (see below).

Thus this entire issue of the 10 min. move being unhistorical is ridiculous. And the 10 min. move was not only added in because players were abusing the blitz but was a move made based on the consideration that the units could not react to basic enemy movements given that the troops reacting were fresh and able to make a normal move.

Back to control: what I would have liked but will never get is a Command Control tool that allows you to give orders and watch your troops move in Napoleonic fashion. I enjoy games like Combat Mission which are We-Go style of play. Whenever someone can put together a We-Go type of game where you plot your moves (by brigade if you like) then that would be nice.

May I point out that the majority of commanders facing Napoleon prior to 1813 would come over and move one or two battalions at a time? The concept of brigade moves on the battlefield didnt exist. Or they would launch a group of squadrons in a charge. Thus if you guys really want to get historical ... the Prussians in Jena should not be able to move once placed. The commander can adjust ONE battalion or TWO at the most per turn.

Rich - I would LOVE to see someone play historically accurate but noone would enjoy the outcome. If that is your goal then Napoleon always wins in our games because the command system for the French would almost render an Allied victory impossible except where the Austrians of 1809 or British under Wellington were concerned. And even the great Duke himself had a terrible command system and had to, dare I use the term here because of the historical watchdogs, MICROMANAGE his troops. You read any account of Wellington's great victories and he was running all over the battlefield placing a battalion here or there. That was how he won. Not because of a great staff system. Because he was always PERSONALLY at the right place.

So much for historical talk. I doubt that any of you including you Mike Ellwood would want to play historical.

We had a guy in our miniature and boardgame club who did this. He lost everytime because he fought his armies just like his historical counterparts would. Is that what we are about? No.

Yes, there needs to be historical restraint but how many of you guys are willing to live with a system that says ... you cant move more than say 1-2 battalions a turn in any one division? Please dont lie to me and say you would.

So much for the historical approach. None of you, including you Rich, would want to play that way for more than 2 games. What you guys think of as a historical advance with your forces was Napoleon's ability to move large formations.

What we need is a troop commitment level, an Army morale system of some kind to counter those that like to mobilize the entire army on Turn 1. Most of the response to FIXED troops is negative. Folks dont like to be tied down. Frankly the idea that the French Imperial Guard never gets used is nice but what do you do in your game when cossacks approach from the rear as did happen in my Borodino game recently with Colin Gaskell? Do you say, "Well the Guard never was committed so I guess I will just suck it up?" Would some of you consider Colin's move gamey? I didnt. They are cossacks! Their job was to recon the flank and rear of armies. They were used to operating on their own.

Bottom line: our games are just games. They are not total history. As my friend Jim pointed out to me our games still give us too much vision. How many of you when a squadron discovers a huge enemy force on one side of the massive maps discard it and forget it? None of you. Be honest please! You adjust on the spot unless you had rules in force. Which is why umpired games are wonderful. But not too many of them FINISH. Why? If we were so historically driven we wouldnt mind using umpires in EVERY game that uses a LARGE map. We wouldnt even worry about a 10 min. move then.

But everytime I or someone else has advertised an Umpire game lately its just left alone (the thread I mean).

If historical accuracy is what you want ... lets see more umpired games. Otherwise please dont bother me about being historically accurate. What we have here (me too) are gamers that are for expedience and not as much historicity.

Sorry that this one got long but I had to develop this thought out completely to prove my point. Its not about being right or wrong. Its everything about spending over 100 hours to get things the way they should be in the Design stage. Frankly I dont think I need to spend another 100 hours going over the game at this point. We have players that expect to win every time they play because that is in their nature. Losing is not dishonorable but none of us plays with the idea that we CANT win the battle or that the goal is to ONLY deny the victory but never win. Which is where some of our scenarios lead. The best the defender can do in certain cases is a Draw. I would like to remedy that but it takes alot of testing to do that. I will continue to try and produce scenarios that allow the widest possible outcome.

When the blitz guys go away they will be replaced by the ponderous, historically driven sorts that frankly ... bother me more than the former. I had rammed down my throat by one former member the concept that unless I did it his way I was not only idiotic but insensitive. I have one icon to describe my response to his likes:


[xx(]

Colonel Bill Peters
Armee du Rhin - V Corps, Cavalerie du V Corps, 20ème légère Brigade de Cavalerie, 13ème Hussar Regiment
HPS Napoleonic Scenario Designer (Eckmuhl, Wagram, Jena-Auerstaedt and ... more to come)

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

Pierre - since your comments deviate from the concept of historical movements I wanted to address them in a separate response.

