Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

Should players be lawyers also and knew every rule of play when one player quits a game because the other player is just unreasonable! I can see unreasonable players just starting games to force other players to quit and then gain points!Then that unreasonable player will say well I make him pay for my time I get a major victory and points. Is that the way we will play these games if differents come up?

Col Kliff Marbot
3/3 e Artillerie de Cheval
2nd Div I Corps LaGrande Armee

If you run into problems like this Cliff, You contact your chain of command and we can attempt to resolve it.

Rules, optional or house, should be clearly understood at the start of the game. Get things in writting ( emails ) so when issues come up, you can try and resolve it.

<center>
</center>
<center>
[img]</center>
<center>Monsieur le Marechal Baron John Corbin
Chief of Staff - La Grande Armee
Grande Duc de Piave et Comte de Beauvais
Commanding the Division de Cavalerie de la Moyenne Garde
NWC President</center>

I hear all sorts of arguments about when to end a game.

Frankly if someone repeatedly violates a House Rule you agreed on in a game then you need to be patient and point it out to him. If he wont agree to cease then just say "I think we should just call the game. We do not agree on the terms as set forth at the beginning of the game."

Or something like that.

I know of some folks that want you to play EVERY game turn. Now that is a bit stiff.

For large battles that involve alot of planning its proper to play the battle out to a decent conclusion. For instance - in NIR Kutusov Turns to Fight its a bit premature to call the game at turn 10 or 15. Both sides have moved alot of units around.

For those that rush Napoleon to the front and lose him this is really no call to end the battle. Play it out so that your opponent can at least see his plan bear some fruit. You may win too. Now if you have a house rule that says that if Napoleon is captured then the game is over may I also submit that if Blucher and Wellington are lost that the game also should be up. Especially the former as in Waterloo he was the key to the drive to help the Allies. But you get the idea. If you use leader loss triggers then at least make it fair for both sides.

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!

Sire I agree on both points but do we have to run to someone to clear this are we not all grown men and is this not a game and not military service. No one should be or read pointless words that neither would agree to esp after rules were laid down. This was a common thing and it deals with blowing up bridges. Some think that it’s not fair and others believe that it’s all part of play. Then we have those who think they know history and how it applies to the game. I think that once the rules are written then the game is on and you would have to eat anything that comes along later and whole your point till game is over!



Col Kliff Marbot
3/3 e Artillerie de Cheval
2nd Div I Corps LaGrande Armee

I was too kind. A lot of people let me alone with my game and I never claimed for a major victory. As you seem to play an unreasonable allied officer, my advice would be : let him his point and his major victory and post a message in the Pierre's Tavern with his name and the explanations. Sure that he will not find any french officer to play in a near future. And then his victory will be the last one.
Sure that I would not say that when I was CIC because this position needs diplomacy. It's the reason why I never claimed my points for unhonorable players, but now that I am only an officer, I let you my thoughts frankly.

But the first thing to do is to try to come to an agreement with your opponent. If you can't, contact your commandant and explain him the case. Most of the time a solution is found because most of the officers in this club are not here for easy victory but for the pleasure to play. My experience is that most of the problem come from a quiproquo. The rules were not clear at the begining for example. An officer made a mistake and didn't understand why the opponent was claiming. Most of the time a discussion with a third officer resolves the problem.

Best regards

Colonel Lamezec
Prince et Comte de Davout
36eme Regiment d'Infanterie de Ligne of 2nd Brigade,
1st Division of IV Corps

Sire no that's not the way either by black balling someone now we know how some people think and this officer was French!

Col Kliff Marbot
3/3 e Artillerie de Cheval
2nd Div I Corps LaGrande Armee

I never met a fully black player in this club. So I never need to black balling someone. Anyway, if I meet one, I will black balling him. Of course, as I pointed out, this the ultimate way tgo use after every other.

I don't see where is the problem. You are playing a maneuver against an other french officer. All that this officer can win with a major victory is fourODB points more than you (+2 for him and -2 for him so far I remembered. He will not have any victories points. Speaking for yourself, you will just win some ODB point. So Register the result, cool off and begin an other game with an other officer.

Best regards

Colonel Lamezec
Prince et Comte de Davout
36eme Regiment d'Infanterie de Ligne of 2nd Brigade,
1st Division of IV Corps

Nay Monsieur it’s an American term of keeping someone out (Black Balling)! And I will try to understand you. I wish did would go away but when you want a major victory for 10 out of 300 turns come on. Also not every one in the Club is of European background. We defeated Napoleon in 1800 were my people are from!

Col Kliff Marbot
3/3 e Artillerie de Cheval
2nd Div I Corps LaGrande Armee

Hi Kliff.
In a way i can see what you are saying.. I think weather its against an enemy player or a French Player .. If the game has only gone 10 or so turns .. then just end it as a draw .. .

Myself and a very good Allied player , were playing a game.. it was a 300Plus turn.. we were half way into the game. so over 150 turns .. and then we saw that we did not have one of the Opt rules ticked that should have been.. and this changed how we were both playing .. so we just ended the game as a draw .. ok we had both moved many turns but it was just one of those things.. So we started up another game..

