Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

I am trying some games using the NME rule in conjunction with embedded melees and no multiple melees for either infantry or cavalry (may rethink the cavalry one). The objective is to enforce the use of the linear/column tactics without permitting the use of blitzy type tactics. Jon Thayer and I are trying this in the giant 500 turn Eckhmuhl battle and I am asking Dean Beecham to try it in our Wagram historical battle. Has anyone else ever tried this particualar combination of rules before? What were the results? I'll keep you posted on how it plays.[:D]

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

Hi Ed
I have been mainly playing Jena recently with Tomasz. The rule combination is similar although we have multiple cav melees on.

I have found that even without embedded melee we are getting quite historical type combat due to the reduced movement rates and the high firepower rates in Jena.

Artillery and infantry in line are generating a lot of firepower due to the big battalions and good ratings of the guns. Also we are playing the other optional rules that encourage fire based combat. (column stacking bonuses etc)

The rules do still however favour the attacker due to the rout factor. It would be great to have a defensive fire rout option to offset this. Or perhaps a house rule if a unit disorders it cannot melee.

BTW I favour embedded melee in all of the other games except Jena.
Salute!
Colin






General de Brigade Knox
Baron de l'Empire
2e Regiment Gardes d'Honneur (the regaled pheasants)
La Jeune Garde
CO. 1er Brigade, III Division Cavalerie Legere, III Corps Armee du Nord
http://www.aspire.co.nz/colinknoxnwc.htm

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Colin Knox</i>
<br />Hi Ed
I have been mainly playing Jena recently with Tomasz. The rule combination is similar although we have multiple cav melees on.

I have found that even without embedded melee we are getting quite historical type combat due to the reduced movement rates and the high firepower rates in Jena.

Artillery and infantry in line are generating a lot of firepower due to the big battalions and good ratings of the guns. Also we are playing the other optional rules that encourage fire based combat. (column stacking bonuses etc)

The rules do still however favour the attacker due to the rout factor. It would be great to have a defensive fire rout option to offset this. Or perhaps a house rule if a unit disorders it cannot melee.

BTW I favour embedded melee in all of the other games except Jena.
Salute!
Colin






General de Brigade Knox
Baron de l'Empire
2e Regiment Gardes d'Honneur (the regaled pheasants)
La Jeune Garde
CO. 1er Brigade, III Division Cavalerie Legere, III Corps Armee du Nord
http://www.aspire.co.nz/colinknoxnwc.htm



<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


Thanks for the feedback Colin, I agree with you the reduced movement rates probably makes the NME option alone adequate for JA; but Jon and I have found you can still move, melee, and move through the holes wven with NME in the others, leading to a melee fest. Increased defensive fire is another thing I agree with you would deter unrealistic tactics. I wonder has this ever been suggested through offical HPS channels before?

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

Hi Ed
Yes I agree about the melee fest in the other games and also agree with embedded melee in them. NRC is particularly bad due to the small btns reducing firepower. JA is much better which is pretty much why I prefer it. You can still blitz attack though albeit on a smaller scale especially now that the stacking was pushed up agsin to 1800 from 1600. Which I thought was better.

Salute!
Colin



General de Brigade Knox
Baron de l'Empire
2e Regiment Gardes d'Honneur (the regaled pheasants)
La Jeune Garde
CO. 1er Brigade, III Division Cavalerie Legere, III Corps Armee du Nord
http://www.aspire.co.nz/colinknoxnwc.htm

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Colin Knox</i>
<br />Hi Ed
Yes I agree about the melee fest in the other games and also agree with embedded melee in them. NRC is particularly bad due to the small btns reducing firepower. JA is much better which is pretty much why I prefer it. You can still blitz attack though albeit on a smaller scale especially now that the stacking was pushed up agsin to 1800 from 1600. Which I thought was better.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Colin,

It was precisely to put the brakes on blitz tactics without having to rely on house rules that Bill Peters went to the 10 min turn and reduced stacking with the Jena game.[:D]

I would have preferred to have kept the stacking at their v. 1.0 settings, but numerous Prussian players complained that their big bns could never stack together giving smaller french bns an advantage.

