Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

The ACW series now has an (optional) melee subphase, in which melee only occurs after all movement is completed, so why not port this over to the Nap (and also M&P) series too?

Better still, since the Nap engine is more complex than the ACW engine, having cavalry charges and square forming, how about the following system, which is similar to the old BG multiphase, but with everything incorporated into a single phase:

1./ Normal movement, with the current defensive fire system.

2./ Attacker fires. (perhaps incorporate this into 1./ above)

3./ Defensive SubPhase. This would consist of three things:
a./ Square forming where units are threatened by visible enemy cavalry.
b./ Defensive fire at 100% strength of all units that hadn't already fire during the first two subphases. (Maybe good quality units could be "preset" to hold their fire until this subphase)
c./ Counter Charge (optional rule), whether handled by the A/I or "preset" by the player in his own previous turn.

4./ Attacker cavalry charge subphase

5./ Melee subphase (perhaps with infantry melees conducted before cavalry melees, if this is more convenient)


Such a system would incorporate the various benefits of the old BG multiphase system - a better handling of square forming as a direct response to a cavalry threat, cavalry counter charging, more effective and logical defensive fire, etc, and would prevent the active player from conducting blitzkrieg style move-melee-move breakthrough tactics.


Lt.Col. Rich White
3rd Cav. Bgde.
British Cav. Div.
II Corps
Anglo-Allied Army

Rich - its all up to what John wants to do with the system. Various proposals have been sent to him and its in his court.

I have wanted the Manual Defense Phase option updated to include all that BG+ had (the extra options for counter charge and so on) to offer. Leave the Auto system as is but modify MDP.

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, Austerlitz and ... more to come)
Not the President of the Musket and Cannon Club

I agree with Bill the turn based game has a fluidity that I would not like to see restricted by multiple stages. Eg I like that you can fire anytime. This allows a position to be bombarded before an assault. Or a battery to be uncovered at a crucial time. A small unit to be blown out of the way when it is using zoc to block an advance etc. These actions should induce fractional movement and fire I agree but that is beyond the relms of the engine.

I would like there to be an embedded melee function but with the 10 minute moves even this is required less if you play some simple house rules.

The other problem with a 'melee and or charge phase' is that it reinstates the power of skirmishers to an unrealistic level.

The current system also makes large battles more playable. That is you can say select a particular area of the scenario and resolve all of your turn there before doing the next theater. This is important on big map games.

Also I am not sure multi player games would be even feasible under this system without reverting to multiple emails.

Just some thoughts. I appreciate there is an interesting argument to include these functions I guess if they were optional we could all have what we want but that does mean a likely segmenting of players in the club into 'preference groups'.

Ideally the rules and game engine should be enough of a compromise that the members all play each other more and not just stick to their circles.




General de Brigade Knox
Grand Duc d'Austerlitz et Comte de Argentan



Escadron Mamelouks
Chasseurs a'Cheval
Division de Cavalerie la Vieille Garde.





CO. 1er Brigade, III Division Cavalerie Legere, III Corps Armee du Nord
http://www.aspire.co.nz/colinknoxnwc.htm

Bill,

How many people play in MDP mode? Wouldn't it require a lot of extra PBEM files, like the BG series?

I don't even see John restoring the BG features (ie. square forming and counter charge) to MDP mode unless lots of gamers email HPS support and request it.

Anyway, I'm sure we've already discussed all this before ... but it's difficult leaving this old topic alone when the old BG series has certain key features that are still lacking from the HPS engine.


Lt.Col. Rich White
3rd Cav. Bgde.
British Cav. Div.
II Corps
Anglo-Allied Army

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Richard</i>
(...) how about the following system, which is similar to the old BG multiphase, but with everything incorporated into a single phase:
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Say, what would "incorporated into a single phase" mean here? Whether you call them phases or subphases, is it not same-same?

<center>
[url="http://home.arcor.de/dierk_walter/NWC/2nd_Dragoons.htm"][/url]
Maj. Gen. D.S. "Green Horse" Walter
~ 2nd Dragoons (Royal Scots Greys) ~
2nd (Union) Brigade, Cavalry Division, Anglo-Allied II Corps
----------
~ 3rd (Prince of Wales's) Dragoon Guards ~
[url="http://www.geocities.com/militaireacademie/"][/url]
</center>

I'm recommending a single PBEM turn, but with separate sub-phases for:

1./ Active player's Movement & Firing (plus defender ADF)

2./ Defensive subphase, consisting of:
a./ Square forming where units are threatened by visible enemy cavalry.
b./ Defensive fire at 100% strength of all units that hadn't already fired during the initial subphases. (Maybe good quality units could be "preset" to hold their fire until this subphase)
c./ Counter Charge (optional rule), whether handled by the A/I or "preset" by the player in his own previous turn.

