Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

This discussion comes up from time to time: why do we have Maneuver type club game scoring and shouldn't we abolish it so that all games are treated evenly.

Here are the pros:

1. A game is a game. A Training game is one thing: a full blown battle between two members is another. All games are equal.

AND

2. After all the French will naturally want to play against the Allies in games. That is the concept of the club.

Here are the cons:

1. A game pitting two Allied members fighting each other is a "cat fight" - a game with a French member fighting a Coalition member is a "dog fight." All a "cat fight" does is prompt you to want to toss a pail of water on the cats to shut them up. On the other hand a "dog fight" is a more serious matter. There is more of an "interest" in seeing which dog wins. (and no, I am not advocating gambling on the outcome - my name is not Bill Vick)

2. It would create less of a French vs. Allied atmosphere and might change the complexion of the club.

All valid arguments and there are probably more.

Please vote on the poll and please keep your responses civil!

_________________


Generalfeldmarschall Wilhelm Prinz Peters von Dennewitz

3. Husaren-Regiment, Reserve-Kavallerie, Preußischen Armee-Korps

Honarary CO of Garde-Ulanen Regiment, Garde-Grenadier Kavallerie

NWC Founding Member

For Club Games: I prefer the Single Phase mode of play. I prefer to play with the following options OFF:

MDF, VP4LC, NRO, MTD, CMR, PR, MIM, NDM, OMR (ver 4.07)

Over the years there have been times that finding a French or Allied player to take up a request was like pulling teeth, so ya play against someone on your own side...and only get half the points! Why? Because the other side doesn't want to come out and play!? Well, just give full points so it isn't a problem when one army takes the season 'off'.

Hullo - I guess the real issue here is how the scoring for 'army points' works.
As has been mentioned, sometimes the 'other side' doesn't come out to play, or whatever.
Sometimes it's fun to play game with friend(s) from the same army, for training, practice, good times.
But, since we are investing time in the club games, points are nice, particularly when one is playing a 'long game'.
Maybe the points awarded for 'maneuver' should be increased, but as this is a club dedicated in large part to French vs Coalition forces, these 'battles' deserve more points.
Perhaps increase the points for 'maneuver' games to 2/3rds instead of only half.
Or some such.
Just my franc on the matter.

I like the maneuvers but think scoring should be altered so that they are scored like fights but no victory points awarded.

_________________

I like John's suggestion.

VP's are the equivalent of bragging rights, so I agree with not awarding VP's for maneuvers.

That being said, at various times, certain historical powers squared off against each other and as more campaigns become available those historical actions can be played out. So, while I favor little change to the current system- if the battle in question(historical, not what if) was a "dog" fight between two current coalition forces, treat it as a fight.

Monsieur to moi a game is a game! The game becomes fun when there something to win . How many point does it tack to get rank. If a player has 4000 point he is doing a lot of playing over the years but if that player is just looking for rank then point are great 1/2 or whole. Rank in some Armies will get you the General Rank but in other Armee it up to the CNC. So 10000000 points would not matter. I say keep the point system as it is change the rank system.

I personally think there is a natural drift towards fighting someone from the other side as is. I don't think the maneuver format helps that in any major way.

I do agree VP's should not be awarded from them, but I don't think that they should be scored at half the points as fights are.

_________________
Generalfeldmarschall Scott Kronprinz "Vorwärts" Ludwig von Preußen
Kommandeur des Königlich-Preußischen Armee-Korps
Chief of Staff (CoS) of the Allied Coalition
Allied Coalition Webmaster & Club Website Support

Hullo again,
Yes, on the matter of 1/2 points for a maneuver, it is not quite right when one is playing a scenario for several hundreds of turns and only get half the points otherwise allowed.

To spin things a bit from a leadership stand point, it can often be said that you know guys on the other side better than in your own units. Getting rid of maneuvers could be a way to encourage increased interactions with those in leadership positions and their men as well as form bonds in your own armies and cross armies. What that will do is increase understanding between officers on the same side of the Club and form relationships that can be carried over into future leadership potential as well as increased involvement from getting to know your commanders & officers better. It could also bolster morale and make a sense of identity greater.

Of course this doesn't replace being an involved commander, but it wouldn't hurt in encouraging it!

_________________
Generalfeldmarschall Scott Kronprinz "Vorwärts" Ludwig von Preußen
Kommandeur des Königlich-Preußischen Armee-Korps
Chief of Staff (CoS) of the Allied Coalition
Allied Coalition Webmaster & Club Website Support

I agree with Scott's comments and John's previous recommendation.