One change that you did not mention was that, as originally released, cav had a <font size="5"><font color="red">5x</font id="red"></font id="size5"> charge multiplier as opposed to the more common 3x. IMO, a 5x multiplier was essential to accurately reflecting the impact of even 2-3 sqds of cavalry vs. unprepared infantry. Alas, too many people complained about the change from the usual, so bill had to scale the multiplier back down to 3x.[V]

Regards,

Paco

<i>Maréchal M. Francisco Palomo
Prince d'Essling, Grande Duc d'Abrantes et
Comte de Marseille
Commandant - Division de Cavalerie de la Vieille Garde</i>

Hi Paco
Yes I am aware of the reasoning. Hmmm did not notice that 5x change though, that is dissapointing, I defintely prefer 1.02 now vs 1.03. I have kept a copy of both versions. I agree with you that 5x is much more realistic than 3x. I find that stacking argument strange as most of the French btns are as big if not bigger than the Prussians with the exception of Lannes corp (I think)

Helga a round here for this table

Salute!



General de Brigade Knox
Baron de l'Empire
2e Regiment Gardes d'Honneur (the regaled pheasants)
La Jeune Garde
CO. 1er Brigade, III Division Cavalerie Legere, III Corps Armee du Nord
http://www.aspire.co.nz/colinknoxnwc.htm

Hi Ed, (Colin and Paco too)

I have played most of my games with the combination Colin has mentioned below. I have found the way the battle fights is a lot more historicaly accurate (to my mind) with those settings and the embedded melee.

The stacking complaint I disagree with as well, as your trying to stuff many more men into a narrow frontage than was usually the case. If reduced stacking, it makes for more outflanking efforts. The Prussian complaints show you part of the reason why they lost so badly, rusty linear tactics out manouvuored by French flexibility. I feel the British would have suffered in a similiar way on a European battlefield had they not had the commanders they did. However not as badly becuase British unit cohesion (or regimental pride)was stronger and the soldiers tougher, in general, DAMN THEM! [:(!])

I personally would love to play a game where no FRONTAL melee attacks can be conducted on FORMED UNITS if the attacker was disordered and only frontal attacks by good order units if the defender was disordered. Less bayoneting, more firepower and threatening! I believe the threat zones are a great aspect of this system and a similiar system provided for "in support" could be a great but complex thing to add as well. Started well with the secure flanks bonus.

The cavalry charge factors I agree totally with Paco and Colin...should be 5X...as the Cavalry threat in the period was immense and unfortunately I believe not adequately allowed for.

One other amendment I would like to see is the ability for Infantry to melee cavalry in obstructed hexes, possibly even in the open as I am finding the 10 man cav sqn very unrealistic in holding road hexes in woods and villages etc [:(!]!!

Thats my 2c worth. Bonjour [:)]




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

My two cents on the cavalry in obstructed terrain:

In woods/forest/orchard/rough: I recall reading some references that cavalry would not enter these terrains close to the enemy without skirmisher (NOT formed infantry) protection. This suggests that not only could skirmishers melee cavalry here, but that they would routinely win such melees easily. In many cases I believe the tentative footing of the horses would be an issue, forcing riders to concentrate on controlling their mounts instead of fighting.

As for villages, I suggest a distinction between village and city hexes. In Ratisbon, for example, an ancient walled town, streets would be extremely narrow because of the great premium on being inside the wall. I suggest that cavalry be disadvantaged even defending such terrain against skirmishers. However, some of the villages in Eckmuhl are still open enough (from my Google Earth view) to conceive of being charged through by cavalry. Perhaps a 3x instead of a normal 5x when charging into these lightly built up areas. Interior hexes in towns such as Abensberg could be made city hexes where appropriate.

Finally, why is cavalry so disadvantaged in moving through marsh? In every WWI or WWII game cavalry is the most effective unit type for moving through marshes, and is often given as the reason why the Russians and Poles continued to use cavalry so extensively in WWII. Surely shoeing technology had not advanced significantly in 150 years!

And one pet peeve: When charged by cavalry, I believe skirmishers should have a one-hex auto-retreat available; particularly if adjacent to a formed battalion of their own brigade. Only if meleed/over-run twice in the same phase should skirmishers be eliminated. What do others think of this idea?

Lieutenant Pieter Geerkens
VII Saxon Corps
22ème Division,
2ème Brigade,

"Even in the attack, [I found] the spade is the equal of the rifle." - Erwin Rommel

I have a strong preference for NME AND embedded melee in all games, including Jena. I think it makes for a much more credible and enjoyable game when the blitz tactics are absent. I usually select no multiple melees for infantry only.

