Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

Gentlemen,

I would like to solicit your opinion on the squadron size OOB's that have been used in the Jena and Austerlitz games. I personally think that especially in the large scenarios that the moving of potentially HUNDERDS of more units is a large pain in the derrriere and while making it difficult to keep regiments together. I find myself constantly looking at stacks of cavalry squadrons trying to read which squadron belongs to which regiment. This is not only time consuming but also hard on my old eyes. Therefore I feel the old system with regiment size units that can be brokin down to squadron is flexiable while adding to the playability of the game.

In conclusion I guess I would just like to know what other players feel about this or if it matters. For me personally it has made the Jena and Austerlitz games a lot less attractive to play.

_________________
General de Division Thomas Moore
26ème Régiment de Chasseurs à Cheval
Brigade de Cavalerie Légère
4ème Corps d'Armée
La Grande Armée

Which is why I bend over backwards to provide you guys that like regiments (and 15 min. moves, and 15 min. moves, and 15 min. moves) with files in the games I do that cater to the older style.

Try this one for instance:

Austerlitz_cav-regt.oob

This file is used in the following Austerlitz scenarios:

#22H-HTH-Austerlitz.scn
#M15-22H-Cav-HTH-Austerlitz.scn

As I expect to have something out in the next few months I will be sure to include a version of the Jena OB in cavalry regiment format when an update for Campaign Jena-Auerstaedt is put out. I will put together one of the scenarios in the game using that OB. The rest would be up to you guys to do but definitely NOT impossible to do ... just a matter of some time spent in the scenario editor removing cavalry and then changing the OB name and adding it all back in. For some of the smaller engagements it should not take long.

I prefer the squadrons (Idea: Al Amos) with its two platoons (another Amos concept) format. But putting the squadrons together into regiments would only take someone a couple of days or less to do. I guess what I do not understand is that in this current period of activity where alternate artwork and H&R work has gone on why someone has not added in regimental OBs long before?

I will do my best to offer up the more famous engagements in the Jena game using regiments. I also plan on putting out more squadron scenarios for Eckmuhl and Wagram for those of us that love that form of organization.

_________________


Generalfeldmarschall Wilhelm Prinz Peters von Dennewitz

3. Husaren-Regiment, Reserve-Kavallerie, Preußischen Armee-Korps

Honarary CO of Garde-Ulanen Regiment, Garde-Grenadier Kavallerie

NWC Founding Member

For Club Games: I prefer the Single Phase mode of play. I prefer to play with the following options OFF:

MDF, VP4LC, NRO, MTD, CMR, PR, MIM, NDM, OMR (ver 4.07)

It all depends on the size (and scale) of the scenario, but for a medium to large battle it's better to have regiments and then allow the player to break these down into squadrons himself.

A better distinction between light and heavy cavalry might be worthwhile, with the lights able to scout/skirmish and have greater mobility too.

Surely it would also be useful to have gun section variant scenarios, as in the ACW series, but perhaps we'll see some of these in the not too distant future.


Lt. Col. Rich White
3rd British/KGL Brigade
II Corps Anglo-Allied Army

I agree with Rich's comments in that the size of the battle greatly affects whether or not squadron sized units are actually viable. Too many units to handle in a large battle adversely affects playability in my opinion. Actually, that applies to any size battle. There can only be so many units before it starts taking me more time to move them than I have available. I think we all strive for a certain result, or progress, based on a finite amount of time expended.

Rich,

A "one size fits all" regimental structure creates huge distortions. For instance, most French cav rgt had 4-6 sqds, but many Prussian or Russian cav rgt had up to 10 squadrons. Since the game engine only allows for one "breakdown" number, there's no way that these radically different OOBs can be reflected accurately without switching to a squadron based OOB. During Eckmuhl's development some Allied rgts had to be arbitrarily split because their total strength exceeded the game's stacking limits!

Moreover, the "regimental" approach is inherently ahistorical. Just as with the infantry the basic "operational unit" was the battalion, not the regiment, the squadron was the basic "operational unit" for the cavalry. "Squadrons" were assigned to higher level formations and it was not uncommon for the squadrons of a given rgt to be assigned to completely different theatres of operation. An entire regiment seldom charged as a unit, rather "x" number of its squadrons were committed to a charge, while other squadrons were either kept in reserve or committed elsewhere.

Yes, in a large battle managing 10 sqds rather than a single "rgt" demands more of a player's time, but do you really believe that 1000 troopers and their horses should be as easily maneuvered as even 2K infantrymen?

