Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

Gentlemen all,

I have posted a game request with a house rule about artillery overhead fire. Its something I've mentioned before but feel its good to raise it again if a new tourney is coming. I would like to see the simple and effective nod to reality included in MOE rules in the future. Therefore please comment on my house rule below. It is to improve the reality of the battles and remove some of the gamey aspects the engine allows and we at times overlook as its too hard to fix. I say this is easy to fix.

The artillery of the day was hugely inaccurate and especially when firing canister. When firing canister any troops in front of the guns or close to the target zone were liable to be hit. Only when their was a 'safe zone' of empty ground (or ground with only enemy units, which did not matter) in front of the firing battery AND in front of the target area would artillery fire over the head of their own troops. That fire would only have been ball, canister would likely hit ALL the troops in front!

If the units in front were in dead ground to the battery, (dead ground is out of sight) then the battery could fire at close range as the dead ground protected the unit from the batteries fire.

Before the "I've found an example of an exception to that rule - therefore its ok" brigade howl! Yes there are examples of guns firing into the mass of enemy and own troops, but it was rare and unusual. Its not the norm or generally accepted in the period. When it happened usually only a higher ranking officer ordered/directed it to be done. I have no issue with rifle armed troops firing over head of friendly troops on troops adjacent to friendly troops. They had some form or accuracy at least. If I was being totally honest I'd say no to this rifle armed troops doing it but I think they have little influence in that way as their numbers and effect are minimal.

In these games, both skirmishers and formed units can be in front of the guns and/or in front of the unit and the guns can still fire if the battery or target unit is elevated above the troops in front (the battery has line of sight). This gives unbelievable firepower to a defensive line (unrealistic depth) and on occasion also to offensive lines. So a battery on a hill can have a formed unit adjacent and to its front, on an elevation lower and a skirmish unit (100+) in front of that again. The attacker has to do three attacks within 300m and receiving possibly six! shots from the battery (3 defensive fire and three in the defenders turn) in that time. Besides the time and space issue - way too much fire effect onto the attacker - there is the issue of calculated canister effect firing over the heads of your own troops! The game calculates close in fire as canister and rightly so. This situation did not happen! Own troops would have received as much if not more casualties than the target in these situation!! Attackers can do similar with a deployed battery behind a friendly unit and have it fire up into an enemy unit two hexes away, same issues!!

So not only is it totally unrealistic its also completely gamey! Anyone who plays it should really take a look at what and how they are trying to play. I therefore propose that a simple house rule be included in future MOE rules:

"No over head artillery fire if friendly/own troops are visible to the firing battery and within two hexes of it or the target hex. Troops in dead ground to the firing battery (the friendly unit is not visible to the firing battery) can be fired overhead of as they are protected in the dead ground. This gives a two hex "safe zone" in front of both the firing battery and the target hex."

If your for it please agree and state why.

If your against it also please state why.

Lets see arguments based on ballistics, physics and reality - not uninformed opinion - I want 10c worth of comment not 2c worth of indignant knee jerk opinion

Mike,

As a means of improving Historicity and Realism of our games leadint to historically accurate course and outcome of the battle and events within it, I like the idea. What we encountered in H&R was the greatly reduced propensity to attack and maneuver. The defenders positions became far too difficult to assault. On the other hand adjusting the parameters just a little caused the attacker getting an overhelming superiority and game loosing the balance. Introduction of such a could possibly shift the balance a little bit in favour of attacker giving him a chance to break the defence.

On the other hand rule's application to the stock scenarious, especially those of NRC and Waterloo wouldn't do. They are already greatly imbalanced in favour of attacker. More over several crucial changes must be done, othervise the balance would be absent:
1. General decrease in units quality.
2. General decrease in leaders leadership rating causing that only corps and higher level commanders can speed up the rally.
3. General tightening of command control ranges. With possible introduction of regimental level leaders.
4. Unification and general decrease of units ability to undisorder =decrease in leaders command rating.
5. Limits to the number of units and their strength within the hex greatly decreased.
6. Unified units strength. Batallion 350-450 men, squadron 100-150, guns in 2 or 4 gun sections. Normally 4, 2 for the regimental and batallion guns.
7. Adjustments to weapons firepower, making it more effective. Especially for cannister. THIS IS WHERE THE RULE WILL PLAY A SIGNIFICANT ROLE.
8. Adjustments in melee effectiveness - general decrease with adjustments so that charging full strength squadron defeats unsquared batallion in approximately 50% of the cases.
I must say that all these are the basic changes in the H&R scenarios. Please, do not think that I'm turning the thread into its advertisment.