3./ Attacker cavalry charge subphase

4./ Melee subphase (perhaps with infantry melees conducted before cavalry melees, if this is more convenient)

This system would incorporate various improvements to the game, allowing defensive units that hadn't fired during ADF to do so, making square-forming a response to an immediate cavalry threat, (rather than something that has to be done in the previous player turn and before the opponent has moved a single unit in the following turn), reintroducing a cavalry counter-charge option from the old BG engine and placing all melees at the end of the turn, thus preventing players from moving up units to melee and then moving other units through the gaps to melee again all within the same 15 (or 10) minute turn. While the 10 minute turn and no melee elimination optional rule do make it harder to conduct this sort of tactic, it is still perfectly possible to do if units are moved up their full allowance to melee and then cavalry or other units that start out closer to the enemy are then moved forward into the gaps.

Lt.Col. Rich White
3rd Cav. Bgde.
British Cav. Div.
II Corps
Anglo-Allied Army

I am all for something that works but in the end I usually find that the auto squaring or counter charging brings up more issues than it solves.

Typing here about it is not going to get it over to John. The support email is there. Use it if you have an idea.

I have yet to see a system that works properly for history. Refining this one at this point with these solutions is only going to open up a new can of worms.

And I would not want the ACW engine feature of batteries suddenly popping to life after you abandon them.

Crews and guns should be separate. Thus if the crew takes musket fire and is diminished then it fires less guns in a turn. But again this is out of the bounds of this engine. John has pretty much made that clear in our emails.

Auto squaring is out with me. I can bring up my cossacks and cause your entire line to square and then bring up my horse guns and fire on them. Same goes for the Cav counter charge. It was unhistorical when we controlled it and it wont work in a AI mode. We all would have a gripe about our cavalry running off after the wrong target. Even when we know that some of it could be justified as historical.

No my feeling is that we cannot achieve a historical end using the Single Phase and trying to section it out wont work either. Even if we have a Final Melee phase that would not work either.

The No Melee Elimination rule coupled with a 10 min. move fixed many of the problems in the engine for me. While I dont like the idea of squaring up a turn in advance I prefer it much more to opening up the file and finding that my entire line squared up for a lousy squadron of cossacks.

In the end the very best thing to do is to send something to the HPS Support email. Rich Hamilton uses fine discretion in what he forwards along. He's been at it for a long time.

John then bounces any ideas off of him and myself (and whoever is a Scenario Designer).

I will not use the excuse that these are hard times and John is very busy. You all paid your bucks for the game and its not right to use that as an excuse.

I do know that many ideas lack proper thinking. You have to think about the adverse conditions that come about because of the change. For instance the entire crew issue in the ACW engine is a problem for me. I dont use the option for Artillery Capture as I dont like "pop-up batteries."

I like the free thinking on our forums and I would not criticize anyone for speaking their peace. On the other hand if we enacted alot of the ideas of the past we would have some serious playing issues.

Its easy to come up with an idea but much harder to code it to where it doesn't bring about major problems.

So lets not consider this a dead issue but lets remember that we have talked about the Single Phase for some time. Alot of discussion has gone on and there have been changes for the better.

What I would like to see is some more discussion by those that come up with the ideas in the area of "how would this affect ..."

For instance, Rich White suggested all of the separation of the Single Phase. But then that would bring up other issues. So when you put up these ideas you need to think them through carefully. I can already come up with three good reasons why your idea wont work Rich. Most of them having to do with the concept of auto squaring and auto charging. The sequencing also comes to mind.

The Napoleonic battle was a dynamic place but still fought out by men that were steeped in the Seven Years War form of thinking. Combined arms operations were still in the developmental mode.

Anyway, this is always good to read over. I would never give the idea that I am supressing good ideas. Just alot of this has been discussed and more thinking is required.

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, Austerlitz and ... more to come)
Not the President of the Musket and Cannon Club

Bill's right. What appears to be a good idea may not be in practice. You have to think of how gamey players will exploit any change, or how the AI may behave. Autosquaring is a good example.

As it happens I have several games going with MDF on and I think it's my preferred way of playing nowadays in Waterloo at any rate.

