Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

Hi all,

I haven't seen all the titles but it seems that where a title has both 10 and 15 minute scenarios, the latest upgrade has moved the 15 minute versions to the top of the selection list.

It's not something I'd previously given a great deal of thought to, but now I need to make a conscious choice when starting a new game.

I believe the 10 minute turns are better for new players in particular, giving them more time to react.

Some examples
More opportunity to form square (French regulations were for a line to form square in 100 seconds, and even less for column, though in the confusion of battle it usually did take longer)
Less ability for units to march around units, preventing their retreat due to ZOC, and attacking them in the same turn

I guess where both players are experienced and evenly matched, 15 minute turns might provide a greater challenge.

While I'm happy to play 15 minute turns, my preference is for 10 minute where available, but I'd like to know what others think.

_________________
Général de Brigade Dean Webster
1ère Brigade
1ère Division
4ème Corps d'Armée
La Grande Armée

-------------------------------------------------------
"I have a plan so cunning, you could put a tail on it and call it a weasel"
Blackadder

I stopped using 10-minute turns for several reasons:

1. The artillery FP values are the same for both 10- and 15-minute modes. This effectively makes artillery deadlier in 10-minute turns, disrupting the balance between various arms, especially infantry versus artillery. Attempting to use line formation in 10-minute turns is likely to fail, forcing the game into:
a) reliance on melee, and
b) a game of "who can avoid being hit by artillery fire the most."


2. 15-minute turns produce far more realistic results regarding troop attrition dynamics. For line units with no fatigue, recovering from routs and reordering typically takes 60-90 minutes in the 15-minute mode, whereas it only takes 40-60 minutes in the 10-minute mode.


3. Overall, 10-minute turns accelerate the pace of engagements into much shorter, less historical timeframes, making units more lethal to each other. Historically, we know that:

"The resistance that a typical force of 8,000 to 10,000 troops of all arms can offer, even against significantly superior enemy forces and in less than favorable terrain, generally lasts several hours. If the opposing force is only slightly superior or equal in strength, this resistance may extend to half a day..." — Clausewitz, The Principles of War, Chapter VI: Duration of a Battle.

In 10-minute turns, this "several hours" of resistance is out of the question, especially when combined with ZOC kills.


4. Operationally, 15-minute turns are more enjoyable as players receive faster feedback on operational developments.


5. With 15-minute turns, fewer emails need to be exchanged. This is particularly important in large campaigns and scenarios, where 10-minute turns make some of them nearly unplayable. I consider myself a committed player, but I struggle to see myself completing 300+ turns. This is especially painful in scenarios with smaller forces but extensive marching, such as battles involving 25,000-30,000 troops stretched over 80-90 turns.


6. The recent standardization project for 15-minute turns has made it easier to switch between titles, as movement allowances are now consistent. I no longer need to worry about different movement costs when juggling three separate PBEM titles.

_________________
General-Leytenant Alexey Tartyshev
Leib-Guard Preobrazhensky Regiment (Grenadier Drum)
1st Brigade
Guard Infantry Division
5th Guard Corps


(I don't play with with ZOC kills and Rout limiting ON)

Thanks for the thoughtful input, General.

_________________
Chef de Bataillon Porres
Commandant en Premier Inspecteur Général du Génie
Grand Quartier-Général Impériale

A considered response as always Alexey. I’d counter with the following.

1 – Artillery. Due to it taking more turns to come into contact, I agree that artillery has become more effective.
To counter that, I’d recommend setting Auto Defensive Fire to minimum for both Artillery and Infantry. That stops artillery firing off at every second target that moves into sight. Historically, artillery did not switch targets every couple of minutes across their entire field of fire. They fired straight ahead at the same target for reasonable periods of time, at a considered pace. Only when the enemy was within close range did they up their fire rate at that target.
I think 10 minute turns and short range defensive fire model that much better.

