Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

I have played both the BG and HPS games for some time now.

I noticed that the BG games seem to be more about tactics and subtle attacks. With a small number of units you are able to defeat a larger force especially using ZOC kills if you play skilfully.

The HPS games seem to be about getting more units at the right time at the right place than your opponent. The actual fighting is less subtle and consists mostly of head on assaults. Surrounding enemy units with the NME rule on is pretty pointless and only costs you units to guard them.

Therefore it is seems to be very important in the HPS games to have a good plan for moving your units on the map else it will be difficult to re-direct them during the game and the battle won't have a happy end.

Anyone else have the same experience ?

Generaal-majoor Marco Rietveld
2e Divisie Commander
I Corps
Allied/Dutch Army

So true Marco, much more a battle of Maneuvre in HPS. Frankly it is why I enjoy my gaming experience very much.

I must admit to be totally inept with the NME rule on though. Might be more historical, but definately harder to defend when you are outnumbered. Disorder, Isolation, Routed and Isolated all happen very quickly it seems. And then your defense melts away like butter in a kiln.



Maréchal John Mitchell
Grande Duc de Rivoli et Comte de Bordeaux
Commandant Division Infanterie; La Veille Garde
105e Regiment d' Infantrie Ligne,
2e Brigade, 1er Division Infanterie,
I Corp, AdN

I'm glad this subject came up. After 4 or 5 games with NME on it is my opinion that it has drastically changed these games for the worst. In each game I played fire combat by units in line has all but disappeared. Each game saw constant melees. Players ignored their flanks and attacked unsupported. By far the most aggravating aspect was unsupported cavalry charges that would penetrate defensive positions. The only counter would be to surround the cavalry and shoot them. Eventually you could destroy the stack but it would tie up several units for several turns. If you didn't suround them they were free to run around behind your lines. Perhaps if used along with embedded melee it might work but overall I don't like it. I have not seen the reducton in casualties that it was suppost to bring either. I would like to hear how other players view this option.

Marechal Jonathan Thayer
Commandante Moyenne Garde
Duc de Saalfeld et Prince de Friedland
1/10/III
Armee du Nord




jonathanthayer@bellsouth.net

I don't particularly care for it as is, but it with a few modifications it might work well. I agree with many that the level of ZOC kills (one of my specialties)that can be achieved without it is perhaps excessive, but NME goes too far the other way. I believe that each turn the possibility of rout should increase, that melee casualties for units that cannot retreat should be increased by at least 10%, and that routed units should surrender even if stacked with friendly units. Also, several units that could be overrun individually should not protect one another, for example a skirmisher surrounded and defeated in melee is automatically eliminated or can be overrun by a cavalry charge and an isolated routed unit can be overrun, but stack them together and they cannot be overrun or eliminated by losing a melee.

As is, units vastly outnumbered and with no possibility of escape will not infrequently fight to the last man. As time passes without relief these units should have an increasing chance of surrendering perhaps modified by the distance from friendly lines and/or the relative strength of attacking forces (already shown by threat level on any given hex, so it wouldn't take a whole lot of extra programming). These modifications would keep the units from disappearing immediately (as in ZOC kills), but would ensure that hopelessly outnumbered isolated units would surrender after a few turns rather than stand to the last.

Marechal Theron Lambert
Grande Duc de Montereau et Duc d'Angers
Cavalerie du VI Corps
Armee du Rhin
Commandant Grenadiers a Pied "les Grognards"

Monsieur General ju know how I feel about that we have talk about it!But what gets moi is that some will play knowing that all they have to do is get the most men to an on coming point which is easy to do all ju have to do is turn on the game an see were the enemy will be coming in at an just rush enough of your Armee to those points. To me this would not be allowed in table top. Now because the designer allowed the game to move slower it's almost impossible to reenforce (talking about the long Jena games) any Corps caught in this situation with ZOC on and NME off bonvouage your Corps it would tack the next Corps 3hours to just get close to the surrouned units now in the old game before the change the movement would have been one hour which would make any commander back off but not in the new Jena games esp the long games. Oui One French Corps should have 24 hours of staying power not one hour! Greetings from de Gulf de Mexico!

Col de Art 6/3 II Corps AN Marbot CS

Hi to All
I must present the opposite side of the coin. I prefer HPS over BG and also I prefer NME. (although I still play BG)

I have been playing Jena mainly so I refer to NME in the context of the Jena engine with the 10 minute moves. I don't like the others without embedded melee.

I do like the manual phases of BG as a result I only played manual def fire for a start in HPS. I have changed my position on this out of practicality. Games that involve a lot of marching need the turn based game. I agree it has disadvantages but to be able to play a large campaign or scenario is a good argument to compromise. I also quite like the uncertainty of the turn based game it has a sense of the uncontrollable about it at times which I think can simulate the fluid nature of battle.

