Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

I thought it timely to answer some of the comments on the Eckmuhl map that were posed in the poll thread concerning the BG games.

Basically, I understand your comments that the Eckmuhl and Wagram maps were plain. I will note that Bill Peterson visited the areas on the Eckmuhl map, took nice pics and sent me a great CD of the pics.

When I asked him how he felt the map I made matched up with what he saw he said that it was not a problem. Thus in considering whether the original map needed any updates I felt I should go with Bill's evaluation (and others that commented on the game).

On the topo maps I worked from there was no mention of hedges or walls. I did add in marshes near streams and rivers but if you guys feel that many were missed I would need to see some data on this.

Farms - this is a difficult subject as no period maps exist that name a farm or where one is located in Bavaria. Should I just put some farms on the map and avoid trying to be totally historical about this?

Unlike the ACW maps that our ACW designers work from the Napoleonic maps do not have notations on where farms were nor who was the owner.

If anyone has any data on farms for the area let me know. In many cases the land is just OPEN and nor FIELD. Its where it becomes FIELD that I have no data.

It was not for want of dollars for maps that I failed to put farms on the maps. It was for lack of HISTORICAL detail.

Remember, a hedge in 2002 may have been there in 1809 but without data I was opening myself up for criticism by the gamers that live near the battlefield. Thus I took the more bland approach.

However, I am going to add more spice to the new game map so that its just not all open or wood or town hexes with a stream here and there. The new maps I am doing have much more detail to them.

I am sorry that I couldnt spruce up the maps a bit with more interesting data.

Here is a quick poll:

Concerning terrain:

A. I prefer to only have historically accurate terrain portrayed on a mpa.

B. While historical terrain is important I wouldnt mind seeing some added farms on the map that may not be accurate BUT so that the maps are not so bland (ie. Europe is not the desert).

C. Historical terrain is important but more important is a nice looking map that has hedges, farms, marshes, etc. I do not care as much about historically accurate terrain as much as a nice diversity of terrain.

Oberst Wilhelm Peters
2nd Kuirassiers, Reserve Korps, Austrian Army

B, since IMHO this is a) historical and b) game [:)]

GL. Pavel Stafa
Russian Army Chief-of-staff
Leib-gvardii Preobrazhenskiy polk
Kommanduyuschiy Korpusom Rezerva
2-oy Zapadnoy armii EIV

Let me first say that the big Eckmuhl map is the main reason why Eckmuhl has so far been my favorite Nappy game. It's awesome. (I like Waterloo about the same now.)

What we (Rich, that is) did with Waterloo is try to produce the historical *kind* of terrain. I.e. if the contemporary maps provide only the major terrain features such as creeks, hills, forests and bigger villages, especially outside the actual battlefields, that doesn't mean that the landscape should appear unsettled and unstructured. We may not know where exactly the farms and fields were in 1815, but we do know that they were there, so Rich placed them on the map in a pattern that hopefully (I think so at least) resembles the way Belgium at this time would have looked like. Absent detailed maps, the only alternative would have been to leave out all such features, but that would have looked like Siberia rather than one of the most densely settled regions of Europe at the time. To take another example, many of the roads on the Waterloo map have path sections with embankment hexsides when they pass an elevation step, especially near a stream: naturally we do not know where exactly the "bad" parts of a road were located back then, but we *do* know that the roads *had* such bad parts, because they created bottlenecks for the Prussian army on its approach march to the field of Waterloo. So Rich placed them where they seemed to make sense, and the net effect is the desired one--the roads have bottlenecks. Likewise, whereever a battle takes place on the big Belgium map, there are likely to be streams, farms and fields (and fields, remember, have a major LOS and movement impact with most of the Waterloo PDTs), and the net effect is historically correct--battles are, in places, impeded by such obstacles.

I think this way of dealing with incomplete information can on balance be viewed as historically accurate--we create a historically correct environment for the battles that take place. And the battles (at least outside the historical fields and scenarios) are alternate history anyway.

