Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

Hello Fellow Members,

I am curious about experimenting playing our Napoleonic games with NO ZONES OF CONTROL. I am playing a scenario of Bulge 44 in which no zones of control was instituted by a change in one line of the pdt. file. Is this possible in our Napoleonic games?

The reason I am pursuing this is that playing the game with no zones of control has caused both sides to deploy in what I feel a more realistic fashion instead of stacks of units that are moved around like chess pieces.

I have recently read 2 excellent histories by James Arnold called "Crisis in the Snow" and "Napoleon's Triumph" both dealing with the 1807 Polish campaign. In his detailed desriptions of how the armies deployed for both attack and defense showed divisions/brigades almost always deployed in 2 to 3 lines of regiments/battalions where possible. One behind the other probably seperated by at least one hex in order to reduce artillery casualties and to provide reserves to plug gaps and conduct counter-attacks.

Also I would like to reduce stacking limits by say a half from the present to about 1200 infantry and 400 cavalry. Can stacking limits be changed by changes to the pdt. file?

Well gentlemen I would love to hear your comments concerning these matters. Thank you

Yours respectfully,

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

Salute!

Very interesting comments and questions Thomas.

As far as stacking limits these can be affected by changes to the appropriate files.

I would direct your attention to the H&R scenario mods created by a number of the Russian Armee members.

As well as Vladimir Repnin's R&H mods.

There are a number of players here in the club who try to incorporate various changes in order to come to a more realistic flavor & style of play in the games.

These can be done through file modifications (such as aforementioned stacking limits, as well as morale modifiers, etc), particular Optional Rules, and any number of house rules.

Hopefully some others will chime in on this subject as well.

Regards,

I did not realize that Vladimir had a different set of mods..

_________________

Yes, Vladimir has his History and Realism project. Certainly worth a look. It makes the games more realistic without the need for a lot of house rules.

I don't think zoc is covered in the pdt, it's an engine thing.

Hi Thomas
I think its quite important to understand why ZOC was added in the first place dating back to board games really. For me its because we play an alternate move system.

If you were to play one of the good players in this club without ZOC you would soon run out of artillery, officers and supply wagons as your opponent would blitz through your front line and attack your rear area, unless you massed your units all adjacent to each other. This could be a bit ponderous and make defensive lines very easy to flank

Also cavalry would be free to move past squares and into your rear without hazard. Which in a simultaneous move environment could be countered.

Overall I think ZOC is quite important for historical play due to the flaws in the simulation. I don't totally like it (eg a square having all zoc's) but its the best of the worst as far as an approach goes.

Just my thoughts.

Salute

_________________
Marechal Knox

Prince d'Austerlitz et Comte d'Argentan
Ordre national de la Légion d'honneur

"What is history but a fable agreed upon"

Turning on the "weak zone of control" optional rule would help at least a bit.

_________________

Thomas, could not agree more on the stacking limits - the limits you suggest are just about the perfect balance and make the game much more enjoyable

Did anyone ever calculate it?
A 100 meter hex field has an area of about 8660 square meter.
The stacking we currently have give every men 4,81 square meter room that is roughly a square of 2,19x2,19 meters or enough room to lay down and take a nap. Just for fun I measured my bed and that is smaller than the mentioned area.
Considering that a battalion isn't a single solid square but has its maneuver platoons the stacking doesn't seem to be unrealistic.
And don't forget you can use the "target density" optional rule to punish too much stacking, that starts at 1200 so I would suggest at least using that value.

_________________

Salute!

I'm looking for an old email I received from Vladimir Repnin where he broke down the factors he used to explain his own stacking limitations for his R&H mods.

These are: 900 infantry and 300 cavalry.

I recall that Vladimir cited his experience as a quartermaster in the Russian military for how he arrived at these numbers.

Along with the H&R mods and their changes to the parameter files - the point is to steer the style of play away from so called melee battering rams to more of a maneuver and firing style.

Along with lower morale ratings which result in quicker disordering and routing...

Anyways, I'll keep looking for the email - or better yet - send a message to Vladimir to chime in.

Regards,

A French line btn in 2 company column covered around about an 80 yard frontage. A foot battery of 8 guns is similar.
The column was usually only 9 ranks deep so to have 1800 infantry in a hex is ok. I guess the problem is that all 1800 can melee the unit in front of them.
Ie they can all achieve a frontage. So the issue is really with the game system as opposed to stacking.

So lets explore this further. As our turns are 10-15 mins that's actually quite a long time in the heat of battle. I suggest a 1800 man melee vs say one btn is a flawed representation of multiple attacks by a locally superior mass vs a weaker opponent. Taking place in waves.