Regards,

Paco

_________________
Maréchal M. Francisco Palomo
Prince d'Essling et Duc d'Abrantes
Commandant en Chef du 1er Corps d'Armée

I entirely agree with Paco's comments. Moreover, I prefer the gaming option of using either formation.
I prefer to use cavalry regiments when moving on roads and Grand Tactically. On the other hand, for historical accuracy and tactical flexibility, I prefer using cavalry squadrons on the actual battlefield. I think that Bill Peters has established a remarkably high industry standard in addressing the concerns of his customers and making modifications in a number of creative ways. Bill

_________________

I cast my vote for regiments. Except in small scenario's moving hundreds of 60 man squadrons around is just a pain in the &^%$. Especially down a road. Lot's of little units actually hampers cavalry's ability to move quickly around the battlefield and its easy to 'lose' squadrons and put them out of command control.

Marechal Doug Fuller

Running about 50 percent here so far (poll results with 12 against squadrons and 11 other response).

We all know that the original system was flawed.

Here is how you model the high number of squadrons - split up the regiment. OR if the regiment is low on manpower just keep it together and use the 4 squadron breakdown figure.

BUT where it is a problem is when you have ONE regiment of 600 men trying to stack with another that is 450. Sure, breakdown one squadron and stack them together. I call that gamey ... but we all do it. But it is not historical.

I am for and against squadrons. Yes, they bother me too to move. So did the dumb little 1 gun sections in the ACW series. Which is why Rich Walker is supreme in that regards as he broke with the group and offered us BATTERIES as we cannot edit the OB files or make up new ones. If that had not happened I would not be playing the ACW series. Rich's games are the only ones I will play.

Here we have an OB format that can be edited or copied. So all folks need do is:

1. Pull out the OB file they want to modify and copy it giving it a new name. Cav_<old filename).oob works.
2. In the new OB file add up the squadron figures and get a total for the regiment. Use one of the squadrons as the regiment listing giving it the total manpower for the regiment. Do this with all of the cavalry.
3. Copy the scenario that they want to play. Rename it to something like Cav_<Name of old scenario>.scn
4. Go into the NEW scenario file using the Scenario Editor and remove all of the cavalry in the game (on the map and reinforcements). Save the file.
5. In a text editor change the name of the OB File referenced to the one you created in step #1.
6. Reopen the NEW scenario file using the Scenario Editor. Also open up the older squadron format scenario in another instance of the editor (you will need to resize the windows so that they are side by side).
7. Add back in the cavalry on the map and in reinforcement listings. Use the older version as a guide. Save the file.
8. Now take the PDT file that was used for the older scenario and copy it. Call it Cav_<old PDT file's name>.pdt if you like.
9. Change the value that is for the cavalry breakdown number from "2" to "4." It is the 2nd value on line 7. Save the file.

As far as I know that it is. If I left something out I will edit this post.

I did up an entire battle of 80k per side in under an hour and a half. But that is how long it takes for a big scenario.

_________________


Generalfeldmarschall Wilhelm Prinz Peters von Dennewitz

3. Husaren-Regiment, Reserve-Kavallerie, Preußischen Armee-Korps

Honarary CO of Garde-Ulanen Regiment, Garde-Grenadier Kavallerie

NWC Founding Member

For Club Games: I prefer the Single Phase mode of play. I prefer to play with the following options OFF:

MDF, VP4LC, NRO, MTD, CMR, PR, MIM, NDM, OMR (ver 4.07)

Gentlemen,

I want to thank everyone for your responses, there was some good information and well thought out opinions. I guess it is safe to say that there is fair contingent of us that don't care for the Cavalry Squadron only OOB's. Of those responding 58% didn't like it. I guess what I would like to say is that in future games that there be a good selection of scenarios with cavalry regiment OOB's especially the large ones. I think the model for this is the HPS Chancellorsville game where you can get away from sectional artillery. All I ask is that we have a choice.

Thanks everyone,

_________________
General de Division Thomas Moore
26ème Régiment de Chasseurs à Cheval
Brigade de Cavalerie Légère
4ème Corps d'Armée
La Grande Armée

15 to 11 would not cause me to be concerned. I already put regimental sized OBs in my games and note that you will be hard pressed to find them being played here. Why? Did I work my ass off for nothing?

If you want to show me that you want them then play the Battle of Austerlitz scenario in Campaign Austerlitz that uses an OB that has cavalry in regiments. I would want to see it played 10 times in a year before I came to any conclusion that I need to alter the format.

The FACT is that most players I play will breakdown their cavalry into squadrons right from the git go. The entire regiment gets broken down right away.

Road movement issues? Ridiculous? It is more realistic. We need a Road Column too where the infantry units over a certain size become two units to portray their length down a 100 meter road hex. You cannot fit 800 men in road column in a 100 meter hex.

So who would I be catering too here? The Blitz crowd? Sounds like it.

I add in "cavalry in regiments OBs" in all of the titles I work on. Hardly any of the scenarios are being played that used the cavalry regiments. So why should I be overly concerned that folks want to see cavalry regiments as the de facto format?