2 – Attrition dynamics. I don't agree. Yes it takes less “time” to recover in 10 minute turns, but I that is offset by an increased likelihood in them disrupting more times in the same period of time. If a unit is in combat 6 times in an hour as opposed to 4, it will disrupt/rout 50% more often.
Since you can't move as far, and will therefore find it harder to move into direct contact, I think it also reflects the historical difficulty of actually closing with the enemy better.

3 – Increased pace of engagement. I’m not sure how you arrive at this. It still takes the same amount of time to move the same distance. Shorter turns do not affect that. Yes, mathematically you do more damage in a given time period, but the "time" in combat is reduced accordingly. If a fire fight lasts 4 turns in a 15 minute game, it's still only going to last 4 turns in a 10 minute. You aren't fighting for 6 turns and increasing the casualty count.
You also mention ZOC kills. My argument is that ZOC kills are harder to achieve because units can not move as far, thereby limiting the ability to exert ZOCs around an enemy.
In my experience, I’ve not seen games end faster because they were played in 10 minute turns. If anything it’s the other way around.
Perhaps an examination of the WDS game log would shed some light on that, since the number of turns per game is recorded.

4 – 15 minute turns are more enjoyable. That is a subjective assessment and is what I asked in the poll.
I think, especially for new players, 10 minute turns are more enjoyable, exactly for the reason you mention, increased feedback, especially if they are playing against more experienced players.
Players get less feedback in 15 minute turns than 10. When the enemy can move 50% further in a turn, you get much less time to see a developing situation.
10 minute turns mean that a player has more opportunity to see and react to enemy actions.
I feel this is also in direct opposition to your previous point. Errors are more easily exploited in 15 minute turns, thereby increasing the pace of engagement.

5 – Fewer turns. This is a valid, but again, a subjective point. Personally I prefer longer games and have no issue spending large numbers of turns marching around the map. I’ll admit I may be in the minority on that point.

6 – Standardization. Supposedly 10 minute turns are supposed to be standardized between titles as well, though I’m not 100% sure on that. If you only play 10 minute turns, it isn’t a problem

_________________
Général de Brigade Dean Webster
1ère Brigade
1ère Division
4ème Corps d'Armée
La Grande Armée

-------------------------------------------------------
"I have a plan so cunning, you could put a tail on it and call it a weasel"
Blackadder

Hi Dean,
You’ve made a few valid points, but let me respond in more detail to present my view more clearly


The suggested approach of Minimum Auto Defensive fire would indeed minimize defensive fire during the approach phase but remain uncganged during offensive phase. Most importantly, it would still be deadlier during the contact phase compared to 15-minute turns, as there are 6 offensive/defensive fire salvos over 1 hour in 10-minute turns versus only 4 salvos in 15-minute mode.



In an overwhelming number of cases, it’s not the same unit being disrupted more frequently, but rather multiple units, with up to 6 echelons able to engage up to 6 times within a 1-hour timeframe in the 10-minute mode (versus only 4 echelons in the 15-minute mode).
In 10-minute mode, the first echelon would be able to rally and reorganize within 5 turns (50 minutes) while the other 5 echelons push forward, rotating each other. This results in a much deadlier environment and a much quicker cycle of:

Melee > Rout > Rally > Reorder > Move to Contact > Melee again,

which contradicts Jomini’s generalization about the historical duration of battles leading to less historical levels of casualties and less historical timeframes.

In my recent Ligny battle, the Prussian center was hit by 5 waves of French heavy cavalry supported by three infantry brigades. It took 5 turns to break the Prussian center, with each turn being 15 minutes = 1 hour and 15 minutes. In 10-minute turns, it would have taken less than an hour (50 minutes) to achieve the same result, leading to higher casualties and a quicker turnaround within the same 1-hour timeframe.

There were ~3,500 French and ~7,000 Prussian casualties over these 5 turns in this sector (a comprehensive AAR for this battle will be published later this month). Clearly, the 10-minute mode makes armies (not individual units) deadlier to each other within any given 1-hour period of combat.

As you pointed out, mathematically, more damage is dealt within 1 hour of engagement in 10-minute mode since there are 6 opportunities to cause damage in an hour compared to only 4 in the 15-minute mode (as demonstrated in the Ligny battle above). This is exactly what I mean by unhistorical force attrition in 10-minute turns.