Without these changes I'm afraid the rule you suggest will even more disbalance scenarious in favour of attacker.

_________________

Hi Anton,

Thanks for the reply and the reasoning. I appreciate what your saying in regards to:

A. Adjusting the parameters and
B. The perceived advantages of the attackers getting more of an advantage with my proposal.

They are the only two real aspects that my proposal would or could influence. The H&R project is fine as an advancement in the whole area but I'm talking for an inclusion into the MOE rules here, which I'm hoping is feasible and should be considered on its merits which we will discuss here.

The other aspects you have added (1,2,3,4,5,6 and 8 ) are not influenced by my proposal but are factors that are being introduced by you in addition for your preferences to shift the games to a more balanced playing field in your considered opinion (the H&R project). Some of those I would agree with! However these aspects I am not going to cover in any detail other than what I say below, which I feel also answers some of those issues to a degree.

No7 is where my rule may have an effect but I consider that effect more in line with reality and the time and space issues in the distances we are talking, 300 meters. I doubt a good gun crew would get off 6 rounds of canister at an advancing battalion in that time. At some stage within 200-100 meters the unit will charge or have been halted by fire (this is simulated by the attackers strength being insufficient to dislodge the battery in melee). Column pass through fire and hex density options should be used in this regard I feel to assist in that aspect. A friendly unit in front of the battery forced back by melee in the turn prior to an attack on the battery will increase this chance of repulsing the attacker and still give two point blank shots on the attackers. A fresh friendly unit moved onto (under) the battery has an ever better effect. Therefore my rule is closer to reality I feel for that point alone.

I do think the opinions that the defence is always the underdog to the attack in this engine are off the mark. No doctrine of fixed defence ever succeeded without some form attack, be that local counter attack or major counter offensive. Many people think a strong enough "Atlantic Wall" position/play should naturally repel the attacker...well if that was the case it would have worked ...it didn't and it doesn't! A good defence is actually a good counter attack and this is where people need to understand you will only win battles by attacking...it has always been the way. Yes the attack is always superior to the defence if time and consideration are given to the defencive position, its strengths and weaknesses and an appropriate plan hatched.

Counter attack before the battery is attacked! Or move the thing before it can be! Even the Grand Redoubt at Borodino was taken by assault. Stalingrad was denied through counter attack. Fort Eben Emael was taken through surprise assault. Maginot line was by passed...all attack, attack, attack. You cannot expect to win by defence alone. There lies your balance I would suggest for MOE rules.

I cannot agree that the engine favours the attack and is therefore in need of adjustments...it is the players approach and abilities that are in need of adjustment I'm afraid.

Again thanks for the response

Mike, please, let me know what game engines do you have? I'd answer with an example, and do not want to redo the experiment.

_________________

Hi Mike,

I remember me and you using such a house rule when we played with the old Battleground games many years ago, and it worked pretty well, perhaps at the expense of adding complexity (I still have all the rules we used after all these years!). However, with the HPS/JTS games the auto defensive fire would still circumvent the rule when playing in turn-mode, rendering such a rule only partially successful.

However, isn't there a value in the pdt file which governs the height of a man, which, if set high enough, would cause a blocking of line of sight in many of the cases you cite? This of course wouldn't prevent firing through skirmishers, but would be a step in the right direction. Perhaps worth investigating...

Anton is right to highlight the importance of considering the effect a rule would have on the balance of the game, but perhaps, with some thought, something could be worked out. Of course, one of the reasons why we place guns on higher elevation with infantry right in front of them is to prevent an unrealistic blitzkrieg effect where guns are too vulnerable, and for some, this is acceptable in a game engine which itself utilizes many abstractions to achieve a workable game. For me 10 minute turns and embedded melee rules are essential in this regard. Plenty food for thought...

_________________

Mike,

made some tests. Surprisingly the idea works better than I thought. I tried would a French line division from 1805 be able to assault up front and capture in the smoke an opposing Russian 36 gun battery. no units in front. Only the infantry in line in the same hex. Which is not prohibited. On the average, no. The french get shot by scores down before they get to the charging distance.attack usually fails.