So for Eckmuhl, some more isolated farms, fields, hedges may make for a more historical feel. But then again, compared to Belgium, this part of Bavaria was a lot less densely settled in 1809, so maybe the impact of such a change would be comparatively lower.

<center>Général de Division D.S. "Green Horse" Walter
Baron d'Empire, Duc des Pyramides
Commandant de la [url="http://home.arcor.de/dierk_Walter/NWC/3_VI_AdR_Home.htm"]3ème Division[/url], VIème Corps Bavarois, L'Armée du Rhin
Commandant l'Ecole de Mars, L'Armée du Rhin
Commandant de la Brigade de Tirailleurs de la Jeune Garde
</center>

Sir,

It has to be <font color="orange"><b>A</b></font id="orange">:

I always prefer to have realism first, middle and last. If it's not known for certain that a building, hedge etc. existed at that time then I think the map should be left as it is.

<font color="orange">2nd Lieutenant John Sheffield
1st Btn/91 foot
[Argyllshire Highlanders]
6th British Bgd/4th Inf Div/
II Corps/</font id="orange"><b><font color="red">Anglo-Allied Army.</font id="red"></b>


<font color="gold">"Four things come back not: The spoken word; The sped arrow; Time past; and Opportunity." </font id="gold">
<font color="yellow">Caliph Omar I, ad 582-644.</font id="yellow">

The problem is, I think, that alleged historicism will interfere with realism this way. If we place only terrain features about which we are certain, the maps will be unhistorically empty. But we know for a fact that the terrain was *not* empty. We know it had farms, fields, hedges, etc. So by leaving out those just because we don't have accurate maps about them, we do in fact produce an unhistorical map.

<center>Général de Division D.S. "Green Horse" Walter
Baron d'Empire, Duc des Pyramides
Commandant de la [url="http://home.arcor.de/dierk_Walter/NWC/3_VI_AdR_Home.htm"]3ème Division[/url], VIème Corps Bavarois, L'Armée du Rhin
Commandant l'Ecole de Mars, L'Armée du Rhin
Commandant de la Brigade de Tirailleurs de la Jeune Garde
</center>

Bill,

Firstly I would like to say that I like the Eckmuhl map and it's so called blandness hasn't stopped me enjoying some fascinating battles. I don't know what Bavaria looked like in 1809 but if it is felt that the landscape is lacking some features that were likely to have been there then the approach Dierk outlines is the way to go. For me historical accuracy is far more important than adding features just to spice up a map. But again that can be achieved sensibly in the way Dierk has described. But if the landscape was actually featureless in 1809 then it's not a problem for me to have a 'bland' map.[:)]

<center>Major Antony Barlow
~ 2nd British (Union) Brigade, Anglo-Allied Cavalry Corps ~
~ 4th (Royal Irish) Dragoon Guards ~
</center>

Unless there are detailed historically accurate maps available, showing fields, hedges, buildings, etc, - see for instance:

http://www.napoleon-series.org/images/m ... sling1.jpg

(anyone got a really good magifying glass!)

then instead of just leaving the area completely blank and featureless, it's probably more worthwhile taking a subsequent map (eg. a late 19th century map) and using this to help fill in the missing details. If a hedge or sunken road was present in a particular location in say 1870, there's a reasonably good chance it might have already been there in 1809.

Capt Rich White
4th Cavalry Brigade
Cavalry Corps
Anglo-Allied Army

I'm with Dierk - though I have yet to see the Waterloo map.