Go take a glance at the club game records for Austerlitz. Try and find one game that used the cavalry regiment OB or the 15 min moves for that matter.

_________________


Generalfeldmarschall Wilhelm Prinz Peters von Dennewitz

3. Husaren-Regiment, Reserve-Kavallerie, Preußischen Armee-Korps

Honarary CO of Garde-Ulanen Regiment, Garde-Grenadier Kavallerie

NWC Founding Member

For Club Games: I prefer the Single Phase mode of play. I prefer to play with the following options OFF:

MDF, VP4LC, NRO, MTD, CMR, PR, MIM, NDM, OMR (ver 4.07)

Well Bill,
I would like preface my comments by saying we all appreciate the hard work you do on these games but I was surprised by your comments. I would like reply as folllows:


Comment #1-"Well 15 to 11 would not cause me to be concerned. I already put regimental sized OBs in my games and note that you will be hard pressed to find them being played here. Why? Did I work my ass off for nothing?"

Reply #1- To the contrary it would seem to me when a spotaneous straw pole of members votes 59% that they don't like the squadron only oob's. It would seem to me that fair portion of players DON"T REALLY LIKE THEM. I appreciate you providing some regimental oob in the few scenarios but they seem to be a either or choice of whether the scenario has squadron only oob's or not. Why not do as they do in the HPS Chancellorsville allow for either whole battery or sectional artillery. As for why you worked your ass off, all I can say is that it seems the squadron only oob's were unilateraly imposed on the games by yourself. I never saw anyone asking if it was a good idea or not.


Comment #2- "If you want to show me that you want them then play the Battle of Austerlitz scenario in Campaign Austerlitz that uses an OB that has cavalry in regiments. I would want to see it played 10 times in a year before I came to any conclusion that I need to alter the format."

Reply #2- So if I organize 10 Austerlitz games using the regimental oob's then you will reconsider the squadron only format? Correct?

Comment #3- "The FACT is that most players I play will breakdown their cavalry into squadrons right from the git go. The entire regiment gets broken down right away."

Reply #3- The obvious answer to this is why not give players a CHOICE of how they want to play the game instead of having one format imposed upon them.

Comment #4- "Road movement issues? Ridiculous? It is more realistic. We need a Road Column too where the infantry units over a certain size become two units to portray their length down a 100 meter road hex. You cannot fit 800 men in road column in a 100 meter hex."

Reply #4- Well I guess this is the main complaint against the squadron only oob's. It is the unending movement of ungodly long lines of cavalry squadrons that area real pain in the ass. Everytime you move squadrons through wood ,town or bridge you have to string them out in single file. Besides when I move long lines of squadrons I always try to bunch squadrons in to stacks thus compromising your march column lenght theory but the real problem is the loss of playablity especially in the big map long scenarios. I counted in the 1805 OOB provided in the Austerlitz game that there are 40 regiments of French cavalry and 185 squadrons that is and INCREASE OF 165 UNITS to the game. I did count the Allies but I would bet on similar results. In other words you are adding SEVERAL HUNDRED to the game. It is a real drag on the game.

Comment #5- "So who would I be catering too here? The Blitz crowd? Sounds like it."

Reply #5- Well I guess this comment is a rather crude attempt to insult anyone who dains to disagree with you. To me it smacks of more than a little bit of arrogance on your part. Besides there are a lot fine players and people in the Blitz.

Comment #6- I add in "cavalry in regiments OBs" in all of the titles I work on. Hardly any of the scenarios are being played that used the cavalry regiments. So why should I be overly concerned that folks want to see cavalry regiments as the de facto format?

Reply #6- Well I did a quick count of scenarios by heading in the Austerlitz game and found 2 which can hardly be considered generous. The problem lies in the countless others where there is no choice but the squadron format. I would think as developer of these games that you might be more willing to consider other ideas when dissatisfaction is expressed. As I have hoped I have made myself clear I do not wish to impose either a regimental or squadron only oob's but oob's that give you a CHOICE.

Comment #7-" Go take a glance at the club game records for Austerlitz. Try and find one game that used the cavalry regiment OB or the 15 min moves for that matter."

Reply #7- Well I don't know what the count is. It in no way accounts for all the games that are NOT played because of the dislike for the format. I do know if you want play a really BORING game just play a large map/long game with cavalry squadrons and 10 min. turns. It's like watching paint dry.

IN CONCLUSION- Bill no one is asking you to give up your cavalry squadrons all we are asking of you is to provide OOB's that have both regiments and squadrons and give ALL players a CHOICE of how they would like to play the games.

_________________
General de Division Thomas Moore
26ème Régiment de Chasseurs à Cheval
Brigade de Cavalerie Légère
4ème Corps d'Armée
La Grande Armée

Easy, guys. Let's keep the discussion civil and play nice here. This is a public forum read by all. I am all for a good knock down, drag out fight between members if there is no other way for them to resolve thier differences, but not in our public forums. Those types of exchanges should be handled in private emails.