I think the main thing here is having fun playing .. and to get good players to play against.. If after just small amount of play you both are not happen . end the game as a draw and dont play that player again..

The only time when a victory should be taken is if one of the players dos not get in touch after a month or so.. then take a victory and find another guy to play..

<font color="red">Maréchal</font id="red">
<font color="red">BEECHAM</font id="red">
<font color="blue">La</font id="blue"> Commandeur, <font color="red">I Corps</font id="red">


Prince d` Istria et Comte d` Arles La Jeune Garde

"Toujours féroce,jamais étourdi"

<font face="Comic Sans MS"><font size="3"><font color="yellow">
I think the important issue here is to make sure that <b><u>BEFORE</b></u> the game is started, <b><u>BOTH PLAYERS AGREE</b></u> on <b><u>ALL</b></u> optional and house rules. I have had problems with this before, where I accepted a challenge, and the next email I got was the first turn, without any discussion of optional or house rules. I disagreed with some of them, and said so, with prompted my opponent to immediately quit the game. That's fine with me, I've not contacted this opponent since. The point being, if the rules are resolved <b><u>BEFORE</b></u> you start, it can save arguments later. If it still becomes an issue, then the aggrieved participant should bring it up the chain of command, and neither player gets any points. In regard to one player intentionally violating rules to force the other to quit, I would think that this might become apparent after the same player "wins" a game this way a time or two, and appropriate punitive action could/would be taken by the powers that be. JMHO
</font id="Comic Sans MS"></font id="size3"></font id="yellow">
<b></b><u></u>

<font color="yellow">2nd Lieutenant Willie Davis
Light Bn Luneburg</font id="yellow">

I agree with making the rules CLEAR to begin with. If you don't like the way your opponent is playing maybe mention it to him in the first instance that irks/upsets you and discuss it to come to some understanding/compromise agreement. If thats not possible just retire from the game and let them go.

To simply play the game is why we are here in the first place. If someone's ego is so big he cannot play well thats his issue not yours. How we play the game will give the best satisfaction not whether you win or lose the <b><u>GAME</u></b> - absolutely nothing of substance comes of a win or loss - but an enjoyable battle is very satisfying and a nice outcome for all.

If you think he is cheating that is a different story. I just quit and will never play him again.

Col Mike Ellwood
Commanding Officer
3rd Dragoon Division
Reserve Cavalry

Well and really, unless someone just drops out of a game unless something comes up in real life you should finish it.

Folks get tired of people playing gamey but its up to the players to state at the beginning what they will not tolerate.

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!

Gamey.... Definition; development of tactics to exploit the maximum potential of the game engine.

Gameyness in history;

1940 Guderain crosses the Meuse and ignores orders and pursues his own innovations breaking the established practices of war.

1805 Napoleon misleads the the Russian envoy before the battle of Austerlitz by making sure his camp was in a state of disrepair thus leading to allied attack on the extended French right.

1757 Fredererick ignores the gentlemenly conduct of war and conducts a near perfect oblique order march at the battle Leuthen crushing his enemy

1812 Kutusov somewhat unsportingly retires away from the massive forces of Napoleon and only fights once strategic consumption has taken its toll. Breaking the various house rules agreed in advance.

1815 Waterloo Wellington hides behind reverse slopes in a very gamey manner preventing the French grand battery from really doing the damage

1807 Friedland in an example of innovative gameyness the French push forward their horse artillery to the front and box the Russian masses up resulting in their defeat

1807 Eylau the massed French cavalry charged right through the Russian centre reforming in their rear and charging back. Breaking all histrocity house rules and causing an uproar in the Rhine tavern.

1805 Murat, Lannes and others walk across a bridge crying armistice whilst sneeking up Oudinots Grenadiers. In an atrocious example of gameyness they seize the bridge undamaged.

1991 Storming Norman waxed lyrical about Hannibals double envelopment at Cannae. Implying the US Marine corp would form the right wing. Only to use the gamey tact of a left hook after unfairly misleading his opponents.

1809 Austrians destroy bridges at Aspern Essling using a fireship. Resulting in the resignation of the French player and a post in the Rhine Tavern from the Austrian player about people who quit.

Salute[:0]




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

1675 FM George von Derfflinger addressed the garrison of Rathenow in Swedish, telling them to open the gates because he was being pursued by Brandenberger cavalry.

(I think this was permissible. Murat and Lannes are shameless and without honor, however)

Chef d'Escadron Andrew Shore
12ème Cuirassiers
2ème Brigade, 1ère Division de Cuirassiers
Ier Corps de Réserve de Cavalerie, Armée du Nord
zaraath@speakeasy.net

Not sure I can relate the term gamey with the use of differing tactics in history.

Certainly someone that uses a routed unit to hunt down leaders is a bit gamey. I doubt if even Kutusov could have gotten his routed units to go hunt down Napoleon.

But yes, American infantry during the Am Rev shooting at British officers is gamey! [:p] And not quite cricket actually! [;)]

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!