All this talk about the players being confused by the rules: are you talking about how the combinations of rules affect play or a lack of documentation? Why should we limit the amount of options to say 3-4 rules? Are you saying make them embedded in the engine? Which ones? So you would prefer to piss off guys like Mike Cox who doesnt like the current Skirmisher Overrun rule which was countered by adding in a No Skirmisher Overrun rule? So who makes the determination on what is standard/embedded? Rich and I discussed what we thought should be the standard set of Options already checked and his view differs slightly from mine.

This is not a knock but you tend to be more of a Control person. In your leadership of clubs you tend not to allow the members to have control of some of the elements of the club. This is just your nature I think and its not a major attack on you as a person. You are a fine guy about "lets make sure the ship is running well" and that is great. We need your type of person. You produce stability. And our team has that as its aim as well.

But in the past it has caused members to be upset. You are a fine administrator but when it comes to member/customer satisfaction you would be found wanting in this regard. My style usually pisses folks off but in this case I like allowing the member/customer to have the option of what they play with in a game. I say the more the merrier. We have a manual - open it up and read it. John Tiller is a mix of both of us. He doesnt like alot of options BUT doesnt embed them en masse into the engine. There are some mechanics that he has done this with but they are VERY few.

According to your way of thinking the Manual Defense Phase rule should be a given. So would you have that become embedded and no longer an Optional rule? Is this rule confusing people? I dont think so.

Compared to some games on the market our list of options are much easier to follow.

Thus I contend that the amount of rules we have, while numerous and growing, is not that hard to figure out. Frankly I would remove the Rout Limiting rule and make it ON as an embedded option. Would that please folks that want it OFF? No. They would probably get pissed with me. Thus hey, I do make some choices on the team that are for the sake of peace in the valley. There are some options like the Partial Retreat option that frankly dont even need to be in the list anymore. If that was what you were referring to then I agree. Frankly I have yet to see it DO anything when it was ON. My units still got wiped out. I have yet to see the rule do as advertised. I suppose the units have to retreat through their rear hexside but I have yet to see them do this in my testing.

If this is the only knock we get then I say bravo. Its still an issue with me that the rule didnt work as advertised but frankly ... I dont use the rule now that the new one, No Melee Eliminations, has supplanted it (and you have to have the Partial Retreat rule OFF in order for it to work). If this was what you were referring to as confusing then yes, that is so. By default the rule should turn OFF when NME is turned ON.

However, if you are advocating that we embed the numerous rules and narrow it down to 3-4 options I would love to see which 3-4 options you think should be available. Something tells me that you are going to piss off a majority of the customers! [:p]

(take this response in a friendly way - I am using persuasive speech to show that your line of thinking was looked at in the past but would produce more negative feedback than after a rock concert where the main performer didnt show!)

Colonel Bill Peters
Armee du Rhin - V Corps, Cavalerie du V Corps, 20ème légère Brigade de Cavalerie, 13ème Hussar Regiment
HPS Napoleonic Scenario Designer (Eckmuhl, Wagram, Jena-Auerstaedt and ... more to come)

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

Rich, I can not disagree more. Blitz is a function of the game and the pdt files. Every time a player moves down a road in Waterloo or NRC at 1 MP per hex while in view and in range of enemy fire, they are blitzing. They are moving more quickly and in a manner that can not be reacted to in the single phase system.

Call it style if you wish, but the root cause of the issue is the game itself. Why should a player have to work harder to play historically? IMO, players are not the problem.

Why does the game allow such egregious violations of historical play? If I am to spend $50 on an historical simulation, then it had better simulate history. The onus is on the game designer and not the user to produce a historically based product.

I say, bravo to John and Bill for the enhancements that were made with Jena to slow the pace (10 minute turn, movement rates that do not turn roads into the Autobahn, et. al.) and no melee elimination. These changes addressed a fundamental issue in the game engine without requiring a substantial overhaul.

Regards,





Maréchal Jeff Bardon
1ere Division de Cavalerie Legere
I Corps, AdN

To fix the road-blitz as I call it we need:

1. A road column for ALL types (yes supply wagons) (and toss in cavalry in LINE or COLUMN too). This has been advocated several times but its not going to happen unless a HUGE majority of you contact John Tiller about it.

2. Skirmishers have different formations too. They would have to go into Road Column (essentially all bunching up on the road) in order to get the bonus. This of course would be needed as we have independent companies which like the rest of the armies have to march long distances to get to the battle in our large map games.

Thus infantry, skirmishers or cavalry would not be able to road blitz. They would have to be in ROAD COLUMN which they could not come out of during the same turn.

This is all LONG overdue IMHO.

Colonel Bill Peters
Armee du Rhin - V Corps, Cavalerie du V Corps, 20ème légère Brigade de Cavalerie, 13ème Hussar Regiment
HPS Napoleonic Scenario Designer (Eckmuhl, Wagram, Jena-Auerstaedt and ... more to come)

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

Excellent responses Gentlemen.

