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

Back in the saddle - Guidance wanted
https://www.wargame.ch/board/nwc/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=17163		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Alexey Tartyshev [ Sat May 13, 2023 5:36 am ]
Post subject:  Back in the saddle - Guidance wanted
Hi All,
I am back in the saddle after long absence and impressed by new additions to the engine and new NRC unit icons. Looking forward to see all titles to be updated, will certainly buy all of the them for aesthetic reasons! I am pleased to see the engine is evolving, new titles are added and old titles are updated and the project lives on! Well done to all involved!

I am now evaluating how new mechanics and ORs impact on the realism of the experience and would love your guidance. Below is my quick assessment so far:

My choice of ORs considering realism is the ultimate goal:

Image

Column pass through fire ON or OFF is most debatable perhaps - but my rationale is that packed formations are already penalised through Target density modifier. Furthermore 3 battalions of 200+ units should not be at the disadvantage to one large battalion of 600+, so my conclusion it should be OFF.




Also, I was considering the below House rules for my next PBEM and would love to see some opinions:

HR1: No unlimbering artillery in obstructed hexes
Forest hexes to say at least. Town/Village hexes debatable: I struggle to imagine a situation where large batteries of 8-12 guns could be packed on a 100 meter front in a narrow 18-19th century streets packed with buildings. These battaries required lots of space.

HR2: No artillery units in squares (have to move either unit if pushed into such position by melee).
Was raised a few times – I realise gunners could take cover in a square but this would have a drastic impact on a rate of fire, artillery unit cohesion and command and control.

HR3: No cavalry unit below 199 (1XX) men is to be split by squadrons.
From my playtesting squadrons of 40-60 cavalrymen are immune to fatigue as they are eliminated to the last men BEFORE they get a chance to gain fatigue. As a result cavalry regiments can be “utilised“ literally to the last man.


PS. would love to see squares loosing ZOC ability, but this cannot be cured by house rules unfortunately.
Author:  Bill Peters [ Sat May 13, 2023 12:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Back in the saddle - Guidance wanted
No Melee Eliminations was originally added to curb "The Blitz" issues. Two of our members were playing a Campaign Eckmuhl playtest game and one of them wiped out an entire brigade of Austrians in one turn using the dreaded "ZOC Kills." I highly suggest you turn that rule ON for your games.

Others you have turned ON or OFF are entirely up to you but many of us are now preferring to leave the "VPs for Leader Casualties" rule OFF because the values have been increased a lot and are unhistorical. Its not become more of a "Leader-kill-fest" than a game of "Which army wins the day."
Author:  Alexey Tartyshev [ Sun May 14, 2023 4:31 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Back in the saddle - Guidance wanted
Bill Peters wrote:
No Melee Eliminations was originally added to curb "The Blitz" issues. Two of our members were playing a Campaign Eckmuhl playtest game and one of them wiped out an entire brigade of Austrians in one turn using the dreaded "ZOC Kills." I highly suggest you turn that rule ON for your games.

Others you have turned ON or OFF are entirely up to you but many of us are now preferring to leave the "VPs for Leader Casualties" rule OFF because the values have been increased a lot and are unhistorical. Its not become more of a "Leader-kill-fest" than a game of "Which army wins the day."


Noted, thanks Bill.
Will be switching ON No Melee Eliminations.
For VPs - will playtest. I suppose it shoud drive players to refrain from risking Leaders.

I have two questions:
Q1 - Did I understant correctly that there is a work in progress to stardartise PDT files across all titles?

Q2 - Auto Defensive Fire Values: min, med, max.
Does this apply only for the Phased game?
Does this reduce the FP or just the probability of the auto fire event?
How to set up this for PBEM game for both sides?
Author:  Alexey Tartyshev [ Sat May 27, 2023 5:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Back in the saddle - Guidance wanted
.
Author:  Alexey Tartyshev [ Sat May 27, 2023 5:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Back in the saddle - Guidance wanted
Bill Peters wrote:
No Melee Eliminations was originally added to curb "The Blitz" issues. Two of our members were playing a Campaign Eckmuhl playtest game and one of them wiped out an entire brigade of Austrians in one turn using the dreaded "ZOC Kills." I highly suggest you turn that rule ON for your games.

Others you have turned ON or OFF are entirely up to you but many of us are now preferring to leave the "VPs for Leader Casualties" rule OFF because the values have been increased a lot and are unhistorical. Its not become more of a "Leader-kill-fest" than a game of "Which army wins the day."


Yes I can see it now. Leader losses are through the roof.
I can possible agree with it but whats up with Gen-Major Constant countig for 100 VPs?
He is a brigade commander in the 2nd Dutch division. Someone's relative perhaps :D . Prince Orange was captured too but only worth 96 VPs. Perhaps a bug.

Image


This is from PBEM Waterloo 4.06 scenario 024.
Author:  Christian Hecht [ Sun May 28, 2023 6:25 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Back in the saddle - Guidance wanted
Almost as if the leader losses do not depict a single battle but are considering the loss in a campaign. Such a 100VP leader is surely missing in future battles if lost.
What values does he have?
Author:  Alexey Tartyshev [ Sun May 28, 2023 6:34 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Back in the saddle - Guidance wanted
Christian Hecht wrote:
Almost as if the leader losses do not depict a single battle but are considering the loss in a campaign. Such a 100VP leader is surely missing in future battles if lost.
What values does he have?


My bad - he is a deputy commander of the I Army Corps.
Rating C
Leadership B

So a big boss and 100VP is ok.
Author:  Bill Peters [ Fri Jun 02, 2023 3:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Back in the saddle - Guidance wanted
I prefer the game outcome to be a direct reflection of the player skill and not who can shoot down more leaders. With only two French leaders loss it tells me that there has been a lot of luck.

Anyway, not to make this thread into a discussion on the leaders rule - best of luck to you and glad you are back. Hope my comments helped!
Author:  Alexey Tartyshev [ Sat Jun 03, 2023 4:56 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Back in the saddle - Guidance wanted
thanks Bill. Helpful endeed.
In this particular case allied leader losses were due to a few suprising french cavalry overuns and a couple of ZOC encirclemnts.
But I still prefer to go back to leader VPs as they were in previous version - there should be VP penatly for leader losses to motivate players not to be recless but not to the point where a leader loss becomes a game changer.

So good to be back! The recent updates of 4.06 and prior really made the difference and have been hitting my pocket heavily with 10 games purchased :russianveryhappy: since i am back
Author:  Bill Peters [ Sat Jun 03, 2023 2:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Back in the saddle - Guidance wanted
There is no doubt that the artwork updates are nice. I wish that the code updates were tested LONGER and given more of a GOOD LOOK by the WDS teams. Just too many errors showing up which is really not the hallmark of the JTS/WDS game series.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/