Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)
https://www.wargame.ch/board/nwc/

Announcing the 2011 Campaign Tournament
https://www.wargame.ch/board/nwc/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=11119		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Chuck Jensen [ Wed Oct 20, 2010 10:46 am ]
Post subject:  Announcing the 2011 Campaign Tournament
Announcing The 2011 Campaign- A Tribute to Austerlitz

The 2011 Campaign- A Tribute to Austerlitz, a tournament administered by Lt. Gen. Marco Bijl of the Anglo Allied Army and Field Marshall Stefan Reuter of the Prussian Army, and myself, Marechal Jensen of La Grande Armee, is open to participation by all armies. It will match individual French officers against individual Coalition officers of all armies. The tournament will consist of individual mirror games from a selected list of scenarios.

Here is the selected scenario list:

#22H Historical Austerlitz: 10 minute turns; 66 turns.

#M15-22H Historical Austerlitz: 15 minute turns; 44 turns

Campaign Game Austerlitz: Choice of variable deployments for each side; 10 minute turns; 66 turns

For those who do not own Austerlitz:

Battleground Titles

NiR

#06 Historical Borodino: Guaranteed releases; 48 turns

#07 Kutosov Turns to Fight: Battle of Borodino with no fixed units; 48 turns.

#08 Best Laid Plans: Battle of Borodino with variable releases; 44 turns

Other HPS Titles

Wagram

#03A3 Aspern-Essling: Balanced variation of battle with both sides being reinforced over the course of the day; 81 turns

#OTV02 Linz: Historical Battle of 40 turns; for those looking for a shorter, easier to complete battle.

#OTV05 Znaim: Historical Battle; 60 turns

Napoleon's Russian Campaign

#SB_polotskl1stdat.scn First Battle of Polotsk:: medium size battle; 44 turns

#SB_saltanovska.scn Battle of Saltanovska: small size battle; 36 turns


Each match will be 2 mirror games to be played simultaneously. Two points will be awarded for each victory. One point awarded for draws. The side with the most points at the deadline will be the winner.

The default rules will be MoE rules, but rules, optional rules and add on house rules will be as agreed upon by opponents. It is recommended that there be an agreement email for reference. One new tournament rule is that any opponent who does not send a turn within 3 weeks without a prior excuse forfeits. Any opponent who does not send a turn within 5 weeks, excuse or no, forfeits.

The results are to be recorded with the tournament for tournament purposes, game reports for individual records need to be recorded with the department of records normally.

Points and medals will be awarded to officers of the winning side.

The tournament deadline will be July 1, 2011.

To participate, apply at the following site, stating 3 scenarios in order of preference:

http://users.telenet.be/fsg/NWC/Tournament.html

Visit the website for the tournament for more details, including rules and scenario details at:

http://home.scarlet.be/~tsh40803/Tourna ... 202010.htm

Marechal Chuck Jensen
Prince de Trevise
Comte de Suchet
Commander in Chief
La Grande Armee
Author:  Bill Peters [ Thu Oct 21, 2010 11:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Announcing the 2011 Campaign Tournament
Big time suggestion - add in some of the smaller scenarios associated with the full battle of Austerlitz. I did up quite a few to include The Big Show that focused on the main section of the battlefield.

Playing a full battle of Austerlitz times TWO is a bit much for a tourny.

I would play if you added in these scenarios:

#16H1. Lannes vs. Bagration Part 1 (HTH)

#17H. The Main Show (HTH)

#20H. The Decision in the Balance (HTH)

Also good is:

#08H1. First Day of Caldiero - Historical (HTH)

and this one from the Operation Eagle Campaign:

#E7. Clash at Worminghall (HTH)

which can be found in the oe-hth/7 folder. Filename is #E7_Eagle.scn
Author:  bijl0130 [ Fri Oct 22, 2010 2:35 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Announcing the 2011 Campaign Tournament
Bill,

I enjoy playing all titles and doing it for years but now I have to come with a critical note with worries me over a very long time already.

Selecting tournament scenario's is never easy. We are always looking for games where both forces are balanced. Even in mirror games it is much more fun if there is a possibility that you can win, instead of being massacred right from the start.

Normally all scenario's in ALL titles are ALWAYS in favour of the French. Believe it or not, but for this tournament I did the NRC scenario selection and found only 2, out of the whole list, that are balanced (these are the 2 mentioned in the tournament). ALL other ones are in favour of the French. That means that the French always have at least 5000 more troops. I did similar selection for previous tournaments, and came to the same conclusions each time (battleground and HPS).

