Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

Really impressed by the quality of these AARs from the Civil War series:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aT0dtaeHlwk

They appear to be using multiplayer rules involving several players, with communications between players limited to “conferences” in order to simulate friction in warfare : command delays, confusion, initiative, refusal to follow orders and so on.

I think this is an excellent idea and I would love to replicate it and run a similar game within NWC.
Perhaps we could get a few motivated players together to run a large operational scenario this way.

Is anyone familiar with the exact rule set and where it can be found?

_________________
General-Leytenant Alexey Tartyshev
The Adjutant-General of His Imperial Majesty

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)

I sent Blake Strickler, who puts the videos and most of the MPs together, a message.

_________________
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

Blake got back to ne with the following:

Hello NWC Friends,

Thanks for the interest in the Multiplayer Games we have over in the ACWGC!

The MP Rules that I use in my games are always changing. They change based on player feedback, and also because I like to experiment from time to time when a new idea strikes me or when someone suggests one I think will work well. But all my games require a designated administrator to run them and ensure both sides abide by the agreed upon rules.

When I first began doing admin for MP Games I allowed all the players full communication while they played. The advantage is that everyone is comfortable with this system, ensuring players remain on the same page from turn to turn. While some Team Captains really allowed their subordinates to play independently and avoided micromanagement, others sought to lay out each regiment's movements each turn. When Captains tell players where to move and what to do each turn, it's not really a team game anymore.

After thinking about this for a while, and brainstorming a few ideas with my MP regulars, I decided to add some new twists to the games. I instituted a rule limiting full team communications to specific times of the day (e.g. 10 AM, 12 PM, 2 PM...). This system works perfectly well and is enjoyed by many. It is simple to understand and, from an admin standpoint, it is easy to run the game. It also prevents the Team Captain from micromanaging his team each turn and creates a system where the players must act more independently. While most enjoy this style of play, it is not for everyone. Some people grow overly concerned about "letting the team down" and eventually overthink their moves and how those moves affect the game. The added pressure of not having the Team Captain's safety net during moments of doubt can unnerve some people. However, most experienced gamers can adjust to these rules without issue. For any group considering a multiplayer game with an administrator and communication limits, this system is a great one to start with because it is simple to understand.

However, having pre-determined team meetings at set times prevents emergency meetings when things go sideways. To address this issue I started running games where each side can determine when to call their own conferences. Each team is allotted five conferences during the daylight hours to use as they see fit. Each conference lasts just one turn and the other team is unaware when these conferences are called or how many the other team has remaining. Communications are always open during the night turns and before the start of the game. This has proven a popular system overall. I would say it places an acceptably heavy strain on the Team Captains to give clear directions during team meetings and to encourage their subordinates to follow general orders and strategies rather than micromanaging their movements. The person chosen as Team Captain must accept that their teammates will execute and follow their orders unevenly. This can be frustrating and even disappointing for Team Captains. It's important to find patient and experienced Team Captains who will understand this.

Another requirement in my games is that each team cc me on all emails about the game. I also require them to send the turns to me, not directly to the other team. I send the turn to the other team myself. I have a few reasons for doing this. First, because I create an After Action Report for my games, it allows me time to study each move before sending it along. I also found that some Team Captains quarreled too much while exchanging turns during the games. While some people enjoyed the banter, others did not. By sending the turns along myself I could use my positive vibes to keep the participants a little happier as they played.

I've also tried things that failed. I attempted a game using a courier system where the Team Captain would have to dispatch "couriers" to their commanders. Each Captain would only get X number of couriers per day to each subordinate. Each subordinate would then reply via courier back to headquarters. Couriers were subject to delays due to distance, they could be captured or killed, or their message might be "garbling" upon arrival. As the admin I would roll the die and track all the couriers for each side. In the end, it was simply too complex to work very well. Some players never fully understood the rules of the courier system and it ended up becoming a nuisance to just about everyone. It was a great idea on paper, and maybe would work with the right players involved, but in the end I decided the idea wasn't worth trying again. But the only way to determine that was to try it at least once.