My thoughts on the other various issues raised are:

- I don't like how easy it is to ZOC Kill in BG. As a result when playing BG I virtually always attack in column not line. A well thought out attack can annilate your opponent pretty quickly in BG especially with the poweful cavalry charge phase meaning they have in effect a double move.

- I believe linear combat is quite prominent in the HPS Jena game. I am playing Marechal's Bardon and Nowacki in manuevers at the moment and both sides are using lines extensively. Firepower is very important in the 10 minute move with the larger btns. Indeed the lack of prospect of a blitz ZOC kill encourages a little more patience.

- I like the fact a cavalry unit can charge and penetrate the line without immediate destruction. I am of the view this is realisitic. There are quite a few examples of it in the real battles probably Eylau be the most famous. Or indeed the milling around of the French heavies at Waterloo. Why should a deep cavalry charge end in 100% annilation in one counter?

- I think a unit does increase in chance of routing the longer it is surrounded due to fatigue. Once you fire a few times and melee from the flanks it will not be long before the unit has high fatigue and therefore a -2. (Although I generally like what Theron said).

Just my thoughts no claim to knowing whats right! [:D]

Regards to all




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

Colin - I had forgotten about the old cavalry double move as you term it. While I would prefer to see our HPS cavalry able to wheel in the first 1/2 of their move I must note that the double move could allow the enemy to use the roads and then set up an attack with little to no reaction from the enemy other than square. And by then the Threat Zone would be so lethal that the reaction square might well fail.

I wont debate this issue though as its all in who you play and what you agree to leave off. When I fight Dean I know that he is going to come after me hammer and tongs. Now that we are on the same side I dont fight him as often. Other players are a bit more subtle but still the objective is to get to a certain victory level and claim the prize.

So how do you get to that level? Well all of the designers basically are lowering the VP location values so that leaves us to have to destroy units in order to get the crown.

Even with the objectives being worth alot you have to get to it and with units in the way the best answer was to eliminate them.

Now if you are into that kind of thing great, but I dont see it as totally historical. Entire brigades didnt vaporize in 15 minutes as our replay pointed out that we sent John Tiller (in a Eckmuhl game - it was absolutely disgusting to watch).

So do we go back to the days of linear warfare, line up and just fire away each turn until one side routs away and then just move up in line? No, that is not the Napoleonic era.

I think that the answer comes in the command control system. We just get to move too much too quickly. Units were rarely committed in more than division sizes. But of course we want the entire army moving on turn 1. No fixed units, etc. Why, well back to gamieness, folks know the scenario and go over and give them a hard time.

Now as to reducing stacks ... in a playtest game with Paco we were NOT using the multiple infantry rule and yet in two to three turns I wiped out a stack of his. So whats the big deal? They put up a heroic defense. But my guns pulverized his stacks.

As to BG needing fewer units to pull off a good defense .. yes, in certain cases. Such as when you can put six skirmishers around a stack of five French columns and hold them hostage for a turn! Or in the case where four Russians bns. in line can put up a decent fall back defense ... all due to the Golden Morale mainly.

So where is the middle ground between NME and Blitz? Well I would say that if you were to send your game files to Rich Hamilton to forward to John Tiller you might persaude him that the rule is too abusive as it stands. This always gets better results than debating it here on the forum. He reacts best to customer input. We put the rule in with alot of the same theory that was found in the Panzer campaign games. Sometimes we think in that series that even with the Isolation rules on that units last too long. But then I read about seven German infantrymen that held a bunker against an entire battalian of Russians ... well I know that you did see entire battalians surrender but frankly it was the rare case. A couple of battles come to mind but mainly the units were rendered hors de combat and sent to the rear or just placed in a reserve and never used again.

The answer: there really is none other than to contact John about it and have him adjust the NME rule to where you get some of the things you are talking about. Just as long as units dont Rout after one turn of being attacked. Units that are isolated getting a morale reduction may sound nice but I do seem to remember that we still can use skirmishers to keep a unit isolated. Looking at it from the gamey viewpoint there is no quick and easy fix. Someone will find a way to defeat the rule and basically render the codefix almost a waste of time.

I am for leaving it as is, just turn the rule off if you dont like it by mutual agreement or whatever system you want to use prior to a game.

Nobody agrees 100 percent on what is historical, John has basically told us that he has to cut way back on new things for the non-government series and frankly I am not going to raise this as an issue for him to ponder. I did mention it back when we first got the rule but he seemed happy with the way it was. If you disagree you are more than welcome to send Rich a note for him. But anyway you cut it someone will find a way to circumvent it.

Like it or not House Rules are here to stay.

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]