Of course you can then say something about quality differences, terrain etc etc. But simply by the look of the numbers the Allied coalition player will not be enthusiast to start the game.

There are also many many scenario's with huge re-enforcements. Of course fun, but unless you study them in detail and take your calculator to count them in number of troops, you will never know what will arrive on the field. And given the reputation of the French superior numbers most Allied coalition players will not even bother to start such a game.

I know that you guys are doing a great job is re-creating the historical scenario's. And even with overwhelming odds these scenario's are essential for the games. Certainly for the historical player.

But for simple playing fun the Allied coalition players have VERY limited scenario's to choose from. And this comes to the table each time I do a tournament selection.

So, I studied your proposed scenario list and here are my comments:

#16H1. Lannes vs. Bagration Part 1 (HTH)
French advantage of 4000 man. It requires a very skilled Allied player to win this.

#17H. The Main Show (HTH)
Equal forces at start but massive French re-enforcements, nothing for the Allied player. You should be stupid to start this game.

#20H. The Decision in the Balance (HTH)
French advantage of 3500 man. Same as the first.


Also good is:

#08H1. First Day of Caldiero - Historical (HTH)
Unknown strength as it is difficult to calculate all the French re-enforcements. To dangerous to start as the Allied player given the reputation of the games.

and this one from the Operation Eagle Campaign:

#E7. Clash at Worminghall (HTH)
Unknown strength as it is difficult to calculate all the French re-enforcements. Same as above.
To dangerous to start as the Allied player.

So, of the above list I will not play any of them in a regular game. Perhaps the first two in a tournament but even then the Allied coalition player will not be enthusiast with an extra division of French on the field.
So, in my eyes no need to add them to the tournament.


Suggestions:

1. Add a huge bunch of equally balanced (fictional) scenarios to each game to increase game pleasure for the Allied coalition side.
2. Mention the total number of troops AFTER arriving of all re-enforcements in the scenario selection screen. (it will be a good idea to mention the amount of troops there anyway, for both sides. That saves a lot of time because now you have to open-en-close each game to study).

Bill, I hope you don't find this to harsh on you :? , I know you are doing a fine job, and perhaps you should see this as suggestions for game improvement in general. In the end more people will buy the games, which is good for all of us.
Author:  Bill Peters [ Fri Oct 22, 2010 10:20 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Announcing the 2011 Campaign Tournament
No, your comments are your view of things. I am saying that the choices made were too large for either side in Austerlitz. Something smaller was needed to draw in folks that do not wish to play one side or the other.

Worminghall: Home Army (44.5k) outnumbers the French by 30K+ at the beginning. French reinforcements add in 16k to bring Lannes up to his full corps strength of 25k. One brigade (4200) from Legrand's division arrives for Soult's IV Corps to bring his numbers up to about 13k. Total: 38k give or take a few hundred. That is a 5-6k advantage.

Caldiero: Austrians 46k, French 11k - fixed units initially but the entire Austrian force releases before the French can do any mischief. French reinforcements (23.3k) bring the total up to 34.3k for a 12k advantage for the Allies.

In my Austerlitz games I have played Jeka is showing the Allies how they are supposed to be played. Every Allied member that owns Austertlitz should be emailing him for tips. The Russian artillery is just a killer and their infantry is very resilient.

As to building even up battles - frankly I am swamped with work and this is very difficult to do anyway. Morale differences, sizes per bn. etc. These OBs are very easy to copy and with a bit of numbers changing you can have two generic armies that feature the same morale grades, command values, etc. You can even create a copy of the PDT files and modify them so that each side has equal command ranges, line movement disorder values, etc. Hey, you can even change the weapons so that a Russian 12lb gun has the same values as a French 12lb gun if you want.

In the end its how the troops are used the makes the difference. We playtested the scenarios quite a bit and ended up with a lot of comments on how to make them better.

As far as the entire line of HPS products go I differ with you. I find that the Allies in NRC are very hard to beat. No, its not always that the French have more numbers too. And the Russian +2 golden morale for their infantry makes quite a difference in infantry slugging match. I end up having to use my artilery on them mainly or try to run them down with cavalry. Infantry vs. infantry matchups are useless for the most part. And I have yet to win a Borodino I have started. Its a real meat grinder for the French.

Waterloo: you have an entire army (Prussians) showing up later in the game. Slowly giving ground to the French usually does the trick. Once the hordes of Prussians arrive the French do not stand a chance. Outnumbered by something like 50k its not very even. Good Allied commanders have shown that Waterloo can be won.

