Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

As I put together yet another two titles for John Tiller in the Napoleonic era I have come to my own conclusions about victory conditions and they are:

1. Major Defeat - RARE, the player should be given this if he messes up his assignment. Example: Allies at Austerlitz, Napoleon at Waterloo.

2. Minor Defeat - Common, the player was just outplayed or didnt execute as well as he could have.

3. Draw - a good match. Alot of battles in the period may not have been draws but that doesnt mean that if two players of equal ability play that it cant happen.

4. Minor Victory - the First Player executed better than the Second Player by a decent margin OR was able to hold the field and take as much OR less casualties in doing so.

5. Major Victory - RARE - command breakdown in MP games, players made ALOT of blunders, etc.

#1 or #5 should NOT be the NORM. If the Second Player is outnumbered at the beginning of a Campaign scenario and he decides to fall back off of the map then the First Player should NOT win a Major Victory. Minor Victory PERHAPS but Draw is more likely. Its obvious that its just a delay situation and the Second Player also shouldnt cause a Minor Defeat just because he knocked off a small amount of the defender's forces with long range cannon fire and then exited the map.

Another issue I try and avoid is the incredible swing in Victory Conditions you see in some battles. I recently played a scenario in another game engine where the game went from Draw to Major Victory and then back to Draw in one turn.

Yes, at Marengo there was a swing of victory levels (from the jaws of defeat, etc) but in our games we have too much intel in the Historical battle situations. You KNOW that Blucher will arrive at Waterloo. You know that Desaix will arrive at Marengo.

For campaign situations one could say that the players DONT know who, when or where they will arrive. Some would say that huge victory swings might make the actions more exciting but who wants a delay action involving 12,000 French and 4,000 Allies to swing from a Major Defeat to a Draw and then to a Major Victory in say four turns?

This is part of one my survey which will deal only with victory LEVELS and not OBJECTIVES which I will cover in the next survey.

There are no numbered questions and answers here. Comments are appreciated. Please limit the comments if you will to just this portion of Victory Conditions. Save the rest for the other installment.

Bill Peters
HPS Napoleonic Scenario Designer (Eckmuhl, Wagram and ... more to come)

[url="http://www.fireandmelee.net"]Fire and Melee Wargame site[/url]

I see your point, but I'm also thinking that people will want to play a game that doesn't have a tendancy to end in a draw all the time. We are a competitive bunch and we do tend to play to win. Making Major Victories unattainable except under very extreme situations will sabotage the game aspect of these contests (even though the historical needs may be satisfied). [?]

Lt. Don Golen 7eme Regiment de Dragons, 2eme Division de dragons, I Reserve Cavalry Corps Armee du Nord

Don - take a look at my description again. I am saying that if one player really did a number on his opponent then its a Major Victory. However, I dont want to have a 10,000 point objective on the map that they fight over and its winner take all. Fun for King of the Hill scenarios but not for the vast majority of battles.

Minor Defeat, Draw and Minor Victory will compose of most of the results you will find in my scenarios from now on. A Major Victory will take some doing and when two good players are going at it will probably NOT happen because either will know enough to avoid it.

And remember - the players are always welcome to make alternate versions of the stock scenarios. If they want to NARROW the victory conditions then they can go to town using the Editor.

Bill Peters
HPS Napoleonic Scenario Designer (Eckmuhl, Wagram and ... more to come)

[url="http://www.fireandmelee.net"]Fire and Melee Wargame site[/url]

Bill,

Here's my 5 cents worth...

I think that I'm going down Don's line of reasoning. Is a particular minor victory worth more than another? Your enemy is clearly beaten and withdraws (with or without pursuit) - is this a major or a minor victory?

I do agree with you that a 10,000 point hill is worth the same as a zero point hill. However, tactically, victory point hexes do make the 'buying' of ground with victory points (losses) bearable and direct us to use the ground somewhat as it should have been. More importantly, it gives us an incentive to attack where the enemy has deployed...as it was generally done.

