Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

Though I understand what Rich is saying, and can't really argue the validity of his comments, your last question goes right to heart to my original query.

Given that John will not do anything about getting back to the BG system, which I agree, that if that's that's the way of it, we had better accept it. I would be all in favor of just adding Manual Defensive Fire as an option, giving us multi phased capability like all of the other games. That's why I originally asked what goes into adding that that has, up to this point proved to be so difficult. It seems to me that if you just asked the question, would this be acceptable, that John, or someone is saying that, this at least is doable. Sure it wouldn't be the best of all worlds, but you've also said, Ain't no way we're gonna get the best of all worlds. So I am willing to take what we CAN GET and be happy with that. Which, for example, at least those of us who want multi phased play, we wouldn't have to worry about negotiating for an embedded melee phase for every game we get involved in.

Personally, I have no problems only being able to form square in my own turn. I've learned to watch the enemy cavalry and judge their capability for launching a successful charge in their turn and when the possibility was high enough I would try to form square. Or I am happy to move a good battalion into a position where forming square cuts off an enemy's ability to move past the square in a charge. And to cavalry counter charge...I don't ever remember to have ever remembered to take advantage of that in a BG game, nor do I remember ever seeing an opponent using it against me. So I don't miss it.

So, Bill, I repeat, Yes and Yes again, all I've ever wanted is to see the same capability for Phased play that is in all of the other HPS games applied to the Napo games, or please explain why, technically it can't be done.

Thanks again for all of your efforts.

Captain Bill Spitz
1/27th Regiment of Foot (The Inniskillings)
10th Brigade, 6th Division
Anglo-Allied Army
[image]http://www.regiments.org/img/badges/uk-crest/robinson/inf/027.jpg[/image]

My last request was for an option that would allow the players to have ADF for the MDF form of play. Just that and no change of formation or counter charging.

I will let you know what his answer is in brief.

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]

Speaking for myself (who else would I speak for), that's all I've ever asked for. Thanks Bill.

Captain Bill Spitz
1/27th Regiment of Foot(The Inniskillings)
10th Brigade, 6th Division
Anglo-Allied Army
[image]http://www.inniskilling.com/1850.jpg[/image]
"Nec Aspera Terrent"
"By Difficulties Undaunted"

Unfortuately, that's really not the solution I'd like to see, because - apart from the quick turn around rate - it's far inferior to the way the BG engine handles the defensive phase.

Obviously some players would like to have faster PBEM turns, so this "quick fix" would clearly appeal to them, but the loss of the other BG features from multiphase mode has a massive impact on gameplay. Surely it's better to have to exchange more files than to put up with a far inferior gaming experience?

Also, as I've pointed out previously, the single phase mode of play fails to properly cater for square forming as a response to an imminent cavalry charge and also fails to allow cavalry counter charges, making cavalry totally useless - immobile and defenceless - in the non-player's turn.

Thus the continued absence of these features from the HPS engine is a serious drawback to a reasonably realistic attempt to recreate Napoleonic warfare. Consequently, despite the numerous engine enhancements over the years to the HPS engine, it might well be argued that the old BG engine retains several key features that greatly enhance gameplay and which should never have been <i><b>removed</b></i> from the original engine when the new HPS single phase system was created.

So I'm not requesting anything new here (nor would I object to the optional <i>addition</i> of automatic defensive fire for multiphase mode if this would please other gamers), <b>but surely it's not unreasonable to ask for key BG features to be <i>restored</i> to the HPS multiphase mode of play.</b> These features must have been present originally in the HPS engine, and the code for them must still exist, so it shouldn't be a big deal to pop them back in again.

Besides, as I'm sure you're aware, most folks who buy these games don't actually play by PBEM, so they'd no doubt be happier if the missing BG features were restored than if an auto-defensive fire system was introduced for the convenience of PBEM gamers.


Lt.Col. Rich White
4th Cavalry Brigade
Cavalry Corps
Anglo-Allied Army

Well Rich you are beating a dead horse as John isnt going there.

I havent gotten an answer about the DFire yet but the other stuff just isnt going to happen.

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]

Hi Guys,

Richard I sympathise with you and agree in theory to everything you rasking for. However I am no computer geek (more techno dwarf [8D] ) but think I can see the real problems with what your asking.

How would the engine know what units to form square with? Use of a cav threat range and/or visibility? What about commanders prerogative and or different viewpoint? What about the level of cav threat, would you need a threshhold of strength? What about how many units formed square? One Regt might be able to force a whole bde into square when you compare the charge range and threat range. What is the trigger point going to be and what about an option for not forming square? What if your cunning plans want to disregard the cav threat or actually encourage it?

An auto cavalry counter charge option has the same issues yes?

Don't get me wrong I would love to see it and see the 'Eye and Hand of God' control be less but the practical and individual choices dependant on the tactical situation would surely be extremely hard to cater for?

Am I talking crap and the engine should be able to cater for all that or would I be close to the mark on why its hard to get as opposed to just fitting in the "old" system?

Bill I sympathise with your meat in the sandwich position!

Lt Col Mike Ellwood
Konig Regt
1 Bde, 22 Div
VII Saxon Corps, ADR

Mike,

For multiphase mode, it would be the player who decided whether to put his units in square, change formation or launch a counter-charge in the defensive phase (ie. just like in the old BG engine). But it seems John is reluctant to put this back into the engine - these features were lost from the HPS engine at some point, possibly when the single phase system was added.

For single phase mode, see my separate post. My idea is not for the A/I to handle these features entirely by itself. Instead the player would "preset" units to form square or counter charge during his previous turn.

When "presetting" a counter-charge, the player would select <i>both</i> his own unit which would counter charge and also the hex containing the enemy unit(s) that are the "target". Then, if the enemy decide to charge, the player's unit counter-charges. It would also be feasible to "target" enemy infantry or guns too, not just cavalry.

Perhaps some cavalry might be tagged "impetuous" in the OOB - these might have some change of charging without permission.

Square forming again would be "preset" in advance, so if the player didn't tag a unit to form square it wouldn't do so if charged (or might do so at a small % possibility under A/I control)

The level of threat is something that would need to be playtested. Perhaps if the cavalry would get 2:1 melee odds, possibly even if the cavalry just had better than 1:1 melee odds.


Lt.Col. Rich White
4th Cavalry Brigade
Cavalry Corps
Anglo-Allied Army

Richard thanks for that.

Yep totally understand the BG phase play and agree there.

I like the idea about preflagging units for options and the level of threat being set by the same method.Also like the idea of impetous cavalry, great idea!

I think the idea of being able to continue the counter charge in your next move phase (like an normal charge except it just started in the opposition phase) would be a great idea as well.

Maybe the next generation napoleonic game will have some of these developed. Becuase history shows there will always be another [:D]

Salute



Lt Col Mike Ellwood
Konig Regt
1 Bde, 22 Div
VII Saxon Corps, ADR