Jena: Prussian cavalry is incredible and if you want to find out how to handle the infantry just email Tomasz Nowacki who used double line stacks to defeat my large French bns. The terrain on the large map channels the advances to a few lines of march and the Prussians can create large artillery killing zones as a result. No, Jena is not balanced in forces but it wasnt. Did you look at some of the what-if situations that include more Prussians? The what if situation where the King comes to the aid of Tauentzien? Auerstaedt is a total French wipeout as the Prussians outnumber Davout by a huge margin. So how is that a scenario that the Allies want to avoid?

Eckmuhl: Judicious use of the Austrians can easily result in victory. Their artillery also is a force to be reckoned with. Not as much cavalry but if used wisely can wreck havoc in the French lines.

So when did numbers ever deter a great commander?

And may I point out that the Moravian Campaign in Austerlitz featuring a one scenario large map venue has the Allies outnumbering the French by a decent margin.

Austerlitz: Durenstein is a huge Allied advantage from the beginning and its only because a wily French player can use his reinforcements wisely that will make the difference. I played it several times with playtesters and each time it was very close.

So my only comment here was size. And a mirror match is perfectly acceptable. We are doing the same thing over in the Musket and Cannon Game Club with a scenario I designed using an OB that Rich White furnishes for the game (its a historical OB but I just pick and choose the units).

Did you guys consider coming to some of us and asking for our help in creating tournament scenarios? Not really. I was asked to furnish a list of scenarios for the tourny that I thought would be good to play. Chuck never took me up on my offer to create a scenario or two:

Here is my response to his comment on using the Full Battle scenario:

"When you say "Full battle" are you talking about the entire Battle of Austerlitz? Wow, that is a large scenario for a tourny.

If so let me build one for you. The historical battle is probably a tad pro-French. Needs to have the victory levels balanced a bit. Of course mirror games sort of make that unimportant."

Chuck's reply:

"I would like to keep the scenarios as listed on the game and DoR, so they can be registered without complications. There are so many there should be a number that are interesting variations of the historical battle."

So he was looking to stick with "stock" scenarios and not anything "custom."

I can't help that the DoR is incapable of handling custom scenarios. Frankly it should. But that is neither here nor there. My entire point is that all of the games feature scenarios and many of them are biased one way or the other but not pro-French. For instance: in the EC Hunt for Davout scenario I have yet to win as the French!

History is what we are after. We toss in what-if situations and try and balance the scenarios based on playtest play. As a matter of fact I was thinking of this yesterday:

1. I cannot play in every playtest game as my bias for strategy for my side may not cover the bases. I have to rely on my playtesters to carefully consider the situation and run headlong into an ambush.

2. On the other hand I owe it to the guys to give them the benefit of my thinking on the battle as to some of them it will be the first time they have played it and may not know much about the situation too.

Given Player A and Player B there are a myriad of possibilities that will occur in the outcome.

Anyway, that is how I think on the games. I am in the midst of changing some things in Austerlitz and the other titles I helped on. But from what I have seen so far the Allies can pull out a victory based on both playtest and now club games I have been in. Victory does not always mean emerging with more forces on the board ... victory is achieving the level of victory set forth by the victory levels.
Author:  Chuck Jensen [ Fri Oct 22, 2010 2:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Announcing the 2011 Campaign Tournament
Col. Peters,

Thanks for your post; I always appreciate your opinion.

However, in this case, I cannot go along with adding new scenarios. I asked you early in the negotiations for some suggestions but did not get any. If you had suggested then, with the agreement of the Allies, they may have been included, though it seems that Gen. Bilj is not in agreement with your opinion of the scenarios. But the tournamet format, rules, and scenarios have been negotiated, agreed upon, and published. And the selected list of scenarios has been agreed upon as enough from which to choose. We may have missed a good one or two, but they are not needed.

The scenarios we selected are based on suggestions and experience of veteran players. My own experience has been that the full battle scenarios are always the most balanced and fair. In Austerlitz, the full battle seems very balanced to me, not the walk over that many French Officers expect. My inital intention was to play only Austerlitz becasue of the balance and so many possible tactical variations but that would have excluded from the tournament too many who do not own Austerlitz.

In 2009, we played a Waterloo campaign tournament using full Waterloo battle and related scenarios and had no problem finishing in 6 months. Only those who did not play mirror games simultaneously did not finish. Even at that, enough came to a result by the deadline to determine the winning side. We expect that eight months for this tournament should work as well. If the tournament comes to the deadline without a clear decision, we, the tournament administrators, can agree, if necessary, to extend the deadline.