A lot has to do with preferences. Each player has his own way of looking at things and each get different satisfaction. A balance is needed in every instance. You cannot include every person’s desires. This is where so many optional rules create issues. That is all I am saying.

As far as all the optional rules are concerned, I personally feel there are too many.

Bill you are right that historical play would not be enjoyable. Limiting control is not fun. I like controlling all the units and moving them. Makes games fun. I do disagree that commanders had control of their units once the battle started. Once units were sent off to battle or came in contact, it was lost for the whole battle. This is the major reason that large reserves of 1/3 to 1/2 were kept. These were the only formation that could be controlled, as they were uncommitted. How many players feel the need to keep 1/2 to 1/3 in reserve? Few and then for different reasons. IMHO, this is where being able to activate formations and limiting the number, would reduce, not completely satisfy, but reduce the command and control. An action point system would also allow units to march, or fight as each use up points during the 10-15 minute turn. If you march for 15 minutes, you would not have time to fight. I think these would make the games different and enjoyable. IMHO

One aspect of the Napoleonic wars is that opponents learned from Napoleon and changed the way they did things. One thing that developed was the use of loose order formations. Skirmishers were used more and more as the wise commander realized how effective they were. Volley fire in line is a myth. Skirmishers ended up being a more efficient way to kill. The use of barricades or placing obstacle to prevent cavalry movement was extensively used especially in towns. Many important small details are missing that would reduce so-called blitzkrieg. I did indicate at one time that a third formation is added one that is between column and line but it was waved aside. Column should not be allowed to attack. Attack column should but not use the road movement. Napoleon would move up to the enemy line in attack column and change to line at the last minute to maintain mobility.

As previously said these games are great.

Does anyone remember a system of movement by Grigsby, I think War in Russia, which had simultaneous move and combat. For each unit you plan each step was a unit could mark time and allows other to do their thing then move. Which would allow some units to attack then the other unit could move, less the time that was used to attack.) Hard to describe. Was a good system I think but it was in the early days of PC games.


General de Brigade Pierre D.
Armee du Rhin
VII Corps, 22eme Division, 1ere Brigade

I remember the Grigsby game but never owned it.

I dream of a day when I dont have to micromanage all of the troops. I would really love to be able to point a brigade at an objective or unit and find that it follows a pre-formatted form of maneuver and combat.

Supposedly the game that is still in develpment does that. I havent heard much on it lately. Any word on when it will come out?

Colonel Bill Peters
Armee du Rhin - V Corps, Cavalerie du V Corps, 20ème légère Brigade de Cavalerie, 13ème Hussar Regiment
HPS Napoleonic Scenario Designer (Eckmuhl, Wagram, Jena-Auerstaedt and ... more to come)

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

I will add one final comment about historical play.

Can anyone actually define it so we all agree? Its a subjective debate where many different opinions can be offered.

The rules of the HPS games are not subjective they are the rules, so therefore the onus is on the game not the player to deliver. As it represents the perimeters within which we are all forced to comply.

Therefore I agree with Jeffs comments.

regards
Colin



General de Brigade Knox
Baron de l'Empire
2e Regiment Gardes d'Honneur (the regaled pheasants)
La Jeune Garde
CO. 1er Brigade, III Division Cavalerie Legere, III Corps Armee du Nord
http://www.aspire.co.nz/colinknoxnwc.htm

Whether 15 or 10 minute turns are "better" depends on the scenario length, and perhaps other factors (eg. optional rules, number of units involved, players' style, etc) as well.

In fact, for small scale actions the EAW 5 minute turn is more appropriate - and for anyone who doesn't already know there's a large selection of company scale scenarios in the Waterloo expansion pack.

Of course, there are probably some players - eg. those keen on the EAW games - for whom the massive company scale full Waterloo would appeal, although I doubt most players would attempt this except as a multiplayer game.


Lt.Col. Rich White
4th Cavalry Brigade
Cavalry Corps
Anglo-Allied Army

Company level is an alternate form of play at best. When it comes to really simulating this level battalions are prefered.

The stats favor the battalion level actions. More folks prefer that level of play and not as many units to move for the medium to large size actions.

I put a couple of these together for Wagram but to my knowledge they are rarely played. If they were played alot more I might consider putting more of them out.

A marriage of both systems would have to be affected to make the company level games interesting. I have played one of the Waterloo scenarios you did Rich and it was alot of fun but did have a couple of issues that pretty much decided me on not playing them again. But the level of play is interesting and not to be discarded. It was more the engine's fault than the scale.