Consider that the definition of a 'minor victory' may well have come from a perceived need to define a close fought battle with no clear tactical winner, but where one side has achieved sufficient losses on the enemy (both in ground, men and material) such that these are sufficiently greater than his own to allow a picture of victory. You are now adding to this 'marginal' definition parts where a clear victory may have occurred, but will no longer be counted as such.

We wargamers are an ordinary lot, consider how much we argue and add in 'non-game' rules to provide a "historical" game (as if we ever could). Maybe you should set a consistant 'point' limit for all games for varying gradations of victory: +10%, +25%, etc., than as at present where the variation between victory and loss may well be very slim.

Regards

GD Mark Oakford
III Light Cavalry Division
III Corps ADN

One thing, is that I can see a bit of a philosophical difference between a stand alone scenario, and a campaign scenario.

In a campaign setting, you can say that a Major Victory should really represent a true "game ender" in all senses of the words. So, historically, Marengo, Austerlitz, Jena, Wagram, Leipzig and Waterloo would be Majors because they effectively brought campaigns to an end (though you might have a few small "cleanup" actions like Znaim). On the other hand, you'd rate things like Aspern-Essling, Borodino, Lutzen, Bautzen, Dresden and Ligny as "minor" because they certainly didn't not bring the campaign as a whole to an end (and look how many of the "winners" of that list ended up losing the campaign as a whole! [:0])

On the other hand, in a stand alone battle, there's more room to assign a "major" victory, since you don't have to tie that to the ongoing campaign situation.

FZM Freiherr Gary McClellan
Generalissimus Imperial Austrian Army
Portner Grenadier Battallion
Allied Coalition C-in-C

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Mark Oakford</i>
<br />Bill,

Here's my 5 cents worth...

I think that I'm going down Don's line of reasoning. Is a particular minor victory worth more than another? Your enemy is clearly beaten and withdraws (with or without pursuit) - is this a major or a minor victory?

I do agree with you that a 10,000 point hill is worth the same as a zero point hill. However, tactically, victory point hexes do make the 'buying' of ground with victory points (losses) bearable and direct us to use the ground somewhat as it should have been. More importantly, it gives us an incentive to attack where the enemy has deployed...as it was generally done.

Consider that the definition of a 'minor victory' may well have come from a perceived need to define a close fought battle with no clear tactical winner, but where one side has achieved sufficient losses on the enemy (both in ground, men and material) such that these are sufficiently greater than his own to allow a picture of victory. You are now adding to this 'marginal' definition parts where a clear victory may have occurred, but will no longer be counted as such.

We wargamers are an ordinary lot, consider how much we argue and add in 'non-game' rules to provide a "historical" game (as if we ever could). Maybe you should set a consistant 'point' limit for all games for varying gradations of victory: +10%, +25%, etc., than as at present where the variation between victory and loss may well be very slim.

Regards

GD Mark Oakford
III Light Cavalry Division
III Corps ADN


<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I wanted to make a change to one of the battles I listed - Aspern-Essling was a Major Defeat for Napoleon.

What I dont want to convey is the idea that a Major Defeat WILL bring the campaign to a close.

I was mainly talking about ANY kind of scenario. Thus whether its historical, what-if or campaign I plan on widening the Victory Conditions such that you cant have a Draw on one turn and a Major Victory on the next.

Guys - if have Paco and Jeff Bardon fight each other in a battle and they both do their best, sides being perfectly even, then you should have a Minor Victory/Defeat or Draw. Unless one of them does something incredibly brilliant over the other their abilities are such that they would end up in a close finish.

Now if we use the criteria that the end could swing wildly one way or the other then we take the results out of the PLAYERS hands and put them in the hands of the dice.

I dont like that as a designer. I prefer to see a player rewarded for a job well done.

Thus what I am saying is that a Major Victory is NOT impossible but both players being equal or thereabouts and if they both do a good job a Major Victory will not be as common as it was in the past.

