Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

Yes, I know this issue has bee debated before but I need to bring it up again. In the HPS Napoleonic series, the attacker has a big advantage due to the nature of defensive fire -- especially when playing with automatic defensive fire.

1. the defender should <u>always</u> fire before a melee;
2. the defender should have a higher probability of firing whenever the attacker closes the range to one hex;
3. Defensive fire should be 100 percent at close range;
4. when approached by attacking units in line or column with skirmisher, the defender should always fire at the column or line and not at the skirmishers;
5. automatic defensive fire should never be targeted at supply units, especially when they are stacked with guns or other units.

Because defensive fire is programmed this way, the attacker has the advantage of superior firepower, being able to choose the target, and meleeing without ever being shot at.

What say you?

FM Sir 'Muddy' Jones, KG
2nd Life Guards, Household Cavalry

Re #4: Wasn't one purpose of skirmishers to draw the enemy's fire so when the attack went in the muskets were empty, so to speak?

It would be nice to see the Optional Rule from the ACW engine that has full defensive fire prior to a melee ported over to this engine.

Re #5: It would be nice that supply units don't ever get Auto fire. Realistically the whole resupply setup for small arms is way different than our little wagons.

Wile I agree with Muddy's points to some extent, there would need to be a limit on how many times per turn phase the defender could fire. As it is a defending unit has a chance to fire numerous times during a turn phase. This can be particuarly devastating when batteries fire two or three times at charging cavalry. Could it be better yes I think so. Is the attacker always advantaged with ADF not necessarily IMO.[:)]

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

There is code in the ACW engine for this. I will talk to John about getting it added.

That is for the defender to fire at 100 percent. Not the rest of your idea. Its too late in the series guys to see sweeping changes. If only we had an unlimited bankroll and more time ...

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

If you play embedded melee and have skirmisher units of over 100 defense is made a lot easier.

In the MOE4 rnd 4 game I am having with Jim he is assaulting my centre and the fire from my guns and infantry has been quite heavy.
The last move definetly favoured the defender.

But as a principle I agree with Muddy that a unit particularly artillery should always fire when melee assaulted. Ie the odds are 100% of the battery firing.





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

I tend to agree with Sir Muddy with a few comments:

1. Yes however if your skm coy is 100+ then the attacker must spend one turn melee attacking them out of the way and the next turn the attack on the main hex should be able to fire 100% at the adjacent attacking force as happens most times now. However the arty firing several times at cav on the charge in is fairly prominant and could be a little too much in favour of the defender for Cav charges.
2. Agree as above
3. Agree as above
4. Al has a good point but on the whole I would still go with my comments above due to game engine issues. But I do like the ACW patch idea.
5. The use of wagons should be abstract as far as auto targeting goes and not attract fire at all, unless specifically targeted.

I really do think that if you stopped allowing a <b>FRONTAL</b> melee attacks on <b>STEADY</b> (not disordered) infantry unit/s then the defender would achieve better and more realistic results. It forces the attacker to soften up and disrupt the defencive line (or position) first and at the same time allows the defender to actually defend with some hope of holding off superior numbers.

My 2c worth.

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

Guess I don't want to see that last move! I too would like the 100% code ported over..

Feldmarschall Jim 'Prinz' Pfluecke
Commander, Austrian Cavalry Reserve
3 Graf O'Reilly Chevauxleger Rgt
Hahn Grenadier Bn

Bill,

Here is a thought (thinking out loud):

Is it possible to code different ranges at different percentage chance of firing in the defencive phase?

So for Inf you could make, just say 50% at 2 hex and 75% at 1 hex (adjacent)? That way you could in fact simulate the random efffects of a charge getting in with an ineffective volley from the defenders i.e there is a chance they don't fire at all!

The same could be done with artillery for say long, medium and short ranges?

I realise this is alrerady roughly how it works ( and I could be stating the obviouse to techno-xperts) but could you actually specify a % chance at each hex range and if so a max number of times the unit is able to fire in defencive fire? I realise this could be used in a gamey fashion however its a stepping stone idea at this stage.


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

I will of course bow to Ken's superior knowledge of and experience with the game engine. Personally, I am not experiencing the defensive as being too weak. For one thing, artillery is a very potent defensive weapon in the game; it fires often and to good effect. I am really not sure I would want to see that increased. For another thing, this is not the American Civil War. The attacker was quite strong, compared to the defender, in the Napoleonic era compared to later times with more effective firearms. That's why we don't defend statically, but with counterattacks. As Clausewitz said, "the defensive form of war is not a simple shield, but a shield made up of well-directed blows" (book six, chapter I/1).

<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've always seen ADF as an advantage to the defender most of the time. Defensive fire is pretty random I agree, but, particularly in NRC, one Russian battery may do enormous damage. The fact is a unit may potentially fire any number of times in defence with ADF on, but only once with MDF. AS ED points out, a cavalry charge may get slaughtered if the AI decides the battery should fire every hex of the way.

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

On reflection I think I agree with Generals Walter and Moss.

ADF can be very effective with the careful placement of artillery when playing with embedded melee.



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

I think I may have to qualify my earlier statement. I haven't played the games in some time, and right now I have seen two huge 8-gun 12-pounder batteries taken because none of them fired at a 1500+ men mass (five French battalions) directly in front of it. Maybe there should be an option for units *always* to fire before being meleed. At least artillery.

<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 have to agree on that as not acceptable. It seems to happen occassionally very annoying.

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

I disagree with the point blank shot theory. For one thing there is more than one account of cavalry drawing fire for a regiment which then later charged in between loads.

The other is that through the smoke of the battlefield it was often impossible to tell friend from foe.

I think we do well in that we can see everything coming at us.

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 thats correect often troops would advance with not a shot fired/directed at them until the last minutes as they were obscured by smoke or other terrain. The randomness does go someway to allow for the chance/fate of battle and as long as nomally and usually units get a shot in the odd unusual event I think addds to the game and the "simulation"

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