The difficulty under alternate turns is that our btn rather stupidly sits there firing off the odd volley and takes the 10mins of continuous attacks.
Overall I suspect this stupidity does even itself out though and our simulation whilst flawed is not too bad.

I have certainy found the use of Napoleonic combined arms tactics works very well in the game engine. If the engine was way off it should not.
I recall an early version of Jena had stacking limits of 1600 which I must say I liked. It seemed about right under our simulation process

I have looked at Vladmir's historical simulation but I must say I am unconvinced. No disrespect though as these chaps are true scholars!

_________________
Marechal Knox

Prince d'Austerlitz et Comte d'Argentan
Ordre national de la Légion d'honneur

"What is history but a fable agreed upon"

Indeed the local superior mass is most of the time not stopped by infantry in line formation, usually because attackers seem to hold fire and take the 20% bonus but the defender in the usual turn instead of phase game will automatically use defensive fire and so be without the that bonus for the melee, also if in line the defender has considerably less combat power for melee, to top that the attacking player will usually not attack a position with an enemy leader but left or right of it, it's also normal considering that this is a Igo-Ygo game and the superiority of column is also OK as that is why infantry attacked in column and broke thru infantry in line.

Isn't the problem here the not guaranteed moral check?
Page 37 of the Leipzig user manual shows that if a unit takes casualties there must be first determined if there is a moral check at all.

So the answer would be to fire as often as possible on the attacking column to have the luck of a moral check and then the luck that the attacker fails it and becomes disrupted or routed, that means units in line should extend their line to have 2 units dishing out fire.

But is that enough? I will toy around with some numbers and see what gets out.

In the light of this one must think about the column pass thru fire optional rule, I declined it as not realistic and still think so but:
1. It would lead to all battalions in a stack taking casualties and so all taking the chance of a moral check, where otherwise one battalion would always be "hiding" the others in that hex.
2. It also may lead to players not stacking battalions at all and if they do maybe only very small ones that would not have enough strength to hold a single hex alone and here it wouldn't be unrealistic that fire passes thru them because of the so small formation.


BTW Bill Peters mentioned on a thread about that H&R mod that the melee itself shouldn't be simply taken as bayonet charge but also as close firefight, so lets say we have a bat that comes close, fires a short range volley and marches against the enemy who either holds the line or retreats.
All that(or any variant of this attack procedure) is depicted by the in game "melee"(simply "attack" would have fit better) option, that's why the 20% if not firing before melee.
Whether the retreat does come from the volley or the advance after that or a final hand-to-hand combat seems irrelevant and out of scope of what the engine can depict.

_________________

A very good discussion here.

The H & R team put up a very extensive document explaining their rationale for changes. Like Colin I was never totally convinced, but that may be simply the result of playing the games for 10 years as they are. One gets used to them and comfortable. I'd recommend a study of the document though before attempting any further modifications - and maybe speak to Vladimir as he is open to ideas.

Column pass through fire can be murderous, especially against the 12-gun Russian batteries and even more if the AI decides to shoot at a stack every time it moves.....from that point of view at least casualties are minimized by playing phased turns. It can also lead to gamey play such as blocking LoS with supply wagons or guns so the infantry can jump out at the last moment.

I agree with Bill. Melee should be considered a broad term and not just giving them the bayonet.

This is the beauty of the club in that we can all enjoy different versions of the game by tweaking the house rules. My experience to date is that limiting the stacking limits results in more historic like battle action. I have played battles where the stacking limits are not restricted and in the first day of the battle there are 100,000 Casualties between the two armies.

Andy, as you say, it is all what we each enjoy so there is no right or wrong - it is more what the participants to the battle enjoy. I play both ways but personally enjoy the limits on stacking much better.

I concur with you on the melee it is intended to be a combination event , gunfire and bayonet.

The stacking limits tend to create a game of maneuver and concentrated fire power which I find more enjoyable ( besides more importantly it is the only way I have a chance to beat Ed Blackburn - if I let him have the game stacking limits he hands me my head in a basket every time )

Hello Gents,

Well I'm a little surprised by the interest my posted garnered. The comments have been very thought provoking.

I did find out one thing for sure from Rich Hamilton of JTS that ZOC's are hardwired into the game engine so that can not be changed but stacking limits can be changed in the pdt. file.

Does anyone know how to open the pdt. files for editing? If someone could instruct this computer neophite in the procedure it would most helpfull.

Thanks again for everyones comments and look forward to hearing from you.

Yours,

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

Hi Thomas. Click on The pdt file. Select Open With and open with Wordpad or something like that. It'll reveal columns of numbers. Each line and number has meaning on game parameters.