Seems to be a good rule !


Anton

_________________

Hiya Anthony,

Nice to hear from you again and I hope your all well.

Yes we did play with exactly this rule and as you say it worked fine I thought. I think the thought of it adding complexity is not great as we already must consider rules, game engine, command, and movement factors which together give a complexity we all cope with and is part of the attraction ..... who can manage the complexity usually manages the victory.

Yes the Auto Defencive is as I said a good factor in that the battery still gets to fire those shots which means we are not precluding the fire from them and with that fire and their own turn fire previous there is still plenty of firepower hitting close in. I just think it is too much and the with the defence in depth when you havbe the troops in front too unrealistic for the defencive effect it achieves.

Changing the height would impact way to much across the field and the game with visibility I feel. Good lateral thinking from you as usual though .

Your last points are important. I don't think the change would actually effect the paramaters of the effect and game too much but it would effect the way people play both defence and offence. I consider that a good move away from the gamey game engine considerations and more inline with what we consider would be 'normal' battle for the period.

I believe we have got the best result to counter the blitz effects in the embedded melee rule, a rule I consider well thought out and subtlety near perfect. Yes we work in abstracts and I consider those a must in order to simulate as best possible the battles, to tweak as we go I think keeps us thinking and improving which is a must. I consider the 10min moves good for a different experience with the battles. I think the 15min turns may be slightly too long in this period but I'm happy playing both.

Thanks for your comments and you know you can always get a good game with me when your looking for one

Hi Anton,

I have all the games except the two latest, also Wagram, Jena and Eckmuhul for some reason aren't reloading on my laptop so they're hors d'combat at the moment

Yes it works lol...and surprisingly when batteries assaulted by enemy frontal more often than not inflicted wicked casualties and it was only the quality and determination of the attackers that would really take the day. That's why cavalry were the preferred option...less time in the killing zone and better momentum...infantry usually lost too much and lost heart before the charge!

Its the way we fight as opposed to the game engine restrictions that can be circumvented by good rules. But we need to consider, discuss and test them for sure

The problem with the reduced melee is you end up with an artillery battle. Especially if you applied it to say Leipzig.
The guns are so numerous.

Michael Fredel and I had a blood bath using the no artillery blitz rule in Paris 1814 so for Austerlitz we dumped it.
Our artillery casualties are low at turn 28 inspite of that. The 10min game engine in my opinion (as it stands) gives a good simulation. As their are many abstract things to account for and the system is an interpretation.

Just my opinion.

_________________
Marechal Knox

Prince d'Austerlitz et Comte d'Argentan
Ordre national de la Légion d'honneur

"What is history but a fable agreed upon"

Hi Colin,

Thanks for the input.

I actually believe the results of my suggestion would decrease the losses you get should you attack an artillery battery frontally, as there are potentially/likely to be less turns the artillery is firing at the attacker within the short range (4-1 hex) fire effect. But that is dependent on a number of other factors obviously. I'm going for a realistic deployment/battle fighting adjustment with this overhead fire rule.

I do believe that there were a number of situations where a battle did become an artillery dual, due to force structure, position and command decisions. It does not mean its out of character, wrong or unrealistic. It was something the situation gravitated towards because of the conditions. The statement is neither for or against the rule suggestion, its just a statement.

Your post says you had a bloodbath using a different, all be it possibly similar, rule. I am not completely understanding what you mean by the no artillery blitz rule, can you explain please?

How exactly does that rule compare to mine and how much was the command/player decision to battle in that manner contribute to the slaughter?

The 10min turns I agree seem to be a better balance. Your artillery casualties in your battle at turn 28 has little bearing on the discussion unless you can give examples of how you are playing versus how you would play with this 2 hex overhead fire rule. The choice of how, when and where each attack/defend are bigger factors contributing to the result and casualties than my one rule, I would suggest. Simply moving the guns before they get in danger would also keep their casualties low but has no bearing on the merits or not of this suggested rule.

I would need better specifics from you in this regard for a proper argument for or against the rule. I know ...its asking for brain power expenditure and explaining tactical situations to clarify and consider

Give it a go on a few situations and see how it plays. I think you'll be surprised how it changes the way you fight to a better feel for the deployments, action and play

Hey mike
How you going mate?
I guess my perspective is that the game engine favours the attacker far to much mainly because of the morale thing. Therefore artillery is a crucial defensive element.