Generaal
2de Brigade
2de Nederlandsche Div
I Corps
Anglo Allied Army

Andy,

<i>"What appears to be a good idea may not be in practice."</i>

All potential engine changes need (and get) playtesting before being included in a patch.

As far as MDF is concerned, I agree with Bill, it really needs the old BG features reintroduced to make this mode of play viable. Otherwise, it's better to just play BG instead.

..................

Bill,

<i>"Auto squaring is out with me. I can bring up my cossacks and cause your entire line to square and then bring up my horse guns and fire on them."</i>

<font color="red">No you couldn't.</font id="red"> If you'd looked at how my proposed sub-phase system would work, the horse artillery and any infantry too would need to move - and fire - in subphase 1./ <i>before</i> the defensive phase in which square forming would occur. All that the active player would be able to do <i>after</i> square-forming would be to launch cavalry charges and conduct melees. <font color="red">No infantry movement, no more active player firing either.</font id="red">

But, just for comparison, look at what we've currently got - square-forming in the previous player turn. A totally inadequate and unrealistic treatment of square-forming that allows the opponent the opportunity to move up as many infantry and horse artillery to fire at the square as he likes in his subsequent turn.

Surely it's better to discuss ideas here first - and get useful feedback - rather than just send them to John straightaway?

<i>- "I can already come up with three good reasons why your idea wont work Rich. Most of them having to do with the concept of auto squaring and auto charging. The sequencing also comes to mind."</i>

Perhaps you could, but first you need to understand how my system would work which, from your comments in your last post it's clear you don't yet. Also, rather than just rejecting the idea, it would be far more productive if you helped me work out a viable - and more detailed - proposal to send to John.

For instance, what would trigger the auto-squaring and auto-charging?
For squaring, I'd suggest the "threat" calculation that's already in place for units changing formation in proximity to the enemy could be used to determine which units - if any - decide to form square. The greater the threat, the more likely a unit will attempt to form square. [<font color="green">However, it actually won't matter much if a unit <i>does</i> form square, because the enemy won't have the opportunity of firing against it, or moving up infantry towards it in his current turn.</font id="green">

For auto-charging, ideally, it should be possible for a player to "preset" cavalry units to counter-charge in his previous turn (with the opportunity to indicate a specific enemy unit to charge, that may not necessarily be cavalry). There should also be at least some possibility of non-preset cavalry charging without orders. <font color="red">This could always be an optional rule and, even if used, players will still have the option of deciding they'd rather not "preset" any cavalry units to counter-charge.</font id="red">

Any suggestions on how to improve or refine this feature?

Lt.Col. Rich White
3rd Cav. Bgde.
British Cav. Div.
II Corps
Anglo-Allied Army

Richard,

You are asking for massive recoding of the engine.

If JT were to put cavalry-counter charge and auto-squaring, he would ... most likely... use similar coding to that he used in the BG titles, modified of course for legal reasons ([;)]), to save time and effort. This would then create the problems Bill is talking about.

My suggestion is learn how to program, and build a kick tail game engine for us. You have good ideas, but basically would require almost a whole new game engine.

Rich, I dont think you are thinking this out correctly. Your phasing has some merit though (see end for my conclusions).

Sure, I made a mistake on the square then horse battery fire and that is my bad. I apologize for not looking closer at the sequencing.

Here are my main objections to such a system based on a closer look at it:

1. Ok, you square before the cavalry commit. The problem with this is that you square! And John wont go for presets. I tried this for years and gave up. Wanted one for the Auto-Defensive fire to where you didnt have to fire on skirmishers. Its why I advocated having skirmishers and leaders not get shot at as they move.

But what you are saying is regardless of whether the cavalry charge your guys MAY square. Ok, I see your point but what if I just put a cossack Threat Zone on your infantry. Thus I get the entire line to possibly square and you have to waste 1/2 your MPs next turn unsquaring them. This would work great in a retreat situation where the only cav I have is one squadron. Thus I just use it each turn to keep putting you into square. That is the weak point in that concept. And I probably missed another. If I see you coming at me with 10:1 odds all I do is put out one squadron in my move and in the Defensive Subphase your infantry all square. Meanwhile, my men get away.

2. Ok, so you can counter charge (optional). While this sounds good, again, all I do is put out a cossack, draw you out and then charge your disordered cav in my charge phase.

Example: Your cav are facing me at 6 hexes away. I move a cossack to within 3 hexes and then in your subphase your cav react. Now they are out in the middle of nowhere. I then charge with my heavies and wipe them out. I follow up into your line and you no longer can counter my threat.