Now if both players use the ZOC Kill system I have no control over that. If it gets down to who can ZOC the last stack or a total wipeout using this style of play it exits all of my careful plans to avoid an excess of Major Victories.

MOST of the boardgames I played, the highest level of victory was VERY hard to get. Players had to do their best to get it and even then a Minor Victory would often be the result.

Question: are we counting guards points here or trying to recreate history. I am not accusing anyone of trying to pad their score but I see alot of Major Victories in our clubs and frankly they just didnt happen that often in history.

If its because of the ZOC kill issue ... I cant do anything about that except suggest you use the Embedded Melee rule like Dean and I are doing at Aspern. And only play those folks that do so. Or be ready for a slaughter.

Bill Peters
HPS Napoleonic Scenario Designer (Eckmuhl, Wagram and ... more to come)

[url="http://www.fireandmelee.net"]Fire and Melee Wargame site[/url]

Bill,
thanks for asking.
I think that, as Gary said, there are different considerations for stand alone and campaign battles.

I think for both historical context is important. For a stand alone battle I think that a major victory should be achived if the winner really whips the other side. Controls the field AND beats up the opposing force. It should require domination or achieving all the "objectives (not hexes)" of the battle. Otherwise, a minor victory is in order. Not as rare as Bill says in the initial post, but still pretty hard.

For a campaign, I think the design of the campaign is important. If the result drastically changes the direction of the campaign, then a major victory is in order. If one side clearly wins, but the general direction of the campaign is not changed, then I think it shoudl be a minor victory.

But, I can see the other side of this. the designer can keep campaign going however they want. So, the campaign game victory levels could be set based solely on the outcome on the field and the nthe campaign engine used to streamline the direction of the CAmpaign.

It seems like in a lot of the campaigns that the LEVEL of victoy does not always matter what happens nex, but really only who won or lost (minor or major).

So, as I said, stand alone games dominance or historical objects should determine a major victory and for CAmpaigns the carefully constructed campaign path should count.

At the battle of Lutzen, Nappy was attacking Leipzig. The outcome of that battle did not contribute to the overall direction of the campaign, because it coincided with a huge action at Lutzen. I am rambling.

my 2 cents.
Baron Jim Pfleucke
Austrian Army
Kavalrie REseerve

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim Pfleck</i>
<br />Bill,
thanks for asking.
I think that, as Gary said, there are different considerations for stand alone and campaign battles.

I think for both historical context is important. For a stand alone battle I think that a major victory should be achived if the winner really whips the other side. Controls the field AND beats up the opposing force. It should require domination or achieving all the "objectives (not hexes)" of the battle. Otherwise, a minor victory is in order. Not as rare as Bill says in the initial post, but still pretty hard.

For a campaign, I think the design of the campaign is important. If the result drastically changes the direction of the campaign, then a major victory is in order. If one side clearly wins, but the general direction of the campaign is not changed, then I think it shoudl be a minor victory.

But, I can see the other side of this. the designer can keep campaign going however they want. So, the campaign game victory levels could be set based solely on the outcome on the field and the nthe campaign engine used to streamline the direction of the CAmpaign.

It seems like in a lot of the campaigns that the LEVEL of victoy does not always matter what happens nex, but really only who won or lost (minor or major).

So, as I said, stand alone games dominance or historical objects should determine a major victory and for CAmpaigns the carefully constructed campaign path should count.

At the battle of Lutzen, Nappy was attacking Leipzig. The outcome of that battle did not contribute to the overall direction of the campaign, because it coincided with a huge action at Lutzen. I am rambling.

my 2 cents.
Baron Jim Pfleucke
Austrian Army
Kavalrie REseerve
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

No Jim, I agree with you there. If he whups his opponent, takes all of the hexes, sure, its a Major Victory.

Bill Peters
HPS Napoleonic Scenario Designer (Eckmuhl, Wagram and ... more to come)

[url="http://www.fireandmelee.net"]Fire and Melee Wargame site[/url]