<b>Général de Division Michael Cox</b>
<font size="4"><i>Principe <font size="1">della </font id="size1">Toscana</i></font id="size4">
Comte de Moselle

<i><font size="4">Armée du Rhin</font id="size4">
<font size="2">2e battallion, 1er Regiment de Chasseurs a Pied, Inf. de l'V. Gde.</i></font id="size2">


<font size="1"><u>In Regards to Skirmisher Flop by Melee Losers:</u>
<ul><li>Make it an optional rather than fixed rule (at the very least). </li>
<li>Skirmisher stack size relative to retreating formed unit should be a factor (whether in clear or covered terrain). </li>
<li>For skirmishers, (not leaders or wagons) covered terrain (swamp, building, city, town, forest, marsh, and perhaps orchard) should negate the overrun result.</li></font id="size1"> </ul>

Bill

Thanks for giving this opportunity to discuss the terrain in maps.

My preference lies between A and B.

By this I mean that I would like to see historic terrain, not glossing up for the sake of it, but, where that information is not available (as in the case discussed for Waterloo) then extrapolation of 'typical' terrain to these areas is the best that can be achieved.

The maps of the period (1800 - 1900) are varied in detail but generally lack meaningful elevation data. Books on the combat may give some description of the population and industry which will give indicators as to the terrain. I have not read about the 1809 campaign beyond Chandler so do not know much about it.

The other useful indicators are general geographic features. Streams start from wet-ground, marshes in effect, maybe just a hex but there will be wetland around the source of a stream.

Where rivers bend, the outer corner is subject to erosion and may have an embankment.

Fields probably had irrigation ditches around them, significant enough to slow the artillery, perhaps a stream around the edge of a field or cultivated area.

Most towns and many villages had churches, chapels or places of worship. Many of these probably included a walled cemetry.

Bavaria (in general) is agriculturally rich, not sure about this region, perhaps less so, but I assume that the majority of people in this region worked the land. Smaller villages would effectively be a farm or two with a few other houses, population probably about 100 to 200. Towns would have some local industry and farms would probably be outlying the town. Industry in Bavaria, apart from brewing, included I think forestry (of course), iron, salt and pottery.

Forestry would lead to a number of tracks from villages / towns to / into the forests. Would there be some buildings there to provide shelter or even a basic saw mill?

Presumably these people produced their bread locally? So mills required (wind or water)? I have not got the game loaded so can not look at the map at the moment so these features may be on there but I do not recall them. Allinsons map for Eckmuhl, for example, shows watermills south of Schierling, between that place and Eckmuhl, one south-west of Raking and two north-east of Pfakofen all on the Great Laber, (that just from a cursory look at the map). I am not suggesting that these shoul dbe added if not already there, but that they are indicative of these features being present. They may not have featured during the combat and therefore may not even be mentioned in accounts of the battle, but that doesn't mean that they should not be available for players to use.

Livestock, were they roaming free or enclosed (walls / hedges).

I have no idea about the answer to many of these and certainly don't advocate the willy-nilly coverage of the terrain with features for the sake of it. But a balance between what is known to have been there and what could reasonably be expected to have been there seems reasonable to me.

The other place to look of course is the reports from those who took part, either from their memoires or after-action reports. This can provide rich detail for the area they were involved in but leaves us none the wiser for the rest of the area.

A bit long winded but hopefully there is some useful stuff in there

Regards

Mark

It's definitely going to be watermills in these parts of the country. [:)]

<center>Général de Division D.S. "Green Horse" Walter
Baron d'Empire, Duc des Pyramides
Commandant de la [url="http://home.arcor.de/dierk_Walter/NWC/3_VI_AdR_Home.htm"]3ème Division[/url], VIème Corps Bavarois, L'Armée du Rhin
Commandant l'Ecole de Mars, L'Armée du Rhin
Commandant de la Brigade de Tirailleurs de la Jeune Garde
</center>

Bill,

First off, I must say the Bavaria map is what inspired me to create the Belgium map, and I think we both have Al Amos to thank for that. [:)] The way it stands it is an enjoyable map to play on.

With that said though, Dierk does an excellent job of describing our discussions and the method I used during the design phase with Waterloo. So, I would say B, or even close to C. On the actual battlefields, try to get every hedge, tree and embankment right, that you can. But with a map as big as this you don't want all that extra space to be ignored. So the more "personality" you can give it the better. Give scenario designers a reason to chop it up using the sub-map feature, I say.