My concept would be:

1. Eliminate the subphases.
2. Auto Square is as the cavalry is charging. During the Phasing Player's charge phase.
3. Counter Charge occurs during the Cavalry Charge phase. It can thus stop your attack before it hits my lines. Why, because if your cavalry does get drawn out by a unit I can then hit it in my charge phase or just go right around it and hit guns that it was protecting (say it was stacked with them).

All of the above should be predicated on LOS too. Thus a cavalry unit should not be able to counter charge my cavalry that is hiding behind a town. Or another unit.

Counter charge should not be available to a unit that moved in the prior player phase. It should be a setting that the player sets instead of movement. This would keep the amount of counter charging down and cause the players to play more historically.

Much the same an infantry unit that moved in the preceding turn should not be able to auto square.

Thus no subphases. Too gamey. I can trigger your units and get them out in the open. Ok, so you use a trigger to not have them counter charge. I just waltz by them and hit your guns anyway.

I think we are wasting time trying to get a sequencing going. There are just going to be other issues that arise.

I suggest you put together a series of test cases before you present this to John. Think out what could happen. I probably missed about twenty in my second review of your plan.

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, Austerlitz and ... more to come)
Not the President of the Musket and Cannon Club

Al,

The problem is not in coding. It was often stated that main audience of HPS are solo players. Making a game for PBEM gamers only is not profitable enough. Creating a game for solo players requires crating a good AI. Creating an AI with sensible behavior is several degrees more difficult than creating a good fighting model. The more sophisticated the model there more difficult to create the AI. From this point of view I do not expect to see anything better than what we have now. Hope I'm wrong and Les grongards present a breakthrough.

Bill,

the idea is not so bad. Most of the examples you offer either can't happen or can be solved rather easily.

A cossack unit (btw why do you "love" cossacks so much, rating them so low, presenting too weak units with unhistorical organisation etc.) closing won't trigger mass squaring because 1. cossacks do not receive charging bonus, 2. if it is not cossacks but just a small troop of cavalry it's to weak to threaten infantry in line or in column (see Rich's comment on effective thread calculation). 3. this very unit will not be able to charge in charging phase and hence is not a thread at all.
Even if a small cavalry unit triggers a square formation it shouldn't be a problem for a retreating infantry. History presents quite a few examples when squares were used both offensively (Piramides by Napoleon, Rymnik by Suvorov, Aspern-Essling by Aussies where inf was in a block formation - even harder to break than a square) and defensively (Krasnoi, Fere-Champenoise) and were much faster than what we have in the engine. Give it a movement allow same as for in-line inf and it won't be a problem.
Same about countercharges.

Rich,

I believe most of the problems Bill pointed out can be solved with the use of presetting. For infantry to "hold fire", and "form a square if threatened", for cavalry to "countercharge if needed". The units should be able to conduct these actions on their own, if the order was not preset or even set to "do not countercharge whatever happens". The presence of a leader should affect this decision. It is important that a thorough calibration is needed. French troops are to be set to have more initiative than say Austrian and Prussian. On the other hand they should be less disciplined in carrying out the orders. A cavalry charge at Waterloo comes to mind. They say there was only one division ordered to charge, but almost all of the French cavalry did.

Also there should be "specific national" commands preset. For example Russian in-line infantry may be allowed instead of forming a square to do the following maneuver - lay down, skip the charging cavalry, get up, about the face, deliver a volley into the rear of charging cavalry. Of course there should be a possibility of disorder and rout while completing all this. Similarly Russian cossacks should be given an ability to conduct a "venter'" maneuver - it is to fall back when charged without loss of cohesion, while the other units charge on the enemy flanks.

<center></center>
<center><b>Eyo Imperatorskogo Velichestva Leib-Kirassirskogo polku
General-Adjutant Anton Valeryevich Kosyanenko
Commander of the Second Army of the West </b></center>

Anton - in regards to the squaring issue I am dead on. The Phasing player moves his cavalry (one squadron of any kind will do - cossacks were the worst on the battlefield with some of the Austrian Insurrection and other weak types in that category) to project a Threat zone on the infantry. As soon as this happens the infantry tries to square.

So what is wrong with my example here? Nothing. Its according to what Rich is after. He is saying that if the cavalry get near the infantry he wants some sort of auto square ability.

I am against this as it would be used by players to put your infantry into square with small 34 man cav units. Not realistic.

Next ...