You each got in a little jab here already. Play nice, decide to walk away, or take the fight to a private venue. If you need each other's email addresses, please feel free to visit our DoR System and "View Muster" for the French and Prussian armies. The officer's email addresses are listed there. If you cannot access the DoR System, send me an email at my address, mark(dot)jones(at)neel-schaffer(dot)com, and I will be glad to send you the email address of your latest "mortal enemy".

I have personally invested far too much of my own time in an attempt to make our forums more enjoyable for everyone. Public altercations spoil the mood that I would like to establish here. My preference would be that everyone gets along, but I know that is not realistic. Keep it nice in our public forums or take it somewhere else.

I also do not want to see anyone else "piling on" here for either party. I respect every member of this club, but you must bear in mind, these forums, along with our websites, are the public face of the NWC. What we post in these forums is a direct reflection of the club itself. Let's try to improve our image with every post.

All I will say in rebuttal is:

1. The Blitz crowd is not "The Blitz Club." It is those that play to run you over using any means possible as allowed by the engine. They are why we have House Rules. Usually the purist of the Blitz group will not want to play with House Rules too. I usually do not play this kind of player.

2. It only would take someone a little bit of work to render any scenario into a regimental format. For 400+ scenarios it would take me weeks to do. Aint gonna happen.

3. Historical usage mandates the squadron as the main maneuver element. I was never asked by Charlie or Rich if I wanted the MP allowance reduced to 14 and the squadron breakdown figure reduced to 4 from 6 (and at the time I was the "Napoleonic Team Coordinator"). Do you see me whining about it? No, I just convert the scenario to the format I like to play in. I plan on putting out an entire scenario pack that will render NRC and Waterloo in the 10 min./Squadron format. Waterloo mainly but NRC would follow. Borodinot at least. You don't like that format? Don't play it. Force you to play my format? No. Just convert the scenario.

The facts: the project I am about to see released was started in about 2001. It was dropped and in two years I put in something like 40x the amount of work as the original designer. His maps were off scale so I had to completely redo them.

We have two other projects that were dropped - Rich H. found designers for them. One of them was dropped again and finally someone is seeing them through. It takes commitment to want to finish these games. I have shown I can finish what I start. And it would not take much work for anyone to convert SOME scenarios to the cavalry format.

Look at it this way too - I am putting in MORE work to SPLIT the regiments up - each regiment strength has to divided by the total of squadrons present in the regiment and all of the extra units have to be placed on the map. Many of us feel that this is how cavalry operated. NOT IN REGIMENTS. This allowed me for my next title to properly render the regiments as they are split up in many cases. Squadrons were put in different divisions. How would you do that in the 4x format we use for regiments. You would end up with one squadron in a division being able to break down into 4 parts. I can buy 2 platoons but 4? Thus folks could use them to block your path.

The H&R folks are coming up with their own format for the games. Even Rich Hamilton's format is not popular with them. So what is Rich supposed to do? Change his format to meet their approval?

If we put in our games a format to make every group happy and then found out that one of them is not balanced we have that many scenarios extra to correct. As we are human and make mistakes it makes sense to try and reduce the amount of scenarios if we can.

I just finished copying and converting the entire scenario set for our next title to the 15 min. move. Thus each scenario in the main folder has two versions. 10 min and 15 min versions. That was NOT easy to do but I got it done in an afternoon. It is meticulous work for me and I suffer from feinting spells if I spend too much time on a PC. But I got it done.

I have two large OBs to convert to the cav regiment format. I will then copy the historical battle scenario and remove the squadrons from the map and reinforcement sets. Then change the OB name in the .scn file and then go back in and add the cavalry back. And that will show my support for that format. Folks can then do what they want from there. I will have instructions on how to do it included in the game under the Design folder.

And this is my last word on this subject period.

_________________


Generalfeldmarschall Wilhelm Prinz Peters von Dennewitz

3. Husaren-Regiment, Reserve-Kavallerie, Preußischen Armee-Korps

Honarary CO of Garde-Ulanen Regiment, Garde-Grenadier Kavallerie

NWC Founding Member

For Club Games: I prefer the Single Phase mode of play. I prefer to play with the following options OFF:

MDF, VP4LC, NRO, MTD, CMR, PR, MIM, NDM, OMR (ver 4.07)

A new Napoleonic game coming out soon?!?!? Any format I'm excited!!!

The strength of JT's engine is its versatility. Bill has done wonderful work putting out some fun scenarios for us. Did he make them the way I would, no... hehehe... but he did it, and I can modify any of it to my liking. A win-win in my opinion! Thanks Bill!