Personally, I will always drift towards playing officers of the opposing army because that just feels 'right' to me. On the other hand, I will never invest 400 turns of my time into a game where I will only receive 200 turns credit. My solution to this dilemma under the current rules, as it relates to the men in my brigade, is that we sally forth together as a unit in a Fight against a comparible French unit.

Regarding the 'Cat Fight' versus the 'Dog Fight', I generally try to play my best regardless of who actually opposes me in the game. That is just my nature, but all officers should treat all other officers with complete respect within their games, regardless of which uniform they wear within the club. If I am playing a French opponent that is better than I am, I have no qualms about learning from him. If I am playing a French opponent that is not quite as good as I, I have no problem teaching him if he wants to learn. Contrary to the popular belief of some that read my 'Hanoverian' posts, I see every officer in this club as a fellow gamer and a brother in this realm. There is no 'Cat Fight' or 'Dog Fight' to me. I play the same way with everyone. My goal is to be a gentlemen officer, humorous if possible at the expense of my French 'enemies' to be sure, but always a gentlemen to the best of my ability.

Don't give the terms new definitions please. The idea is the perception of one member NOT playing in the game.

For instance: Colin Knox plays Jeka in a game and I talk about my Maneuver against one of my Brigade members. For me the game I was in was a cat fight in comparison to the two sides of the club figting it out via Jeka and Colin.

It is not that a "cat fight" is a game where one of the players takes it casually. You are distorting the meaning of the term.

So yes, play your best no matter what but at the same time even I can understand that a game fought by a French member against a Russian member is more important to the club. At least that is MY vote on the matter (but I have not voted in this poll I will note ...).

So yes, I could see where we could go with John Corbin's idea - full points but no VPs. And that would tally right up with my idea of a "cat fight" and a "dog fight."

This was just a poll and not to promote that the Cabinet change the club rules. Frankly I could play 1200 turns and be happy with the SIX HUNDRED points. I also see Cliff's point - where does it all end - you reach the highest rank and then it becomes a ladder club? Or if we adjust the ranks what is the use? Someone will always end up going over the top.

And if you use a true military rank-billet system you have to wait until some club member resigns from the club (or gets demoted) in order to take the officer billet he had.

Play to enjoy and if the points come your way so be it. If not so be it. No use in worrying about points. But I like to try and enjoy my games ...

Currently Mike Fredel and I are kicking Matt and Jeff's butts in our Grossbeeren battle. Who cares about the points. Just to see the Saxon corps getting carved up. Ah, doing that to Paco soon too in our Bonus 3 scenario! The Saxons. True allies to Napoleon and what did they get out of it? Well they got the Black Menace auctioning off all of their estates a couple of weeks back on PrussianBay!

Just wanted to hear what folks thought about the Fight and Maneuver system of scoring. I am easy with whatever we have or will have. Just start up the battle and play.

_________________


Generalfeldmarschall Wilhelm Prinz Peters von Dennewitz

3. Husaren-Regiment, Reserve-Kavallerie, Preußischen Armee-Korps

Honarary CO of Garde-Ulanen Regiment, Garde-Grenadier Kavallerie

NWC Founding Member

For Club Games: I prefer the Single Phase mode of play. I prefer to play with the following options OFF:

MDF, VP4LC, NRO, MTD, CMR, PR, MIM, NDM, OMR (ver 4.07)

Gentlemen,

I have voted to maintain the status quo. I believe that, generally we should mimic the antogonists of the time.

There are 2 sides for warfare, not for any other reason.

'blue' on 'blue' can occur because of training, because good friends want to play against each other or because a particular Corps thinks that it is the best in the French Army and is prepared to fight all comers to prove it!

On some occasions (particularly organised events between Corps/Armies) have sometimes received "full" points to encourage participation with permission from our leadership. I don't propose any changes to this type of manoeuvre, either.

Regards,

_________________
Général Mark Oakford
Duc de Smolensk, Comte d'Autun
Commandant
Réserve de Cavalerie, La Grande Armée

Maintain the current standard for battles and maneuvers.

It is historical in the club and there are many more battles played than maneuvers.

Members that want to play the "other side" may do so vs a different army, so there is no reason eliminate the scoring for manuevers.

_________________
Ernie Sands
1ère Brigade of 2ème Division de Grosse Cavalerie, Réserve de Cavalerie
de la Grande Armée
President, Colonial Campaigns Club

My humble opinion is : take the system like it is.
Maneuver must be maintain to have training in particular for the young officers. Maneuver means half points and no victory points.
Fights mean battle between members of the french army and allied armies. For these fights, my opinion is to have victory points and odb points.

I think this subject is important and this is the reason I decide to come again in the Rhine.

Well, my old friends, the bar is open on my count.

Regards

General Lamezec
Prince et Comte de Davout
IVème corps
Former French CIC