This house rule is not one I would therefore play by. Never the less that's just my perspective. I always enjoy your perspectives.

Overhead fire historically I agree never happened with canister it did with roundshot though and also I think its relevant to bear in mind the a skirmish unit in 1 hex is a quite small. Even an infantry unit in column has space either side of it (given a hex is 100m)
If you unit was a 1 company frontage that's approx. 40m leaving most of the hex available to fire through.

Anyway I respect others for wanting these tactical situations tweaked I just think that you always end up with unexpected weird results with these kinds of house rules.

That's what I mean by the 10 min scenarios generally being better, I actually like playing them with no house rules at all.

As for 15min for me you need embedded melee.

The no artillery blitz rule is like an embedded melee 'lite' you can move and fire etc as you see fit but not blitz a unit out of the way to get at a battery
Cavalry pursuit is exempt and you can blitz a skirmisher, officer or supply wagon.

Helga a round for my kiwi mate!

_________________
Marechal Knox

Prince d'Austerlitz et Comte d'Argentan
Ordre national de la Légion d'honneur

"What is history but a fable agreed upon"

Hi Colin,

Going well, went to the 'Call to Arms' war gaming at St Pats College today as they had a big 25mm Leipzig display game going on. Quite a few figures and very large boards. Spent a lil $$ and reinforced why I don't play at those events anymore, bunch of crazy geek rules (or greek as the case may be!) lol!

Anyways yes I agree mostly about the 10min turns but still feel there needs to be the odd house rule to stop gamey play ref skirmishers, commando tactics etc

However the space issue in regards to even a skirmish company or a small unit is not the point. The point is the actual danger zone of the rounds striking at the target area. As we all know the longer the range the less of a point weapon they could be used as (accuracy) and they became more of an area weapon. That area was quite variable in the vertical plan, the horizontal was a little more accurate. Therefore that's why we hear of the phases of the battle and that the guns still as a norm would cease fire as their troops came within musket range of the enemy units, whether those friends be skirmishers or formed units the guns as a norm would lift their fire to fire on farther targets so as not to endanger own troops or cease fire completely (if French - Limbering to advance on the newly acquired ground ) . I'll not get into but just mention the issue of battlefield smoke/fog of war as that was definitely a factor in most battles in this regard as well. Something virtually impossible to simulate in games unless you have a whole 'weather' phase.

Now as I understand the MOE embedded melee rule you can't attack batteries outside of that embedded melee phase anyway as even limbered they count as a formed unit? Therefore only if you were clearing a skm unit less than 100 or Cav doing a follow on charge would you ever be attacking a battery in the same embedded melee rule. So I don't understand why you would need/have another 'No artillery blitz rule'??

Helga another round for anyone sitting with us as we get to grips with these pressing issues

Gentlemen,

in the light of all spoken above, and looking forward to our forthcoming tournament,
I dare to suggest an inclusion of the following clauses into a tournament set of rules:

1. Infantry/or Artillery may not shot across their skirmishers are in front of the infantry/or artillery unit.

2. Only Battalion / Regimental Artillery may be positioned with Infantry that in Line order;

This rule is not so senseless. It's all about the Line battle order and troops ability to volley.
The small Battalion/Regimental guns did not obstruct men to do it, when they positioned together with
Btns in Line (their Ammo wagons stayed behind the array, and artillerymen brought loads to cannon
in big leather bugs; and before a volley, they just got the command to cower down);
Field Art. Batteries positioned with their Art.Parks together (with limbers and the 1st Line ammo caissons) - this is a lot of men, horses and wagons, and a lot of occupied space even for 3-4 guns Btry - 8-15m between unlimbered guns (it depended of their caliber) - for those teams and limbers could make maneuvers between them. That is why the ability of Inf. in Line to volley from behind the Art. position was limited considerably, and they formed a column for to repulse a possible assault on Art. better.
Moreover, HPS' engine lets our Lines to shoot from any state and across Art. and skirmishers automatically, you know. So, we need to limit this somehow.

3. No Infantry units in Line order in Village/Town hexes; (it is just impassible physically)

4. Only Light Artillery (till 6pdr.) may be positioned in Village/Town hexes, and only in the road hexes
inside a village/town.