Most players will be able to come to a result in the 8 months allowed for both games. But, of course, there are those, for good reason or no reason, who will drop out. That seems to be unavoidable. I think even going with shorter, 30 turn games, will not change that.

Marechal Chuck Jensen
Commander in Chief
La Grande Armee
Author:  Bill Peters [ Sat Oct 23, 2010 10:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Announcing the 2011 Campaign Tournament
Similar to my email answer:

1. No date was given when you wanted to start this tournament - in the future let me know as I am swamped with game design work and if you needed it sooner than say a month I would have hopped right on it. Got your post on the 5th and the tournament was announced on the 20th. That was 2 weeks but I had no idea when the tourny was starting. And my last email to you never was answered.

2. You never answered me on the size question. Thus I thought you would be including something shorter for guys like Gary McClellen and myself who do not want to play large mirror match scenarios.

3. I never got a list to look over. All I saw was you were interested in the large Austerlitz scenario. You asked me about the alternate version where Napoleon stays on the Pratzen Heights. That is the one I was going to look over for you. I also offered to put out a revised version of the scenarios which were more balanced. Even in a Mirror Match the players like to have something that is a bit more even. I intend on lowering the victory levels for the Russians in the Historical Austerlitz. While the mirror match thing will take care of that it still would be nice to offer custom scenarios. Why is the DoR thing so restricted to just what came with the game? Why not offer the opportunity to add in a Custom Scenario or just add in "Austerlitz Challenge" as an entry? I still cant see why we are tied to having just DoR listed scenarios. Seems to me that the database should be flexible.

Oh well - some of us are left out of tournaments like this as they are too big. Its a nice concept but large battles (and two games of them for a tourny!) are a bit much for some of us who just do not have the time to play that large of a battle.

Question: was size considered in your discussions? Would not more people play if other smaller/shorter scenarios were offered?

Anyway, enjoy. If you offered something smaller I KNOW that more guys would sign up.
Author:  Alexey Tartyshev [ Sun Oct 24, 2010 3:14 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Announcing the 2011 Campaign Tournament
I personally would take on any scenario as long as it is HISTORICAL. Davout at Auerstedt or Dupont Haslash-Jungingen - I would take it regardless whether it’s balanced or not. The whole point is to see whether you can do better or equally to them.

At the end of the day I want to experience the historical situation and for the same reason I am not interested in “what if scenarios”.
Maybe I am not a typical HPS player though....
Author:  John Corbin [ Sun Oct 24, 2010 6:23 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Announcing the 2011 Campaign Tournament
The DoR canhandle Custom scenarios.

See this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=11001

I simply need some basic info to add them into list of scenarios avaiable under a given game title.
Author:  Bill Peters [ Sun Oct 24, 2010 2:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Announcing the 2011 Campaign Tournament
August Dean wrote:
I personally would take on any scenario as long as it is HISTORICAL. Davout at Auerstedt or Dupont Haslash-Jungingen - I would take it regardless whether it’s balanced or not. The whole point is to see whether you can do better or equally to them.

At the end of the day I want to experience the historical situation and for the same reason I am not interested in “what if scenarios”.
Maybe I am not a typical HPS player though....


What if situations are helpful for those of us that like to know how something would have turned out had the situation been different.

But I totally agree with you on the concept of seeing if you can do better than the commanders. I have been trying to do better than Bernadotte now for some time! :mrgreen: :lol: :P
Author:  Bill Peters [ Sun Oct 24, 2010 2:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Announcing the 2011 Campaign Tournament
John Corbin wrote:
The DoR canhandle Custom scenarios.

See this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=11001

I simply need some basic info to add them into list of scenarios avaiable under a given game title.


The main reason why I mentioned this to Chuck is that I have yet to be able to put out an update on the game and the scenarios have been revised for the next update. For instance: I noted that Massena was missing from Caldiero scenarios. In the next update he is present. Gary M. also noted that the Austrian Left needs a supply wagon.

In Austerlitz I changed the victory levels ...

That is why I wanted to go with custom scenarios vs. stock. Well and that I wanted to see scenarios from the battle that were shorter.

Would it be permissible to offer up a "Small-Medium Sized Scenario Players Tourny?" Similar format and so on.

If not I will suggest to our Corps CO that III Corps French Army challenge the Russians and go with that. Custom Scenarios, etc.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/