Counter charge - I pointed out that if we use a counter charge feature PRIOR to the charge phase that the cavalry would end up in the middle of nowhere. I didnt even like the counter charge feature in BG let alone what Rich is proposing here.

Think about it: counter charge! Counter charge what? Counter mean to try and deter something AFTER it happens. If I lunge in fencing to your head with my saber you COUNTER with a guard to stop it.

What Rich is calling a counter charge is really a peremptory strike!

A counter charge occured AFTER the enemy had launched a charge. Not before. Thus I would say get the counter charge to happen as the Phasing player's cav gets near to them. Plus the charging cav should be able to continue if they win. This wont happen if counter charging is used.

In Empire II by Scott Bowden you could launch a charge during the enemy's turn for moving on cavalry. That should still apply. Thus charging by non-phasing cavalry could historically happen during Rich's first phase of the turn. But do we want that? No way. Again, just use a unit to draw out the cavalry and then move up and fire on them with guns and infantry.

Anyway, NONE of my examples except the earlier one that I noted was wrong are incorrect. Each can happen and present "gamey" play for us.

I am not up for cooperating in any endeavor that will cause the AI to do things and I doubt that JMM has gotten it right in this dept. either. Every game has a weakness in this area.

As you mentioned the AI is often weak in games. This is because the programmer/design team is more interested it seems in the eye candy and engine features. I would love to see an AI that can play a good game.

But anyway, cossacks were some of the worst battlefield cavalry in Europe. Only Russia seems to disagree! [;)][:p][8D][:D]

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, Austerlitz and ... more to come)
Not the President of the Musket and Cannon Club

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Bill Peters</i>
<br />
This is because the programmer/design team is more interested it seems in the eye candy and engine features.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

That's why I like HPS.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
But anyway, cossacks were some of the worst battlefield cavalry in Europe. Only Russia seems to disagree! [;)][:p][8D][:D]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Cossacks led us into Paris. As well as Berlin, Dresned, Kassel, Amsterdam, Warsaw, Hamburg, Leipzig, Milan, Turin, Breda, etc., etc. The list can be very long as you understand. Cossacks are responsible for at least 100 000 soldiers of "the big army" captured in 1812, many of them much before the frosts. They caused the whole french cavalry to disappear, killing almost every horse in "the big army". They actually allowed us to win the War. Why should we think they were weak? The fairy tales of the French and FrenchLovingAmericans are not a reason to forget our own glory. It was well deserved in the fields of battle. Shamefully it's being stolen in the peace of cabinets for a long time.

<center></center>
<center><b>Eyo Imperatorskogo Velichestva Leib-Kirassirskogo polku
General-Adjutant Anton Valeryevich Kosyanenko
Commander of the Second Army of the West </b></center>

"French and FrenchLovingAmericans"

No, actually I am using German and Russian sources to back up my claims. The Russians admit that they were great scouts and that is where they excelled.

As to defeating the French, yes, in 1812 when the units were cut off from help on the retreat the cossacks wiped them out (if they couldnt form square that is).

So they were great at biting around the flanks of an army but they were no battlefield cavalry and I would scorn any source you use to try and prove otherwise.

Yes, they could and did beat French cavalry. I never said that they didn't. But it was mainly on campaign and not at the battlefield.

They were useless as lancers against infantry. If they were so good as lancers then they should have been good battlefield cavalry. And I heartily admit that they were probably the best with a lance along with the Poles in Europe!

I built a miniatures Russian army years ago. The books I used were based on good Russian accounts. They back up everything I have ever read from non-French, non-English speaking sources.

So in conclusion: cossacks were great at pillaging the countryside. Noone could do it better. They spread terror into the hearts of the Austrians along the Danube in 1805 and practically everyone else they ran into. They were plains-savages.

They scouted well but were prone to plunder. But much of the French army during the wars as well (N. Italy for example).

But they were awful on the battlefield. Only in a couple of instances can I recall ever reading that they defeated their opponents on the field of battle.

I would prefer that you not try and label me in the future as anything but objective. The US did not fight in Europe during these wars and I have no vested national interest in defending one side over the other.

For instance: my view on the War of 1812 (US vs. England) is that that we bit off more than we could chew. Our army was not ready for war and frankly we just ended up getting lucky. England should have knocked the crap out of us. Had she not been tied down fighting "Boney" we would have too.

So in closing, I am not biased towards the French. They did do great things in the war but many of the nations involved also did the same and I refuse to get politically or militarily-baised/aligned with one side or the other.

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, Austerlitz and ... more to come)
Not the President of the Musket and Cannon Club