Allow me to elaborate on “the increased pace of engagement” further to the point made above:

Operationally:
In fact, in 10-minute turns, the distance covered within the same timeframe would be 20% higher. Units effectively move faster in 10-minute turns.

For comparison - below is a table showing how many kilometres an infantry column can cover in a day, ignoring twilight hours and night turns, and assuming 14 hours of continuous marching.



As you can see, the 10-minute mode results in an astonishing marching speed that would be nearly impossible to achieve in real life.
Averaging the mixed movement between pikes, roads, and open terrain, the 15-minute mode allows infantry columns to cover 39 km over 14 hours of continuous movement. While this was achievable historically, it was considered a forced march, which would result in high attrition, fatigue, and could not be sustained systematically.

In 10-minute mode, the distances covered become even more unrealistic, with infantry columns casually covering 48 km. This is why the 15-minute turns are more realistic operationally. Using 10-min mode on large maps and lengthy scenarios will not help to replicate historical events and timeframes. 15m mode while also not ideal but certainly far better represent operational aspects of Napoleonic warfare.

Tactically:
Similarly, units move at faster speed in 10-minute turns, meaning the approach-to-contact phase takes fewer hours. Once contact is made, the fact that in 10-minute mode, infantry columns can cover only 4 hexes (versus 5 hexes in 15-minute mode) within 1 turn doesn’t slow the flow of the engagement, as the attacking echelons are typically positioned 1–3 hexes apart. This allows the second echelon to engage the enemy line in the following turn, regadless wether their movement allowance is 4 or 5 hexes. Even a 4-hex gap between attacking echelons is enough to approach for a melee. A typical battle is likely to follow a pattern similar to the Ligny PBEM scenario described earlier, resulting in a higher casualty ratio over the same time period and a faster pace of tactical developmenmts over the same time period.

In summary, in 10-minute mode, everything happens in a "fast-forward" mode, both operationally and tactically, contradicting Jomini’s perception of Napoleonic battle duration.

Adding ZOC kills into equation, the potential for a massacre becomes entirely unrealistic in either turn mode, which is why ZOC kills should be turned off for more realistic gameplay. I believe the only reason ZOC kills are still the default option is due to legacy mechanics, where ZOC kills were once the only way to play the game.


The distance covered within one turn under the 15m mode is only 20% longer, but not 50%. However, the speed of movement (distance covered per time unit) is actually slower compared to the 10m mode, as shown in the table above. Anyway what I meant my faster operational feedback is that in 10m turns units move at the faster speed but it takes +50% emails to do vs 15min turn. It is reasonable to assume that most people would not want to send more (+50%) emails to get only +20% more progress on the map. 15m turns are just more optimal for this.

Considering that WDS players have much more information available to them than their historical counterparts, the less time they have to react, the more realistic the experience becomes (underlying the importance of scouting with light cavalry ahead). The absence of command delays and the speed at which operational information is obtained, processed, with orders immediately projected to every unit in the game are already unrealistic enough. Breaking down the operational flow into smaller components worsens this, as it gives players more time to react. But as you mentioned, this more arcade-like mode is easier to handle and may be more enjoyable for some players.

_________________
General-Leytenant Alexey Tartyshev
Leib-Guard Preobrazhensky Regiment (Grenadier Drum)
1st Brigade
Guard Infantry Division
5th Guard Corps


(I don't play with with ZOC kills and Rout limiting ON)

We discussed this at length long ago re: artillery losses. Its a wash. The 15 min. format always allowed for unrealistic cutting off of forces due the inability to react to the long movement. Charlie Cutshall did cut the MPs down from the Talonsoft PDT files which was good but it still meant that with the road and pike costing only 1 MP that units could whisk down the road. The new MP rates for the 15 min. format allows light cavalry to move further thus enhancing the Blitz format of play. I stopped playing the 15 min. version even before the 1.08 update came out and the light cavalry moved the same rate as the heavy cavalry. During a Battle of Salamanca I noted how fast each sides' cavalry could move.