Lastly, I have concluded that morale is far more important in multiplayer games than people realize. In every game I've administered, each team seems determined to quit the battle because they anticipate losing long before their army is actually in jeopardy. I've even had a few games where both Team Captains were simultaneously emailing me privately to discuss surrendering to the other side. When both sides hoist the white flag simultaneously, it highlights how hard it can be to conduct and play in a multiplayer game with strict communication rules where everything seems beyond your control. Team Captains should attempt to keep a positive outlook on the battle and encourage their team in all ways to keep their morale up. Teams with good leadership are more likely to prevail. Even when the other team may have better individual players, the team that works together under a solid leader can defeat them.

To anyone considering running a MP game in the above style, I would encourage you to first run a two vs. two game of short duration to familiarize people with the idea and to gather feedback. Do not immediately choose a massive scenario to play using these rules. Instead, build a circle of gaming friends and conduct a few friendly small to medium games as people adjust to the rules and leaders begin to rise to the top. After a few games you will all feel more comfortable with the ideas and can expand your group with new volunteers and/or choose larger scenarios to play. It took me many years to reach the point where my games run like clockwork. But without the friendly relationships I built with the various players in our Club, these games wouldn't be possible. They must trust you completely in order to fully buy-in to the idea of a game where an admin determines and impartially enforces the rules.

Good luck!

_________________
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

Thank you Scott and please pass my thanks to Blake. This is really helpful.
I hope we can leverage his years of experience and avoid some of the trial and error.

I propose NWC match for a medium size scenario:

1. three commanders per side acting as field generals and actually moving units + one acting as CiC/team captain to make operational decisions and decide on the battle plan.

2. one administrator to track conference usage. All game-related communications copied to the administrator.

For a first test, I would probably suggest that the admin does not need to forward every turn personally, provided he is copied on all communications and receives the turn files. That should keep the admin burden manageable while still allowing him to track conference usage and resolve any disputes.

I am happy to try this in any capacity: player, CiC, or administrator.

Do we have six more NWC players interested in trying a medium size scenario this way?


PS.
wondering how Blakes handles Optional Melee Resolution with several players involved? I assume we would need either the embedded melee house rule with very strict sequence enforced by the admin. I noticed that in these type of games players sometimes find this hard to follow the melee sequence and occasionally move units or fire after melee has begun.

PSS. I would suggest my standard OR and only one house rule from here:
viewtopic.php?f=24&t=17926
but the majority is to decide.

_________________
General-Leytenant Alexey Tartyshev
The Adjutant-General of His Imperial Majesty

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)

Hi Ciao Alexey and Scott, I'm available for this kind new mode of game to experiment. Thanks and Kinds Regards

_________________
Major Sandro Lasco
Military Order Cuirassier Regiment
2nd Cavalry Brigade
2nd Cuirassier Division
Cavalry of the 2nd Western Army
2nd Western Army Reserves

confirmed.
We need 5 more players.

I posted this in the opponent section to draw attention.

_________________
General-Leytenant Alexey Tartyshev
The Adjutant-General of His Imperial Majesty

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)

Thank You Alexey, have a good Sunday

_________________
Major Sandro Lasco
Military Order Cuirassier Regiment
2nd Cavalry Brigade
2nd Cuirassier Division
Cavalry of the 2nd Western Army
2nd Western Army Reserves

One thing that I came up with that deals with Command Fog of War is that if a large woods separates formations from each other and one of those formations is attacked then the other cannot just drop everything and go to the aid of the endangered command.

There are die rollers online that can be used to simulate the time delay. Using a simple chart, you can then roll a die and cross-reference it with the chart which will tell you the delay that will ensue before the formation can begin moving towards the sound of the guns. Might even add in a result that is for a "dead zone" result.

Courier officers could be added into the game to simulate the ability of one formation to contact another. Again, a courier chart could be used too.

Lots of options for MP games and just standard games. The Extreme Fog of War, that is already in the game, is nice and add in some additional rules to get more of a realistic feel for the game and you have a more historical simulation to 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, NRO, MTD, CMR, PR, MIM, NDM, OMR (ver 4.09)