Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

This isn't an easy issue, nor are there easy answers. For that matter, opening this sort of "rule" would create further problems due to the law of unintended consequences.

For instance, should the movement reduction -really- hold for a unit that's been left in an exposed position, and wishes to retire? (For instance, if other units have routed). The battalion commander would be well capable of making that decision and pulling the troops back.

I do consider the spotting issues to be a far more profound problem in the engine, though I'm not sure if there is a good solution.

Feldmarschall Freiherr Gary McClellan
Generalissimus Imperial Austrian Army
Portner Grenadier Bn
Allied Coalition C-in-C

The 'eye of god' issue I have always thought could be solved in a small way with the extended line of sight bing for Divisional Commanders and above only, as Sir Muddy suggests. You could have an extended LOS for Lt Cav as well i feel. That way your forced to use your lt cav for scouting and early warning.

For example the Army Comdr has 40 hex sight, Corps Comdrs 30, Div Commanders 20 and Bde Comdrs 15. With lt cav sqn/regt LOS as say 25 hex. But restrict other units LOS to say one and a half times their clear terrain move allowance. This way your getting the possibility of operational and some tactical surprise. Cav units/comdrs would have slightly longer LOS than inf units/comdrs. More weather effects on LOS would be good.

I would like to see routing and disordered units with full movement allowance BUT disordered units get double the cost for formation/direction changes and difficult terrain. With routing units only half cost for difficult terrain with a forced DOUBLE rout move!

Just my 2c worth [:D]

Col Mike Ellwood
Commander Officer
3rd Dragoon Division
Reserve Cavalry

Mike, even at that though, that only solves half the problem (ok, 1/3 of it really).

Even if you limit LOS to certain units, it still doesn't deal with the fact that as soon as any unit has something in sight, the commander knows it.

What's more, the commander can then send orders to any unit, on the basis of that information. Essentially the entire command loop is short circuited.

That said,I'm not sure there's an answer, because how many players are honestly (and be honest here!) willing to give up control of their units to the level required to play in a historical manner?

How many are willing to be forced to be chained to an actual decision loop? How many are willing to let the AI handle 100% of dispositions and movements of all units below the Corps level?



Of course, the other side of LOS and sighting. We could use false reports as well. Where some panic stricken scout leader reports an entire Cav Division coming down the road, when it turns out to be two drunken Cossacks who are trying to loot a cheese factory!

Feldmarschall Freiherr Gary McClellan
Generalissimus Imperial Austrian Army
Portner Grenadier Bn
Allied Coalition C-in-C

I for one would not play HPS if the AI did everything. I am an old table top player and I like moving my toy soldiers!

In the end I like it as it is. Flawed for everyone in some ways and outstanding for everyone in others. The large map campaign games with all the units to btn level are superb.

Chuck in steadily improving graphics for eye candy and we have a true operational to tactical level game.

Bring in AI you take out the tactical level. As well as watch your units act with intelligence of Ney on a bad day.[:D]

In summary with 10 min moves and few small house rules I think HPS have made the best games for the Napoleonic wargamer. Just my opinion. Bill when is the next one. Monday?

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, II Heavy Cavalry Division, Reserve Cavalry.
http://www.aspire.co.nz/colinknoxnwc.htm

Gary, yes it is not the whole solution by any means however what Colin said previously is very pertinent:
"But like I say it's the same for both sides and I can't really see a way under the HPS engine of changing that without a fundamental rethink."
As long as both get the same time and space effect at least its fair and it really just speads up the action with, as you say, no real command and control system. Again this is the big compromise/problem I think only a very sophisticated engine could handle and the play testing would be rather complex I'd imagine.
I'm happy with the game engine limitations in that regard as I too like to move them all and am a table top wargamer at heart.

Col Mike Ellwood
Commander Officer
3rd Dragoon Division
Reserve Cavalry

The biggest issue I have at the moment is the big losses and the continued ability of a unit reduced down to a rediculess level, to function and conduct offensive actions(as opposed to defencive which was a lot easier to get troops to remain doing).

Yes I know we can all pull out examples of the 45th(?) at Eylau, the Albuera battle and the likes of Eylau itself and Borodino but on the whole the opposite was the norm. Experience and quality counted and leadership, position and support were all very big factors in a units ability to withstand and remain capable of offensive action. The Polish and Russian battles semed to be more brutual(fighting for homeland and so far away from homeland may have been large factors here).

But the European battles generally got to a decision with less loss of life. Units were more inclined, for whatever reason, to break before large losses were sustained. very hard to replicate to everyones liking let alone get it to work with any consistancy. I feel the HPS engine does the best job available.

To make it more realistic and act on probability AND possibility the factors and range for moral tests would have to be increased considerably and proportioned appropriately, a big ask and a big job.

I can still se me playing HPS Napoleonics till I die [:D]

Col Mike Ellwood
Commander Officer
3rd Dragoon Division
Reserve Cavalry

One last comment about reducing LOS for out of command units or detached units and then the horse can die. Using the example of cavalry scouts, if we reduce their LOS to say 10 hexes this will somewaht offset the instaneous communication back to the army once they spot something. It will also make it more difficult to determine the full size and scope of what type of unit(s) they have come across, requiring further scouting an affording the opponent and opportunity to chase them off. Or maybe a graduated LOS the farther away from command the more reduced the LOS.