Given that you have mounted fire, not as an option, but forced on us. I gave up on ever updating my game again. If I ever played the series again I probably would go looking for the version that doesn't use the dumb cavalry mounted fire. Paco Palomo and I discussed this when it came out. His findings were similar with mine: the cavalry can eat up supply points which are very much needed for the infantry.

Anyway, that is the reason I decided to stop play for now. I would want to find like-minded players who would stick to the older version. Any graphics enhancement, for the most part, can be used in the older versions.

If they want to use the phase format of play then they need to allow squaring in the Defense phase JUST LIKE Talonsoft had it originally. The Threat Zone still can spoil the attempt but it would give the defender more of a chance to repel a charge.

Dean - thanks for posting this poll. I hope that every member of the club takes time to participate.

I will always cling to the older versions of the game as the scenarios I built using the 10 min. format are more balanced for them than using the 15 min. format or even the newer 10 Min. PDT files. A lot of work went into the playtesting by the teams I worked with. Its a bit of an effort now to check each one and change the victory conditions. Just too many files to go through.

_________________


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)

This was my only concern when switching to 15-minute turns. However, upon closer inspection, it does not seem to be an issue.

First of all, for an overwhelming number of scenarios, the scenario length is not an issue at all, as conclusions will be reached before scenario expiry. A quick look at NWC DOR records confirms this. This goes back to my original point that WDS battles are generally deadlier and quicker than historical battles—closer to reality in 15-minute turns, but much further from reality in 10-minute turns.

There are a few scenarios like 05 twin battle Jena-Auerstedt (non-dual map) scenario where timing of reserves arrival is absolutely critical. But this apparently has been taken care of via the following:

Translating 10-minute turns into 15-minute turns should theoretically be done with a simple calculation:
Number of turns in 10-minute mode / 6 * 4 = Number of turns in 15-minute mode.
However, as mentioned earlier in the topic (refer to the table), in 10-minute turns, units move at an ahistorical fast speed: 20% faster than in 15-minute turns on average.

To account for this and maintain the original scenario balance—where units have the opportunity to cover the intended distance and engage as per the scenario design—the calculation is adjusted by +20%:
Number of turns in 10-minute mode / 6 * 4 * 1.2 = Number of turns in 15-minute mode.

Looking at the same Jena-Auerstedt scenario:
Originally, there are 58 turns in 10-minute mode. Adjusting this via the formula (/6 * 4 * 1.2) gives us 46 turns—exactly what we see in this scenario converted into 15-minute mode.

There are some scenarios where the number of turns remained unchanged during conversion (likely an oversight), but this isn’t a problem since players can easily calculate the appropriate number of turns for 15-minute mode themselves (via /6*4*1.2) and just have it concluded at the predetermined turn.

I’m currently in the middle of the Grossbereen campaign, where the battle has 66 turns originally in 10-minute mode but it remained unchanged in 15-min turns and also has 66 turns . In fact in 15-min mode the battle should end at 52 turns (using /6*4*1.2 formula), exactly at dawn, and both players can easily agree on this. Even they do not and proceed with 66 turns the last turns would be at twlighit and night turns so not really suitable for combat operations (provided realistic night combat fatigue combat Optional Rule is used). And I hardly see the battle lasting beyond 30-40 turns anyway = 7-10 hours using 15-min turns. A realistic historical timeline for battle of such scale.

Only the scenarios with Exit Zones or Rearguard actions, where the scenario length is a key consideration, require special attention, but unless its been already taken care of in 4.08, this can be easily handled via the formula and players can agree to stop the scenario using the /6 * 4 * 1.2 calculation.

In conclusion, the transition from 10-minute to 15-minute turns, in an overwhelming number of cases, has minimal or no impact on scenario balance and there is a remedy anyway.

_________________
General-Leytenant Alexey Tartyshev
Leib-Guard Preobrazhensky Regiment (Grenadier Drum)
1st Brigade
Guard Infantry Division
5th Guard Corps


(I don't play with with ZOC kills and Rout limiting ON)