Mike Ellwood makes some interesting points about frontal attacks and disorder, and the role of manoeuvre. Embedded melee thankfully takes away some of the totally unrealistic manoeuvre capability of individual units in close proximity to the enemy. Once committed to the chaos of battle units should be restricted in what they are capable of in terms of manoeuvre (approach the enemy, fire, melee or withdraw, nothing too intricate). NME and EM instead encourage intelligent manoeuvre at the brigade/division/corps level before contact is made, massing of forces, finding of flanks, bombardment to soften up the enemy, etc. That's where the essence of Napoleonic warfare is to be found. Just my humble opinion.

I wouldn't mind trying the 5x charge factor.

<center>[url="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/a.r.barlow/nwc/nwc_personal_record.htm"]Brigadier General Antony Barlow[/url]
~ [url="http://www.geocities.com/anglo_allied_army_stats/Anglo_Allied_Army_Cavalry_Corps.htm"]2nd British (Union) Brigade, Anglo-Allied Cavalry Corps[/url] ~
~ [url="http://www.geocities.com/militaireacademie/dragoons.html"]4th (Royal Irish) Dragoon Guards[/url] ~
</center>

On my point of view, less you have house rules, better is the game [:D]
I just accept sometimes to play with embedded to please my opponent. But the embeded give an advantage to the defense (may be too much). It's true that without embedeed the advantage is for the attacker [:D]

But It's true that my philosophy is to take pleasure without paying too much attention to the historical aspects of the game.

Best regards

Marechal Lamezec
Prince et Comte de Davout
French CIC

Although I like realism and don't like blitz games I do agree with Marechal Lamezec. Less house rules is better its more enjoyable.

Embedded melee is good though for all but JA for me. I also think it is better when done regionally. Ie in each distinct area of the battlefield.

Helga a round here from my comrades

Salute!

General de Brigade Knox
Baron de l'Empire
2e Regiment Gardes d'Honneur (the regaled pheasants)
La Jeune Garde
CO. 1er Brigade, III Division Cavalerie Legere, III Corps Armee du Nord
http://www.aspire.co.nz/colinknoxnwc.htm

This discussion emphasizes that is important to discuss things up front with your opponent prior to starting and not take anything for granted. I have reached a point in my gaming where I am less interested in playing campaigns and more interested in playing historically accurate large battles. I agree less house rules are better as they are hard to keep track of. That's why I stick the embedded melees and the MOE rules which most folks tend to be familiar with.

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

Hi again Ed,

If your interested in playing an "historical" battle with rules as discussed here and anymore you would like to try out let me know as im always up for a "historical" fight. I'm not a blitzy kinda guy [:)].
I am quite keen to try the no frontal melee for infantry of non disordered troops and also would be interested in trying the 5x (or even 4x) cav charge modifier if we can get a heads up on how to change it.

Salute

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

In CE I believe the Cavalry Charge Multiple is the third line after the Weather Description near the end of the PDT file, in <font color="red">red</font id="red"> below:

:
:
1 1809 1 1 0 0 100 40 100 100 0 0 Clear
0
<font color="red">3</font id="red">
4
2 3

Lieutenant Pieter Geerkens
VII Saxon Corps
2ème du 22ème

"Even in the attack, [I found] the spade is the equal of the rifle." - Erwin Rommel

Here I am sitting at a comfortable table loaded heavily with books, with one eye on my typewriter and the other on Licorce the cat, who has a great fondness for carbon paper, and I am telling you that the Emperor Napoleon was a most contemptible person. But should I happen to look out of the window, down upon Seventh Avenue, and should the endless procession of trucks and carts come to a sudden halt, and should I hear the sound of the heavy drums and see the little man on his white horse, in his old and much-worn green uniform, then I don't know, but I am afraid that I would leave my books and the kitten and my home and everything else to follow him wherever he cared to lead. My own grandfather did this and Heaven knows he was not born to be a hero.

-- Hendrik Willem van Loon

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by zinkyusa</i>
<br />This discussion emphasizes that is important to discuss things up front with your opponent prior to starting and not take anything for granted. I have reached a point in my gaming where I am less interested in playing campaigns and more interested in playing historically accurate large battles. I agree less house rules are better as they are hard to keep track of. That's why I stick with the embedded melees and the MOE rules which most folks tend to be familiar with.

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




<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

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