Colonel Bill Peters
Armee du Rhin - V Corps, Cavalerie du V Corps, 20ème légère Brigade de Cavalerie, 13ème Hussar Regiment
HPS Napoleonic Scenario Designer (Eckmuhl, Wagram, Jena-Auerstaedt and ... more to come)

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

I agree, Bill. It would be better if there could be a separate, slightly modified, engine for the company scale scenarios. Not just a copy of the EAW engine, but carrying over certain features into the standard Napoleonic engine. Something that might perhaps have been worth asking for if the company scenarios had been more popular.

Ideally, campaign movement should be carried out at the corps level using large - perhaps 5km or 10km - hexes and then once enemy forces enter the same hex, the action would then be resolved at either a battalion or company scale depending on the numbers involved.

Lt.Col. Rich White
4th Cavalry Brigade
Cavalry Corps
Anglo-Allied Army

I would love if we had a general campaign map and they would be so easy to make based on the maps I have of Europe. The campaign tree is so time consuming to build. Once John did the basic design it would be done and the hours saved would be tremendous to all of us.

Colonel Bill Peters
Armee du Rhin - V Corps, Cavalerie du V Corps, 20ème légère Brigade de Cavalerie, 13ème Hussar Regiment
HPS Napoleonic Scenario Designer (Eckmuhl, Wagram, Jena-Auerstaedt and ... more to come)

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

Of course there are various other drawbacks of the campaign tree system.

Another thing I'm not particularly keen on - although some gamers might be - is the massive maps on which all the units often have to march turn after turn for perhaps 20+ turns before there's any significant action! (and with 10 minute instead of 15 minute turns this is an extra 1/3 longer)

A larger scale campaign map with 5km hexes would cut down on all that time-consuming marching. Instead, the action could be resolved on a 50 x 50 hex battle map, with additional troops moved into the "battle hex" on subsequent campaign turns arriving as reinforcements on the relevant map edge of the battle map.

Thus a campaign would be fought simultaneously on the main campaign map and - once hostile forces move into the same hex(es) - on one or more battle maps.

Of course, with a series of interlinked "battlemaps", there'd no longer be a "map edge" for units to disappear off, since enemy units could now pursue them into the adjacent hex.


Lt.Col. Rich White
4th Cavalry Brigade
Cavalry Corps
Anglo-Allied Army

Rich.
Now i like the ider of that.[;)]

<font color="red">Maréchal</font id="red">
<font color="red">BEECHAM</font id="red">
La Commandeur, II Corps
ADN

Prince d` Istria et Comte d` Arles La Jeune Garde

"Toujours féroce,jamais étourdi"

Rich - you need to think this out ALOT more. There is a fatal flaw in your reasoning.

First, there is nothing wrong with the big maps. They allow for operational maneuver.

Second, if you have Fr. III Corps go east to pursue one formation while Soult and IV Corps move west you now have a problem. According to your thinking there would be only one battle. In fact there would be two and I doubt if any engine could split the battles into two maps or do a sequencing of battles.

No, the best way is to have several maps made over a large area. But we cant map out all of Europe so that every time you met in a region there would be a battle. Might use a set of "battle maps" that simulate the types of terrain but it would be a mapper's nightmare to map out say Germany on that scale or even just the area from Jena to Dresden.

Colonel Bill Peters
Armee du Rhin - V Corps, Cavalerie du V Corps, 20ème légère Brigade de Cavalerie, 13ème Hussar Regiment
HPS Napoleonic Scenario Designer (Eckmuhl, Wagram, Jena-Auerstaedt and ... more to come)

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

Rich,

A new engine would be needed to do what you are describing.

Within the current engines (tactical & campaign) the designer could walk players through march decisions that may or may not lead directly to combat but would move forces around the theatre of action.

For example....

A player, in a campaign in cnetral Germany, could be told they are in command of a wing of l'Grande Armee consisting of 5e, and 6e corps d'armee plus two divisions of dragoons with the instructions to delay the oncoming Russians while the rest of the army deals with the Prussians. The player then could be asked if he is marching on Leipzig or Dresden to block the anticipated Russian advance. The allied player may be the Russians, and is given choices of advancing on Leipzig or Dresden. Depending upon the choices players may then have a fight or may need to try to find the enemy with another campaign decision.

It would have to be done this way so the designer would know what OOB and MAP files to use for any possible battles. There is no practical way for players to move forces on a 'grand map scale' then get any possible encounter translated down into an HPS tactical battle, sorry.

The above method would take a great deal of time, thought and effort to do properly, and there would always be those players who would be disappointed that they couldn't march their armies over the Alps to 'surprise' the enemy, and would feel constrained 'unrealistically' because the designer kept the armies marching via main roads which could support the movement and resupply of major armies. (and the designer would need to have a good grasp of strategic logistics to make realistic decisions.)

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