So, if you have some time, and the inclination, to add in more features to the map I think it would be worth your effort. If not, then we'll be fine the way things stand. For me, the huge maps are a big selling point. I love to maneuver and work up to a battle, rather than just jump in and fight it from the setup.



Gen. Hamilton, Baron d'Barbancon
21st Division
VII Corps, ADR

Saxon Leib-Garde, de la Jeune Garde, Garde Impériale

Bill,

First off, I must say the Bavaria map is what inspired me to create the Belgium map, and I think we both have Al Amos to thank for the idea, or at least badgering, that put you on the path to creating it. [:)] The way it stands it is an enjoyable map to play on.

With that said though, Dierk does an excellent job of describing our discussions and the method I used during the design phase with Waterloo. So, I would say B, or even close to C. On the actual battlefields, try to get every hedge, tree and embankment right, that you can - and then account for what is generally known of the area in the remaining space. But with a map as big as this you don't want all that extra space to be ignored. So the more "personality" you can give it the better. Give scenario designers a reason to chop it up using the sub-map feature, I say.

So, if you have some time, and the inclination, to add in more features to the map I think it would be worth your effort. If not, then we'll be fine the way things stand. For me, the huge maps are a big selling point. I love to maneuver and work up to a battle, rather than just jump in and fight it from the setup.


Gen. Hamilton, Baron d'Barbancon
21st Division
VII Corps, ADR

Saxon Leib-Garde, de la Jeune Garde, Garde Impériale

Ok - this is probably how I will go about doing this:

1. All farmland for the most part will remain on the lowland area. Areas that are on higher elevations will remain open terrain - this kind of terrain is open grasslands. The Landshut river area is a good example of where farms should go - the low part down by the river and up to the wood lines. An occaisional outbuilding will be added as well.

2. Hedges - random at best but near villages, farms and along roads in some cases where they are near villages or woods. The treelines along roads do NOT qualify. Thought this one over alot and it doenst make sense to put a hedge where treeline is since this would not break up a formation/disorder a unit.

3. Marshes, orchards - will add these in as well. The former near low lying watercourses and the latter near farms.

One point - the marshes of the old Eckmuhl village area were replaced with fields based on my readings - the French cavalry deployed in the area that looks like marsh but in fact is just soggy ground. Thus field portrays this best as it has no LOS issues (in Spring the fields are low) and the MP penalty simulates the soggy terrain slowing down the horses.



Oberst Wilhelm Peters
2nd Kuirassiers, Reserve Korps, Austrian Army

How about some different season maps? Maps with more low-lying marshy ground in Winter & Spring, but less in Summer, and with some streams becoming impassable rivers with spring floods or perhaps becoming dry river beds by mid summer.

Also, surely fields should only obstruct LOS once the crops had grown (although this would be a pdt rather than map change)

Capt Rich White
4th Cavalry Brigade
Cavalry Corps
Anglo-Allied Army

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Richard</i>
<br />How about some different season maps? Maps with more low-lying marshy ground in Winter & Spring, but less in Summer, and with some streams becoming impassable rivers with spring floods or perhaps becoming dry river beds by mid summer.

Also, surely fields should only obstruct LOS once the crops had grown (although this would be a pdt rather than map change)

Capt Rich White
4th Cavalry Brigade
Cavalry Corps
Anglo-Allied Army
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Rich - this DEFINITELY lies outside the scope of what I will do for a game. While I know that you like variety I am leaving the seaonal changes in terrain to John Tiller to figure out. I dont want to do alot of map work when a change to the code as you see in the Panzer and other series will do the trick.

So dont look for a winter or fall versions of the maps come from me. That is definitely NOT in my balliwick.

Oberst Wilhelm Peters
2nd Kuirassiers, Reserve Korps, Austrian Army