My partners and me, pretty long time already, we use the rules in our R&H games,
and they add a lot of realism in process, believe me.

Chest' imeyu!

_________________
General-Feldmarshal Prince Vladimir N. Repnin
Imperial Russian Corps Commander
Prince Braine-Le Comte & The Adjutant-General of His Imperial Majesty
Chevalier Guards Regiment

Hi Vladimir,

Yes you do dare when you suggest bringing new rules in I fear lol! Brave of you to do so

I would add to your suggestions. However I would note the issue of scale/ground coverage of the batteries and trains, a very considerable variation dependent on the type and what organization they belonged to. At one end of the scale you have a couple of regimental guns with virtually no train or 'footprint' (area they take when limbered/unlimbered) to the large Corps/Army reserve artillery which where big guns with big trains - unlikely to get any size unit to deploy in the same area with these unless all limbers and train are removed further to the rear.

Which begs the question - Could we have included actual Limber and Train elements as separate elements with their own ' hex strength'? This would simulate the actual equipment always present and allow for so much more realistic tactical and operational choice!

1. Infantry/or Artillery may not shot across their skirmishers are in front of the infantry/or artillery unit.
I agree, the defencive fire we cannot change and I consider it totally acceptable in the 'phases concept'

2. Only Battalion / Regimental Artillery may be positioned with Infantry that in Line order;
I believe up to max of 2 guns in this regard and ONLY regimental guns, no battery guns (e.g. bde/div/corps/army weapons)

The reasoning you give is what I am talking about and I think we all agree. Restricting the inf units in the same hex will be extremely difficult to make an acceptable rule on and to get agreance I would think. Too many variables of gun numbers, size, hex terrain, inf unit size etc. Sadly I think it would be doable but too complex for the allies to remember

3. No Infantry units in Line order in Village/Town hexes; (it is just impassible physically).
Completely agree with you on this one!

4. Only Light Artillery (till 6pdr.) may be positioned in Village/Town hexes, and only in the road hexes
inside a village/town.
Again totally agree!

A lot of what we say makes sense and we see it in tabletop miniatures but its so difficult to get a game engine tweaked with so many variables. House rules are great but again the complexity and variables tend to put people off without a hard and fixed rule, which is like trying to herd a dozen two year olds with fixated ideas

We're going through similar discussions in regards to table top rules in NZ Napoleonic wargaming over the last 10yrs , so no surprises there

Helga a a few shots from the taht bottle of New Zealand 42 Below vodka for our Russian friends

Salute!

Gentlemen, may I join you and share libations?

I find the overhead firing factor that you have raised Mike to be an interesting issue.
In the R&H Rules created by Vladimir we have already included the concept of not firing through skirmishers that are in the line of fire themselves.

We had not included the concept to include the artillery and 'overhead' firing.
But it is something I have raised with Vladimir for inclusion in his system.

When you mention 'trains' for the artillery, Vladimir already has accounted for that to an extent by including them in his customized OoB.

All batteries come with a 'train' that must be in or one hex away from a battery when it is firing.
The battery can fire twice before the train must be in said position or it must stop.

As for the suggestion that some of these house rules be added to club tournaments, I would say the following: club tournaments are typically designed in such a manner as to hopefully be inclusive of as many members playing as possible.

The use of house rules is typically not done, as house rules are decidedly used by less than a majority of members.

That said, there are many members who do use the MOEIV Rules that were specifically designed for use in a tournament by the organizer.

These rules have proven to be quite popular among the membership, who use some elements there of in many of their own personal games here as well.

Which is why my suggestion would be for those interested in using these kinds of rules design and run a tournament.

That is something that is certainly encouraged here in the club.

I myself have considered the possibility of setting up a tournament using Vladimir's R&H Rules, but I have found that the pool of members willing to participate has been small, so far.

Therefore I have instead focused my efforts on getting better myself at the system by playing normal club sanctioned battles and maneuvers, either one vs one, or as MP (I think I have between 3-4 such games going right now).

Personally, I don't think there are enough members yet to make a tournament feasible.
I would suggest that we explore and experiment with these rules on the battle maps, and continue to grow the number of members interested in playing this way, and see where that brings us.

I play with about 5 - 7 or so members this way right now.

Regards,