Lieutenant General
Ed Blackburn
Commanding Second Div, II Corps, AAA
3rd Bn / 1st Regiment of Foot Guards

Hmmm? Yes Ed I think i like that idea very much!
Die horse! Die!

Col Mike Ellwood
Commander Officer
3rd Dragoon Division
Reserve Cavalry

This should move it back up!

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, II Heavy Cavalry Division, Reserve Cavalry.
http://www.aspire.co.nz/colinknoxnwc.htm

Or .... you could have the REPLAY show up three turns later for units that are over 40 hexes of your LOS. That way you wouldnt see them until a few turns later and not be able to react to them.

Once they moved to within 20 hexes of the unit they would show up normally.

This for any unit that is DETACHED AND the leader is out of command range.

Colonel Bill Peters, 17th Dragoons, III Corps, French Army
HPS Napoleonic Scenario Designer (Eckmuhl, Wagram, Jena-Auerstaedt, Austerlitz and ... more to come)
Swiss-Swedish Army CinC, Musket and Cannon Game Club - Come over and see what we are all about!

Bill

Now are you being serious or not? Is there the possibility of the game engine being able to do delayed replays in that way? That would go a long way to improving the games 'eye of god' issue.
Anything like that i think would be a good move as it starts to bring into consideration time and space especially with campaign games. Could be very complex or very basic but it would be a start.

Col Mike Ellwood
Commander Officer
3rd Dragoon Division
Reserve Cavalry

How about smoke? I have read so many books and smoke played a very important role in this time period.

I am not for AI doing everything either, just thinking of ideas that I would like better.

Smoke and Leaders factoring into the game more would really be my preferences.

I still will get all the HPS games, they are good. But, now we have a lot, would like to see improvements that doesn't end their life cycle.

Another one is the Campaign stuff. There is a ton of potential.




<b><font color="gold">Gén. de Div. </b></font id="gold">Paul Wakeman [url="http://www.acwgc.org/acwgc_members/paw/wakeman-AdR.htm"](OBD)[/url]
<font color="beige">2nd Light Rgt</font id="beige">
<font color="orange">2nd Brigade
22nd Saxon Division
<b>VII Saxon Corps</font id="orange">
<font color="red">Armée du Rhin (ADC)</b></font id="red">

Paul_Wakeman@yahoo.com

No. I wasn't joking about the replay idea. I have no idea how involved it would be and it would mean carrying over data from one turn to the next and so on. The data would have to be moved down to a new section of the game file. And frankly I have no idea on how much time it would take.

All I can say is that you guys own a series that is STILL being updated. This thread is basically negative in its approach and I can handle that as you guys bought the game but I continue to advocate that apart from miniatures and some board games this series has everything beat that I have played.

Knock it if you want but its still the best game in town.

If I had a million bucks I would have a programmer put my dream game together. The player would give brigade and division orders on this level, breakdown of skirmishers would be handled in a much different manner and they would be tied to their parent unit, etc.

More of a macromanager's game than a micromanager's game. That is what I want. I want my guns to face the right way, my infantry to try and square when its charged, etc.

But for now this series is very enjoyable. I dont think I would continue working for John if I didn't like it that much.

Colonel Bill Peters, 17th Dragoons, III Corps, French Army
HPS Napoleonic Scenario Designer (Eckmuhl, Wagram, Jena-Auerstaedt, Austerlitz and ... more to come)
Swiss-Swedish Army CinC, Musket and Cannon Game Club - Come over and see what we are all about!

Hi Bill,

Please don't read me wrong, I was not looking at these ideas in a negative way but a positive enhancement. I totally agree with the quality and playability of these games, I think they are brilliant!

Obviously everyone has there own preferences and ideas as to what they'd like to see and I think that is a strength with our little community. The ideas and issues people are raising provides direction and desire to continue to develop the games for the better.

I take my hats off to the developers and realise there is only so much that can be done. But as I have little idea of what can actually be done I will continue to question and suggest all in the most wide eyed " Wow can we do that?" way.[:D]

Col Mike Ellwood
Commander Officer
3rd Dragoon Division
Reserve Cavalry

Bill,

I also do not find it negative. These kind of discussions are good for club, good for games, even good for HPS if they ever read them.

I like PAW1800 suggestion of smoke. That would be easy, and a really good thing.

I consider posts such as these to be constructive criticism.

No game is perfect, but we can all dream.

And the Campaigns do have a lot of potential, and HPS should exploit that.


<b><font color="gold">GFM</font id="gold"> A. '<font color="beige">Baron</font id="beige">' Burr
Fourierschützen [url="http://www.acwgc.org/acwgc_members/burr/Austrian%20Army/Aaron_Burr.htm"](OBD)[/url]
<font color="red">2nd Jäger Bn</font id="red">
<font color="beige">2nd Division
I Korps</font id="beige">
Austrian Army</b>